Section Four Environmental Considerations

There are two types of environmental factors that need to be considered while conceptualizing future development options on the PCG site.  The first factor is the nature and extent of environmental contamination on the site itself, and how that contamination could impact future land use options.  Having been listed on the National Priorities List (Superfund) the site clearly is environmentally impaired and great caution has to be exercised in the selection, design, construction and maintenance of future site uses. 

The second environmental factor to be considered is if future development on the site could be constrained by the presence of environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains, significant wildlife habitats, and wellhead protection areas.  Land development activities in or near these areas are controlled by federal, state and/or local regulations.

Each of these two environmental factors is discussed below.

 

Existing Environmental Contamination

Village officials have many questions on the extent of existing environmental contamination on the PCG site and are hopeful that the recent release of the Draft Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study will answer their questions and concerns.   This section reviews what is known about the contamination and how that might impact site reuse.

 

The Peter Cooper Gowanda site was used primarily for two purposes: 1) an on-site landfill for residual materials (cookhouse sludge) from the glue making operation, and 2) the factory itself which appears to have taken up most of the site.  The Village’s technical consultant prepared the following synopsis of what is currently known about contamination on the site.   

The nature and extent of site contamination are summarized in the recently completed draft Remedial Investigation (RI) report.  For the purpose of characterization, the site was divided into multiple media: landfill sludge, landfill gas, surface soil, subsurface soil, shallow groundwater, deep groundwater, seep water, creek water, and wetland/creek sediment.  The groundwater and soil materials are further characterized in terms of spatial location (landfill or former manufacturing area).  Multiple contaminants have been identified at levels that exceed background and/or published guidance values.  For a general overview, it is useful to focus on the subset of compounds labeled “contaminants of potential concern” (COPC) for the purpose of assessing human health risks.  In most cases, these COPCs were selected by comparing site data with “preliminary remediation goals” (PRGs) published by USEPA Region 9, based on generic exposure scenarios.  Once a set of COPCs was identified, a site-specific risk assessment (RA) was performed to evaluate the actual human health risks for the conditions at the peter Cooper site.  At the time of this writing, a draft of the “baseline” RA (prepared by consultants to the PRPs) is under review by EPA and Village consultants.  Key COPCs identified to date include:

In general, localized contamination by organic compounds has been observed at relatively low levels compared to chromium and arsenic, which are found across the site in multiple media.  While not believed to represent an immediate health concern, the elevated levels of these metals could present long-term health risks under specific exposure scenarios.  The actual magnitude and likelihood of such risks are currently being evaluated through the RA process.[1]

How does this information on current contamination relate to future development on the site?  Until full knowledge on the types and extent of contamination on the site is known, it is very difficult to decide on a remedial strategy or plan for the ultimate reuse.  Some of the general remedial options that have been discussed by engineers involved in the project are removal of contaminated soils, on-site treatment of soils/groundwater, and containment technologies.  The type of remedial strategy and the level of cleanup required will be major determinants of the actual reuse of the site.

Environmentally Sensitive Features
The Village of Gowanda is keenly aware of the importance that the natural environmental has played in the community’s past, and of its importance to present and future residents.  As such the Village is taking a proactive approach in the reuse planning process by examining some of the environmentally sensitive features that could impact, or be impacted by future use of the site.[2]

Future use of the site is likely to involve the Village in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process.  SEQRA requires “all state and local government agencies to consider environmental impacts equally with social and economic factors during discretionary decision-making. This means these agencies must assess the environmental significance of all actions they have discretion to approve, fund or directly undertake. SEQR requires the agencies to balance the environmental impacts with social and economic factors when deciding to approve or undertake an ‘Action’.”[3]

During the SEQRA process [4] the Village will be evaluating how their actions concerning the Zoar Valley Gateway might affect numerous aspects of the natural and man-made environment including, but not limited to:

Four environmental features of the site and area that can be considered sensitive to development activities are discussed below.  The four include: floodplains, wetlands, wellhead protection areas, and habitats of endangered or threatened species.  Knowledge of these environmental attributes of the site and its vicinity will help the Village in both the final design effort and in the SEQRA process.  At the end of each section are recommendations designed to assist the Village incorporate these environmental attributes into the site redevelopment process.

100-year floodplains – 100-year floodplains, also referred to as areas of flood hazard, have been defined as “the total land area adjoining a river, stream, water-course, bay or lake which is likely to be flooded, on the average, once in every 100 years … or has a one per cent chance of occurring each year.”[5] The Village of Gowanda controls building and site activities in 100-year floodplains through Chapter 34 (Flood Damage Protection) of the Village Municipal Code. During the 1970’s the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Federal Insurance Administration) identified areas of flood hazard in the Village of Gowanda, and indicated those areas on a Flood Hazard Boundary Map.  The Flood Hazard Boundary Map provides the elevations (in feet above sea level) below which land is considered to be in the 100-year flood plain. A copy of the area on the Flood Hazard Boundary Map that includes the Peter Cooper site can be found in Attachment F

 

Indications from the Flood Hazard Boundary Map are that part of the PCG site lies in the 100-year flood plain.  The only way to tell specifically how much of the property would fall within the 100-year floodplain is to have a detailed topographic survey of the site prepared.  If excavation or new construction were to be proposed in the 100-year flood plain area on the site, the Village Building Inspector would have to approve it. New building construction in the 100-year floodplain would have to meet requirements involving building anchoring, flood-proofing utility placement, construction materials/methods, etc. 

 

Recommendation: Before final site design is undertaken, detailed topographic mapping of the PCG site should be undertaken in order to delineate the 100-year floodplain and plan accordingly. 

 

NOTE: It is not known what impact the presence of flood hazard will have on the design, construction and maintenance of remedial strategies/ technologies for the PCG site.

 

Wetlands­ – A wetland is generally defined as an area that is “saturated by surface or ground water with vegetation adapted for life under those soil conditions, as swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and estuaries. "[6] Wetlands are a concern of both state and federal regulatory agencies because of the benefits they provide.  “Once considered unattractive, swampy, insect ridden nuisances, wetlands are now recognized as unique resources that provide flood and pollution control, a habitat for flora and fauna that are essential to the food chain, protection from saltwater intrusion, recreational opportunities and have an aesthetic value. "[7]

 

In New York State two types of wetlands are regulated - tidal and freshwater wetlands. Tidal wetlands would not be found locally and are therefore not a concern in this project. Freshwater wetlands that are 12.4 acres or greater are identified and mapped by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (Smaller wetlands may also be regulated by the NYSDEC if they are found to have “unusual local importance.”)  The NYSDEC mapped freshwater wetlands for the region in 1986.  Attachment H includes a copy of the NYSDEC wetland mapping for the Gowanda area, which does not indicate any state-regulated wetlands in the vicinity of the site.

 

Wetlands are also subject to federal regulations that are enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Federal regulations describe wetlands by types of vegetation, soils and hydrology, and there is no size limitation.  The Ecological Risk Assessment [8] for the site (recently completed as part of the Superfund process) identified a federal wetland area at the northwestern end of the site that appears on the National Wetlands Inventory.  The report identifies two other areas on-site that contain “federal wetland plant communities”, but are not included on the National Wetlands Inventory. 

 

Recommendation: Before final design of the Zoar Valley Gateway is completed, professional wetland delineation should be completed on the PCG site in order to help determine applicability of state/federal regulations.

 

Wellhead Protection Areas – A Wellhead Protection Area is " a protected surface and subsurface zone surrounding a well or well field supplying a public water system to keep contaminants from reaching the well water." [9] The Village of Gowanda obtains its drinking water from a surface impoundment at Point Peter and as back up has two deep wells in the area of Hill Street.  Both of these locations are in Cattaraugus County. There are no Wellhead Protection Areas designated in Cattaraugus County other than in South Dayton, several miles away from Gowanda [10]. It is not clear at the time of writing how extensive groundwater contamination is on the PCG site. Any future uses that are eventually chosen for the site will have to be protective of groundwater quality and of public drinking water supplies in the Village.

 

Recommendation: Continue to consult the Village Water Department and Cattaraugus County Department of Health regarding any concerns on wellhead protection or source water assessment that may be related to the PCG site.

Habitat of Threatened or Endangered Species – In order to help determine if future development on the PCG site might impact, or be impacted by the presence of environmentally sensitive features, New York State’s Natural Heritage Program was consulted. The New York Natural Heritage Program is “an ongoing scientific inventory whose goal is to compile and maintain systematic information on New York State's native rare plants and animals and significant ecological communities.” Through the program’s databases information is available on “ecological communities and rare species, their biology, habitats, locations, status, management needs, and data sources.”[11]

A check with the closest office of the NYSDEC indicated the following historic reports of threatened, endangered or rare plants and animals in the general area of the PCG site – not specific to the site itself.  The NYSDEC considers information on locations of rare species or their habitat to be sensitive due to the potential for disturbance of plants and animals.  The department, therefore, provides information at the level of detail “necessary to enable fully informed decision-making while protecting the sensitive resource.” 

  Date Category  Species Status
1) 1930 Vascular Plant   Mountain Watercress   NYS Endangered Species List 
2) 1921 Vascular Plant   Rough-leaf Dogwood   NYS Endangered Species List 
3) 1928 Vascular Plant   Golden-seal   NYS ThreatenedSpecies List
4) 1921 Vascular Plant   Woodland Bluegrass   NYS Endangered Species List 
5) 1893 Fish   Eastern Sand Darter  

NYS ThreatenedSpecies List

6) 1893 Fish   Channel Darter   Unprotected  

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also maintains information on Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants in the United States.  According to the “Ecological Risk Assessment for Peter Cooper Landfill Site, Gowanda, NY” there no known federally listed endangered, threatened or species of concern are not known to occur within 2 miles of the site. [12]

The Peter Cooper Gowanda site was used for heavy industry for the better part of the 20th century.  As such, the environmental condition of the site has been significantly altered from its background or original state. 

Recommendation: At the beginning of final design for the site the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program should be contacted and an official request made for assistance in identifying locations of rare species or significant natural communities. 

For easier printing on your PC, this section of the PCG Reuse Report is also available in Adobe PDF format.


Go to the previous section of the Report

Go to the next section of the Report


Footnotes
(click on the number to the left of each footnote to return to the footnote reference in the body of the report)

1

Dr. Alan Rabideau, University at Buffalo. USEPA Technical Outreach Services to Communities (TOSC) project on behalf of the Village of Gowanda.

2 This section provides an introduction to environmentally sensitive features and how they will be considered in the future redevelopment of the site.  It is not meant to provide the level of detail that will be required for environmental reviews at the local, state or federal levels when final design and construction plans are prepared.
3 Introduction to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.  Found at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/seqr/seqr_1.html.
4 If Federal funding is involved the provisions of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) will also have to be taken into account.
5

“An Approach to Environmental Management in Monroe County”. Monroe County Environmental Management Council, Monroe County, New York 1976.

6

USEPA “Terms of the Environment”. Found on http://www.epa.gov.

7  “New York Environmental Law Handbook: Fifth Edition”, Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle. 1999.
8 “Ecological Risk Assessment for Peter Cooper Landfill Site, Gowanda, NY”, October 2002.  Prepared by Vanasse Hanglin Brustlin, Inc. for Benchmark Environmental Engineering & Science.
9 USEPA “Terms of the Environment”. Found on http://www.epa.gov.
10 Conversation with G. Beck, Cattaraugus County Public Health Sanitarian, 6/24/02.
11 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/heritage/about.htm
12 Ecological Risk Assessment for Peter Cooper Landfill Site, Gowanda, NY”, October 2002.  Prepared by Vanasse Hanglin Brustlin, Inc. for Benchmark Environmental Engineering & Science.