DEIS Town of Colonie LF Area 7

Building lifetime relationships with our
clients and employees.
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Town of Colonie Landfill
Proposed Area 7 Development

June 2016
Prepared for:
1319 Loudon Road

Cohoes, NY 12047
100 Crystal Run Road, Suite 101

Middletown, NY 10941
(845) 695-0200
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ................................................................... I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1
PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT..........................................................................................1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................................2
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .........................................................................3
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 8

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................8

PROJECT LOCATION ..............................................................................................................9
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY .........................................................................................9
PROJECT DESIGN .................................................................................................................11
PERMITS AND APPROVALS ..................................................................................................11
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................12
CONSISTENCY WITH SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS ...............................................13
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

MEASURES ...................................................................................................................... 15
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
TOPOGRAPHY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................15

BEDROCK GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................18
SOILS ...................................................................................................................................19
SURFACE WATER ................................................................................................................22
GROUNDWATER ..................................................................................................................30
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................36
WILDLIFE RESOURCES .........................................................................................................40
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER ........................................................................44
VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................54
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................64
AIR QUALITY.......................................................................................................................67
ODOR CONTROL .................................................................................................................69
NOISE 72
CULTURAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................80
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ............................................................................. 82

DEIS Area 7
ii
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
4
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................. 85

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
NATURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................90

ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES ....................................................90
FINANCIAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................91
CUMULATIVE & GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ........................................................ 92

6.1
6.2
NO-ACTION/WASTE EXPORTATION (OFF-SITE DISPOSAL) ..............................................85

ALTERNATIVE SITES ............................................................................................................86
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ...........................................................................................86
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS.........................................................................89
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .................... 90

5.1
5.2
5.3
TOPOGRAPHY & SOILS ........................................................................................................82

WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................82
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................82
VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................83
AIR QUALITY.......................................................................................................................84
NOISE ..................................................................................................................................84
CULTURAL...........................................................................................................................84
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................................92

GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ............................................................................................92
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 93
DEIS Area 7
iii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A EAF, SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION, & FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT
APPENDIX B FAA DETERMINATION
APPENDIX C WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT & JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
APPENDIX D DRAFT INDIVIDUAL SECTION 404 PERMIT APPLICATION
APPENDIX E NYNHP CORRESPONDENCE & BALD EAGLE SURVEYS SUMMARY REPORT
APPENDIX F VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX G TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
APPENDIX H TITLE V PERMIT APPLICATION
APPENDIX I NOISE SURVEY DATA
APPENDIX J PHASE IA LITERATURE SEARCH SEARCH/SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT AND
PHASE IB ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEIS Area 7
iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables
2-1
2-2
2-3
Odor Complaint Statistics (2012-2014)

SPL Monitoring Locations
NYSDEC Part 360 Sound Level Limits
Figures
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4A
2-4B
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
Site Location Plan

Existing Site Conditions
Proposed Final Grading
Top of Rock Contour Map
Soils Map
Geologic Cross Section
Flood Boundary Map
Flood Boundary Detail
Drainage Plan
Upper Groundwater Zone Contour Map
Intermediate Groundwater Zone Contour Map
Existing Monitoring Well Location Map
Wetlands Delineation Map
Vegetative Communities Map
Zoning Map
Existing Traffic Flow
Proposed Traffic Flow
Projected SPL Contours
DEIS Area 7
GLOSSARY
ACOE
Army Corps of Engineers
amsl
Above mean sea level
APE
Area of Potential Effect
C&D
Construction and Demolition
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CRL
Capital Region Landfills, Inc.
BMPs
Best Management Practices
dB
Decibels
dBA
A-weighted decibel scale
DBH
Diameter at Breast Height
DEIS
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
EAF
Environmental Assessment Form
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EMP
Environmental Monitoring Program
EMS
Emergency Medical Service
EMSAP
Environmental Monitoring and Site Analytical Plan
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
EWQVs
Existing Water Quality Values
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM
Flood Rate Insurance Map
GCCS
Gas Collection and Control System
GCD
Geocomposite Drain
GWQS
Ground Water Quality Standards
HDPE
High Density Polyethylene
HUD
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hz
Hertz
IES
Innovative Energy Systems, Inc.
Leq
Equivalent Continuous Sound Level
DEIS Area 7
vi
LFG
Landfill Gas
LFGTE
Landfill Gas-to-Energy
LOS
Level of Service
Lp
Perceived Loudness
LSWMP
Local Solid Waste Management Plan
mph
Miles per hour
MSGP
Multi-sector General Permit
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAPs
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NMOC
Nonmethane Organic Compounds
NNSR
Non-attainment New Source Review
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NSPS
New Source Performance Standards
NYCRR
New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
NYNHP
New York Natural Heritage Program
NYSAAQS
New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSSMDM
New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual
OSC
Office of the New York State Comptroller
Pop.
Population
PSD
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RDF
Refuse Derived Fuel
scfm
Standard cubic feet per minute
SEQR
State Environmental Quality Review
SHPO
New York State Historic Preservation Office
SIR
Site Investigation Report
SMPs
Stormwater Management Practices
SPDES
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
SPL
Sound Pressure Level
SVOCs
Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
SWPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
DEIS Area 7
vii
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
TOGS
Technical & Operational Guidance Series
tpy
Tons per year
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VOCs
Volatile Organic Compounds
VRA
Visual Resource Assessment
WNS
White-nose Syndrome
WTE
Waste-to-Energy
WQv
Water Quality Volume
DEIS Area 7
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Overview
The Town of Colonie (Town), as owner, and Capital Region Landfills, Inc. (CRL), as
operator, propose to develop and operate Area 7 at the Town of Colonie landfill (Area 7
Development or Project).
The Area 7 Development is anticipated to comprise
approximately 132 acres of activities on an approximately 212-acre site. The landfill is
located at 1319 Loudon Road (US Route 9), Town of Colonie, New York, which is in the
northeastern corner of Albany County. The landfill is bounded to the north and east by
Cohoes-Crescent Road, to the west by US Route 9, and to the south by Arrowhead Lane and
an industrial park. The Towns solid waste management facilities, including the landfill,
are located on contiguous Town-owned parcels.
The Area 7 Development is a proposed horizontal and vertical landfill development,
generally to the north and west of the active landfill operations, which would increase the
permitted height of the landfill to 517 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The preliminary
area of proposed liner construction is anticipated to be approximately 60 acres with an
additional 45 acres of vertical landfill development over the existing Areas 5 and 6.
Approximately 23 acres would be new waste footprint with the balance of new liner to be
constructed over existing Areas 1-4 waste footprint. The development would also involve
the removal of the existing leachate storage lagoons and their replacement with tanks and
the relocation of the landfill entrance to Arrowhead Lane.
Purpose and Need for the Project

The Town of Colonie landfill is a significant and important public resource that provides an
economical means for waste disposal to communities and businesses throughout the
Capital Region of New York State. The 2007-2008 Local Solid Waste Management Plan
(LSWMP) for the Town of Colonie, which was approved by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and updated in December 2009,
predicts that the permitted areas of the landfill will reach capacity in 2017 and indicates the
landfill as the first facility to be used for management of solid waste within the planning
unit.
Without further development of the landfill, the Town would need to cease all on-site
disposal operations and the surrounding communities and the general public that used the
site would be forced to bring waste elsewhere, causing an increase in the cost of waste
disposal. The Area 7 Development would extend the life of the landfill more than 20 years,
thereby providing long-term and economically secure disposal of waste.
DEIS Area 7
Summary of Alternatives
No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would result in the closing of the Town of Colonie landfill once it
reached its current permitted capacity, requiring transferring and long distance hauling of
waste to another permitted disposal site. This alternative would cause increased fuel
consumption by waste transporters (and with it increased air contaminant emissions) and
increased waste disposal costs for residents and businesses in the Town and the
surrounding communities. In addition, the Town would lose all income from landfill
operations, including payments from CRL and from the sale of electricity generated by the
landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) facility. The adverse fiscal consequences of the no-action
alternative are too significant to consider it a viable option. Waste should be exported only
if no other solution can be found.
Alternative Sites
No alternative sites were evaluated in connection with the Area 7 Development because the
existing site can accommodate the proposed development in part through the re-use of
certain portions of the existing landfill. Given the large footprint required to site a new
landfill and the stringent siting criteria, the Town found it was not economically feasible to
consider other sites. Also, the proposed Area 7 Development is included in the
NYSDEC-approved LSWMP.
Alternative Technologies
Alternative technologies evaluated included Waste-to-Energy (WTE), Refuse Derived Fuel
(RDF), and some emerging technologies. There are currently ten (10) active WTE facilities
in New York State, all of which were permitted and constructed over twenty years ago.
Although WTE facilities result in a reduction of waste to be disposed, such facilities involve
high initial construction costs, high operations and maintenance costs, and uncertainty in
revenue due to the variability associated with energy sales. These factors lead to a higher
cost of disposal for WTE facilities than for landfilling. Similarly, there have not been any
new RDF systems constructed in the United States in the past decade.
Emerging technologies that were evaluated include pyrolysis, gasification, mixed-waste
composting, and hydrolysis. These technologies are considered emerging because their
application to municipal solid waste (MSW) has been limited due to the heterogeneity of
MSW. Currently, there are either limited or no full-scale systems in commercial operation
in the United States using these technologies for the management of MSW.
DEIS Area 7
Alternative Development Scenarios

Alternative on-site development scenarios were developed and evaluated in the early
stages of planning the proposed Area 7 Development. These alternatives included further
development of areas to the east, north, and south of the proposed Area 7 Development.
The eastern development was dismissed due to potential significant impacts to wetlands, as
well as steep slopes and difficulty accessing the area. The northern development was
dismissed to avoid the Unnamed Area which is a listed Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste
site (NYSDEC Registry Site Code 401004) and also to minimize impacts to wetlands. The
development to the south was not considered because the proposed entrance facilities are to
be relocated to this area for increased traffic safety.
Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project

Topography
The majority of area to be disturbed by the Area 7 Development would be on historically
disturbed areas or former landfill areas, with approximately only 23 acres of new waste
footprint. These topographic modifications are fundamental to the Project and are
consistent with existing conditions, land use patterns and zoning regulations in the Project
vicinity.
Albany International Airport is located within 5 miles of the landfill therefore a
determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding potential
hazards to aircraft was requested. The FAA determined that neither the proposed Area 7
Development nor the equipment used to construct the final cap would pose a hazard to air
navigation.
Soils
Potential impacts to surface geology would involve the disturbance of soils through
excavation, filling and stockpiling activities during construction and operation of the Area 7
Development. Erosion and sedimentation are potential impacts that can occur when
ground is disturbed for construction. This is a concern when sediment-laden runoff from a
project site reaches aquatic resources such as streams, rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands.
Stormwater discharges from construction activities disturbing one acre or more of land are
regulated under the landfills State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
Multi-sector General Permit (MSGP) GP-0-12-001. The discharges authorized under this
general permit must not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Soil
erosion and sediment control measures that comply with the conditions of the MSGP and
that are consistent with New York State guidelines would be implemented as necessary
during the initial construction phases in order to minimize potential sedimentation or
erosion during construction of the Area 7 Development.
DEIS Area 7
Surface Water
With respect to the construction and operation of the Area 7 Development, a series of
engineering design controls have been incorporated into the design to minimize potential
impacts that could occur. These controls would include the use of sediment basins
constructed in accordance with the design specifications of the New York State Standards and
Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (NYSDEC, 2005). The proposed stormwater
management methods would provide for stormwater quantity and quality control in an
effective manner. In accordance with the requirements of the MSGP, GP-0-12-001, the
Town would continue to perform quarterly visual monitoring and annual benchmark
sampling of stormwater outfalls, as specified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). No adverse surface water impacts are anticipated as a result of construction and
operation of the Area 7 Development.
Groundwater
Potential impacts to groundwater resources at the landfill site would be minimized by the
proposed design of the Area 7 Development and the hydrogeologic setting of the Project
location.
Project design standards, siting criteria and groundwater monitoring
requirements are governed by NYSDEC regulations set forth at 6 New York Codes, Rules,
and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 360. The liner system design will provide for effective
primary and secondary leachate collection and removal. Further, the proposed liner would
be constructed over 37 acres of existing historic landfill (Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4) that do not
have a Part 360 liner system. The construction of this liner would prevent precipitation
from infiltrating into the historic fill areas. This reduction in recharge associated with the
Area 7 Development is anticipated to result in a reduction in the potential for impacting
groundwater.
The removal of the existing leachate storage lagoons and their replacement with leachate
storage tanks and secondary containment in the southeast portion of the Project site would
reduce potential impacts to groundwater quality related to leachate storage.
In the unlikely event of a landfill leachate release, monitoring of the primary and secondary
leachate collection systems, porewater drainage system beneath the landfill, and
groundwater monitoring well network around the perimeter of the landfill would allow for
the detection and remediation of a release before it could enter the environment.
Terrestrial Resources
Portions of federally regulated wetlands would be impacted by the proposed Area 7
Development. A small area (0.01 acres) of wetlands would be disturbed to provide an
outlet for a proposed stormwater pond, and 0.54 acres of emergent wetland and 0.88 acres
of forested wetland would be impacted by construction of the proposed perimeter berm.
DEIS Area 7
The Project would also impact a portion of the 100-foot buffer of NYSDEC mapped wetland
TN-10.
An individual Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and an
Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit from NYSDEC will be required prior to any wetland
disturbance. The Town has developed a wetlands mitigation strategy recommended by the
ACOE which includes utilizing the Wetland Trust Approved Susquehanna Basin
Headwaters and Adjacent Basins In-Lieu Fee Program (a preferred mitigation option as set
forth in the Mitigation Rule). The Town and CRL are proposing to use the program to
satisfy mitigation requirements for this project. The Town and CRL will provide, as
indicated in the wetland application and subsequently confirmed through additional
discussions with the ACOE, 3.2 acres of credits in the Susquehanna Basin Headwaters and
Adjacent Basins In-Lieu Fee Program.
Wildlife Resources
Wildlife that use the active landfill areas would experience some disruption during Area 7
Development construction/operation and would likely tend to move around the site to
other areas with active waste disposal. Small shifts in habitat location may occur without
loss of habitat availability. Most of the species observed, as well as those likely to inhabit
adjacent undisturbed areas outside of the Project limits, would continue to be present in the
area. Species that use the previously capped areas that are currently in various stages of
old field habitat would seek other areas during proposed Project construction and
operation. As new areas of the proposed Area 7 Development are capped and vegetated,
they would revert to field habitat used by these same species.
In particular, potential impacts from the Area 7 Development were evaluated for bald
eagles, the northern long-eared bat, and white-tailed deer population. It was determined
that the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on these species.
Visual Resources
The proposed Area 7 Development would be a continuation of the existing visibility of
Town landfill operations. Areas within a 3-mile radius of the site were evaluated for
impacts to visibility and it was determined that there are limited areas of new visibility.
Upon completion of the proposed development, the landfill would be visible from a
maximum of 4.4% of the 3-mile radius study area. This is an increase of 2.2%
(approximately 400 acres) over what is currently visible (permitted condition) in the study
area. The areas of new visibility are generally small geographic extensions of adjacent lands
that are already impacted by views of the existing facility. Where the proposed
development would be visible, views would be limited to the upper portions of the Area 7
Development appearing above the foreground tree line.
DEIS Area 7
While the proposed Area 7 Development would increase the elevation of the landfill by
87 vertical feet, the visual patterns and composition of the proposed Project would be
consistent with what is already seen. In most areas, the effect of the proposed Area 7
Development on the surrounding landscape is a change in the degree of exposure rather
than a new or visually different impact. In such areas, the upper portions of the proposed
Project would appear low to intervening tree line and similar in form, line color and texture
with the local landscape.
Several mitigation techniques designed to minimize visual impact to the maximum extent
practicable have been incorporated into the Project. To minimize the duration and
magnitude of operational impacts, landfilling within each successive vertical lift would be
phased in a manner that would screen much of the day-to-day operations from off-site
receptors through the use of berms to be placed along the perimeter of the lift area.
As landfilling is completed, closed areas would be revegetated with a mix of native grasses
and herbaceous vegetation. The intent of this mitigation is to create the visual appearance
of a natural meadow or old-field consistent with the visual character of the surrounding
region. In addition, mowing of the completed landfill would be limited to maintain this
desired visual character.
Air Quality
The active landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS) for the Area 7 Development
would be similar to the system that is currently installed. The GCCS would be designed to
manage the collection of generated landfill gas (LFG) and mitigate the potential for subsoil
LFG migration and surface emissions to the atmosphere. The Town has submitted to
NYSDEC a modification application for its Title V Permit to account for the proposed Area
7 Development.
There would be no change in the air quality regulatory standards
governing landfill emissions as a result of the proposed development. The applicable
regulatory requirements in the existing Title V Permit would continue to apply after the
proposed development is in operation.
Odor Control
The proposed Area 7 Development would result in the continuation of working face
operations and the potential odors associated with them. Existing odor minimization
measures would be continued throughout the operational period of the Proposed Area 7
Development and odors are not expected to increase beyond those resulting from current
permitted activities. Best management practices would continue to be used to minimize
odors at the landfill and prevent them from moving off site.
The GCCS at the Area 7 Development would significantly reduce potential odors through
the capture and destruction of odor-causing components of the LFG. The Proposed Area 7
Development would also include the replacement of the current open-air leachate storage
DEIS Area 7
lagoons with covered tanks to prevent odors from leachate storage and the need for odor
neutralizers in the vicinity of the lagoons.
Noise
Sound levels from the landfill operations associated with the proposed Area 7 Development
would not increase compared to existing landfill sound levels. The Town has not proposed
a change in the existing operations, specifically the permitted daily capacity, and therefore,
the main contributors to noise such as operational traffic and equipment would not be
expected to change. The only additional traffic from the proposed Project would be
construction traffic, which is estimated to be approximately 20 additional vehicles on a
temporary basis. Also, the relocation of the entrance facilities to Arrowhead Lane would
shift traffic-related noise from US Route 9 to the industrial park. The projected sound
pressure level (SPL) increases would be less than 6 A-weighted decibels (dBA), which given
the relatively elevated ambient sound levels related to the traffic on US Route 9, would not
be expected to result in any adverse impacts to potential receptors.
Cultural Resources
The Literature Search/Sensitivity Assessment and Archaeological Survey performed for the
Area 7 Development concluded that the area of potential effect (APE) is considered to have
low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, with the exception of the
Erie Canal and the Fonda cemetery. In regard to these two resources, the New York State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that it has no concerns regarding the proposed
filling activities in the area of the old Erie Canal, as the area of is covered by existing fill and
would not be disturbed. Additionally, in accordance with SHPOs recommendations,
excavation in the area of the former Fonda cemetery would be monitored by an
archaeologist, and SHPOs Human Remains Discover Protocol would be implemented in
the event that human remains are encountered.
DEIS Area 7
1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Introduction and Background
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared in accordance with
Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, as amended, the New York State
Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act and its implementing regulations set forth at
6 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 617. An environmental impact
statement (EIS) is a document that impartially analyzes the full range of significant adverse
environmental impacts of a proposed action and how those impacts can be avoided or
minimized. An EIS provides the means for agencies to give early considerations to
environmental factors, and assists in the balancing of environmental issues with social and
economic considerations in planning and decision making. A DEIS is the version of an EIS
which the lead agency makes available for public review and comment.
The proposed action addressed in this DEIS is a development of the existing municipal
solid waste landfill that is owned by the Town of Colonie (Town) and operated by Capital
Region Landfills, Inc. (CRL), referred to as the Area 7 Development (or Project), which is
located in the Town of Colonie, Albany County, New York. The Area 7 Development is
anticipated to comprise approximately 132 acres of activities on an approximately 212-acre
site and is proposed to be both a horizontal and vertical development to the north and west
of the current active landfill operations.
The Town submitted an initial Part 360 Solid Waste Management permit application to the
New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of
Environmental Permits in April 2014 to authorize the Area 7 Development. The submittal
included a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), and supporting documentation.
NYSDEC initiated lead agency coordination under the SEQR regulations and at the
completion of the coordination process, NYSDEC became the SEQR lead agency.
NYSDEC issued a SEQR Positive Declaration for the proposal on July 1, 2014, which
required this DEIS to be prepared. On August 13, 2014, NYSDEC issued a draft scope of
issues to be addressed in the DEIS and a Notice was published in the Times Union and in the
Environmental Notice Bulletin stating that the scope was available for public review and
comments.
After the public comment period, a Final Scoping Document for the DEIS was issued on
November 4, 2014 by NYSDEC. A copy of the EAF, SEQR Positive Declaration, and Final
Scoping Document can be found in Appendix A of this DEIS.
DEIS Area 7
1.2 Project Location

The existing landfill is located at 1319 Loudon Road (Route 9) Town of Colonie, New York,
which is in the northeastern corner of Albany County (See Figure 1-1). The landfill is
bounded to the north and east by Cohoes-Crescent Road, to the west by US Route 9, and to
the south by Arrowhead Lane and an industrial park. The Towns solid waste management
facilities, including the landfill, are located on contiguous Town-owned parcels comprising
approximately 212 acres.
1.3 Site Description and History

The Town first acquired land associated with the landfill site in 1967. Initial waste
placement began at the northern corner in what is now termed the Unnamed Area, and
progressed in a southerly direction to six (6) additional landfill areas (Areas 1 through 6).
Figure 1-2 depicts existing conditions at the site.
The Unnamed Area, which is 300 feet north of the Area 7 Development, reportedly
accepted MSW and incinerator ash beginning in 1968 until it ceased accepting waste in
1972. The Unnamed Area is unlined and has a vegetated soil cover (installed in 1983)
incorporating a low-permeability soil component and comprises approximately 12 acres.
The Unnamed Area is a Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site (NYSDEC Registry
Site Code 401004).
Area 1 accepted waste from 1972 through 1980 and is approximately 24 acres in size.
Although this area does not include an engineered baseliner, it is underlain by natural clay
deposits and at one time reportedly had some means of leachate collection and a vegetated
low-permeability soil cover.
Areas 2 and 3 were the active disposal areas from 1980 through 1988. Areas 2 and 3 are
lined with clay and had a leachate collection system installed at the time of the original
development. Both areas were closed with a vegetated low-permeability soil cover and
currently have active LFG collection systems.
Area 4 accepted waste from 1989 through 1996. Area 4 is 15 acres in size, lined with clay
and had a leachate collection system installed at the time of original development. Area 4
was capped with a geomembrane cap and currently has an active LFG collection system.
In November 1993, an engineering and design report prepared in accordance with Part 360
was submitted to NYSDEC for approval to modify the then existing landfill to incorporate a
vertical development in Area 4 and the development of Area 5. The work was collectively
called the "Area 5 Landfill Expansion" and a modification permit was issued.
Area 5 is a 22-acre Part 360 composite (geomembrane and low permeability soil) lined area
with a leachate collection system and double composite liner where the bottom slope is 25%
DEIS Area 7
or less. In 1996, Phase I of the Area 5 landfill cell construction was completed and the cell
became operational. In 1999, Phase II of the Area 5 landfill cell construction was completed
and the cell became operational. Area 5 also included an 11.5-acre piggyback liner over a
portion of Area 4. Area 5 is active but currently 95% filled. Partial closure work has not yet
been completed. Area 5 has an active LFG collection system.
Following development under the original Part 360 permit, an application was submitted in
December 2002 for a modification to construct and operate Area 6. The permit was
subsequently renewed and modified to accommodate additional authorized activities at the
site (Household Hazardous Waste Transfer Area, Yard Waste Composting, Medical Waste
Transfer and Storage Area, Transfer Facility, and Materials Recycling Facility).
Area 6 is approximately 22 acres in size and the baseliner was constructed in two phases,
both of which have been completed. Area 6 is a Part 360 composite (geomembrane and low
permeability soil) lined area with a leachate collection system and double composite liner
where the bottom slope is 25% or less. Phase I and II are the primary active landfill areas
(in addition to waste being placed for Area 5 completion). No partial closure work has been
completed. Area 6 has an active LFG collection system.
In 2012, a permit modification application was submitted to bring the allowable annual
tonnage limit in line with the allowable daily tonnage limit. At the time, the allowable daily
tonnage limit did not correlate with the anticipated number of operating days and the
allowable annual tonnage limit. The permit was modified, which maintained the average
daily tonnage limit (820 tons per day), but increased the annual tonnage limit from
170,500 tons per year (tpy) to 255,840 tpy.
The wastes accepted at the landfill generally consist of municipal solid waste (combined
household, commercial and institutional waste materials), industrial waste, and other nonhazardous waste consisting of wastewater treatment plant sludge, water treatment plant
sludge, incinerator ash, construction and demolition (C&D) debris, and non-hazardous
contaminated soils. Of the approximately 253,000 tons of waste accepted at the landfill in
2013, approximately 182,000 tons were municipal solid waste. In 2013, approximately 92%
of the total waste disposed of at the landfill originated from within the counties in the
vicinity of the landfill: Albany (24%); Rensselaer (28%); Saratoga (35%); and Washington
(5%).
Consistent with the approved LSWMP and past practices, the landfill operates as a
regional, merchant solid waste management facility. The primary service area of a
landfill operated by a private entity is not limited by municipal boundaries in the same way
that such boundaries may limit municipally-owned and operated disposal sites. The
primary service area for the Towns landfill is New York State. Service area boundaries for
the proposed Area 7 Development are not intended to be permanent or exclusive.
Competing solid waste collection and disposal facilities exist within the service area, and
this competition benefits the residents and industries located in these areas.
DEIS Area 7
10
1.4 Project Design

The Area 7 Development would provide continued waste capacity beyond the currently
permitted life, as outlined in the LSWMP. The remaining permitted capacity at the existing
landfill as of December 31, 2013 was approximately 1,517,000 million cubic yards.
Depending on the rate of utilization and in-place density, this airspace likely represents a
site life through 2017 (using currently permitted waste acceptance rates).
In all, facilities, landfilling and related activities at the Area 7 Development are anticipated
to be located on an approximately 132-acre portion of an approximately 212-acre site. The
Area 7 Development is a proposed horizontal and vertical landfill development, generally
to the north and west of the active landfill operations, which would increase the permitted
height of the landfill to 517 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The preliminary area of
proposed liner construction would be approximately 60 acres with an additional 45 acres of
vertical landfill development over the existing Areas 5 and 6. Approximately 23 acres
would be new waste footprint with the balance of new liner to be constructed over the
existing Areas 1-4 waste footprint. The development would also involve the removal of the
existing leachate storage lagoons and their replacement with tanks and the relocation of the
landfill entrance to Arrowhead Lane. Figure 1-3 depicts the proposed Area 7 Development
final grading at the site.
With the exception of the Yard Waste Composting Facility, which has been removed from
the site, the other waste activities at the site with specified tonnage limits (Household
Hazardous Waste Storage Facility, Regulated Medical Waste Collection Storage and
Transfer Facility, Solid Waste Transfer Facility, Materials Recycling Facility) would
continue as currently permitted for the majority of the proposed permit term. While
continued operation of these facilities is not anticipated throughout the duration of the
construction period due to location conflicts, should they be relocated and remain
operational, the relocated facilities would be presented in the construction plans for a given
phase and submitted to NYSDEC for approval.
1.5 Permits and Approvals

The existing landfill is operated pursuant to a Part 360 permit issued by NYSDEC. The
Area 7 Development would further develop the existing landfill, and therefore, a
modification of the existing permit would be required. The following State and Federal
permit modifications and approvals are proposed for the Area 7 Development and are
discussed in Section 2 of this DEIS.
6 NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Permit (NYSDEC)
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit

GP-0-12-001 (NYSDEC - Existing Permit Coverage for the landfill will be maintained and
updated as necessary)
DEIS Area 7
11
Title V Air Permit (NYSDEC - Minor Permit Modification)
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (NYSDEC)
Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit (NYSDEC)
Section 404 Individual Permit (ACOE)
Depredation Permit (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
FAA Review
Town of Colonie Flood Plain Development Permit
1.6 Project Purpose and Need

The Town of Colonie landfill is a significant and important resource that provides waste
disposal services to communities and businesses throughout the Capital Region of New
York State. Most of the counties in the immediate vicinity of the Town of Colonie Landfill
have either limited landfill capacity or no disposal capacity. In 2013, 92% of the waste
disposed at the landfill originated from nearby counties, including Albany, Rensselaer,
Saratoga, and Washington Counties.
The current NYSDEC-approved LSWMP for the Town of Colonie, which was updated in
December 2009, states that the existing areas at the Town of Colonie landfill would reach
capacity in 2017, as discussed in Section 1.7 below. Without further development, the Town
would need to cease all on-site disposal operations and the surrounding communities and
the general public that used the site would be forced to bring waste elsewhere, causing an
increase in the cost of waste disposal.
The proposed Area 7 Development is included in the approved LSWMP, which indicates
that the landfill is the first facility to be used for management of solid waste within the
planning unit. It is anticipated that the Area 7 Development would extend the life of the
landfill more than 20 years, thus providing long-term and economically secure disposal of
waste. The landfill is also an important source of revenue for the Town through payments
received from CRL.
Along with allowing the continued use of the facility to meet the Towns basic solid waste
management needs, the planned development of Area 7 would allow the facility to make
other needed upgrades. The proposed development would improve the safety of the
facility and traffic along US Route 9, as discussed in Section 2.10 of this DEIS. The current
main entry point to the site on US Route 9 would be relocated to a location on Arrowhead
Lane on the south end of the site. The relocated entrance would include a truck queueing
area, two scales (inbound and outbound), a truck staging area in front of the scales, and a
residential drop-off facility. Overall, the relocation of both the main entrance and the
DEIS Area 7
12
residential waste drop-off area would significantly enhance and improve safety, as large
trucks entering and exiting the landfill would no longer use heavily trafficked US Route 9.
Traffic from US Route 9 would use a signalized intersection to access Fonda Road, leading
to Green Mountain Drive and Arrowhead Lane.
Similarly, as part of the Area 7 Development, the Town of Colonie landfill would improve
leachate storage, which is currently stored in open-air lagoons. Covered tanks to contain
leachate would reduce odors from leachate on site and address potential groundwater and
stormwater issues. It is anticipated that the leachate facility relocation would begin in 2016.
Finally, the proposed Area 7 Development would allow the use of best management
practices to enhance stormwater management that currently through the use of retention
basins on site.
The proposed development would also provide protective measures for the existing waste
areas that were not constructed or closed in accordance with the Part 360 regulations. By
placing new liners over areas that do not currently have an engineered cap or Part 360 liner
system, the rates at which water could infiltrate the waste mass would be reduced, resulting
in subsequent improvements to groundwater quality for Areas 1 through 4.
1.7 Consistency with Solid Waste Management Plans

1.7.1 New York State Solid Waste Management Plan
The proposed Area 7 Development is consistent with current state policy regarding waste
management and disposal. Specifically, the NYSDEC report titled Beyond Waste a
Sustainable Materials Management Strategy for New York State, adopted December 27, 2012,
recognizes that existing landfills and expansions of existing sites impact fewer natural
resources than a new site, and goes on to say in Section 9.4.9 that, This trend toward
expansions and optimizing capacity at existing land-disposal operations helps establish an existing
and perhaps sustainable landfill disposal infrastructure such that the states land resources can be
conserved to the maximum extent possible. The Towns landfill operation also addresses more
than land disposal of solid waste by continuing to provide LFG to Innovative Energy
Systems, Inc. (IES), which operates a LFG-fired electrical generating plant.
1.7.2 Local Solid Waste Management Plan

The Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 mandated the creation of solid waste planning
units, and the development of LSWMPs. A fundamental objective of LSWMPs is to
establish short, intermediate and long-term goals for the management of solid waste
generated within the planning unit. The landfill is located within the Town of Colonie
Local Solid Waste Management Planning Unit, which includes not only the Town of
Colonie, but also the Village of Menands, the Village of Colonie, and the City of Cohoes.
DEIS Area 7
13
The current NYSDEC-approved LSWMP for the Town of Colonie, which was updated in
December of 2009, identifies the landfill as the first facility to be used for the management
of solid waste within the planning unit. Additionally, in the Summary Solid Waste
Management Program Schedule, which is in Appendix 7 of the LSWMP, the completion of a
design for landfill Area 7 is listed as an activity in 2014. No other new landfill capacity has
been developed or is proposed within the planning unit. The proposed Area 7
Development is identified in the LSWMP and is consistent with its goals and objectives.
DEIS Area 7
14
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,

AND MITIGATION MEASURES
2.1 Topography and Physiography
2.1.1 Existing Environmental Setting
The topography within the Project vicinity is comprised of rolling hills along the Mohawk
River Valley. The landfill is bounded to the north and east by Cohoes-Crescent Road and
the Mohawk River, to the west by US Route 9, and to the south by Arrowhead Lane and an
industrial park.
The elevation outside of the existing waste footprint ranges from 190 feet amsl on the north
and east side of the development area to 330 feet amsl on the southwest edge. The current
permitted peak elevation within the waste footprint at closure is 430 feet amsl. The south
end of the site contains the Area 6 landfill cell, which is currently receiving waste and is at
approximately 360 feet amsl with the areas adjacent to Area 6 sloping away from the waste
footprint to the south, west, and east, respectively. Area 5 landfill cell is adjacent to the
north edge of Area 6 and represents the existing topographic high at the site (approximately
400 feet amsl). Area 5 slopes downward to the north (toward Area 4), south (toward Area
6), east, and west. Area 4 is located adjacent to the north slope of Area 5 and continues the
downward sloping trend to the northwest and northeast.
The western slopes of Area 4, Area 5, and Area 6 landfill cells slope downward to the west
and northwest from the topographic high in the center of the site, toward Wetland B
(discussed in Section 2.6 of this DEIS) which wraps around to the north edge of the
development area. Almost the entire site drains from west to east, towards the Mohawk
River. The exception is a small area west of the office building, and outside of the
operational areas that drains to the west and discharges into the US Route 9 drainage
system of ditches and driveway culverts. Ultimately, drainage originating from or passing
through the landfill site discharges into the Mohawk River
2.1.1.1
Air Navigation
The Part 360 regulations contain various criteria regarding facility height and the proximity
of putrescible waste landfills to airports. As identified in Section 360-1.2(b)(5), an airport is
a facility open to the public without prior permission and without restrictions within the
physical capabilities of available facilities; and an active military airfield. The aircraft safety
criteria specified in the regulations (Section 360-2.12(c)(3)) are as follows:
DEIS Area 7
15
(i) A landfill or landfill subcell into which putrescible solid waste is to be disposed
must be located no closer than 5,000 feet from any airport runway end used by
piston-powered fixed-wing aircraft and no closer than 10,000 feet from any airport
runway end used by turbine-powered fixed-wing aircraft.
(ii) A landfill or landfill subcell into which putrescible solid waste is to be disposed,
which is located within five miles of any airport runway end, must not, in the
opinion of the Federal Aviation Administration, pose a potential bird or obstruction
hazard to aircraft.
(iii)The permittee of an existing landfill or landfill subcell that is authorized to dispose
of putrescible solid waste and that is located less than 10,000 feet from any airport
runway end used by turbine-powered fixed- wing aircraft or less than 5,000 feet
from any airport runway end used only by piston-powered fixed-wing aircraft must
provide in its permit renewal application documentation that the Federal Aviation
Administration believes the landfill or landfill subcell does not pose a bird hazard to
aircraft.
(iv) Landfills containing only nonputrescible solid waste may be located less than 10,000
feet from any airport runway end used by turbine-powered fixed-wing aircraft or
less than 5,000 feet from any airport runway end used only by piston-powered
fixed-wing aircraft, if in the opinion of the Federal Aviation Administration they will
not present a safety hazard to air traffic.
(v) The final elevation of a new landfill or expansion of an existing landfill must not
extend more than 200 feet above the highest elevation of the land surface that existed
prior to landfill development, unless the Federal Aviation Administration believes
that the proposed fill height in excess of 200 feet will not present a safety hazard to
air traffic.
Local maps and FAA resources were examined to determine whether airports exist within
the minimum distance requirements around the landfill as specified in the regulations.
The nearest public use airport within five miles of the proposed Area 7 Development is
Albany International Airport, and its runways are approximately 4.6 miles (24,290 feet)
from the boundary of the landfill. Therefore, subparagraphs (i), (iii), and (iv) above is not
applicable. Additionally, the final elevation of the proposed Area 7 Development would
not extend more than 200 feet above the land surface at the site. The existing highest
elevation of the land surface that existed prior to landfill development was elevation
332 feet amsl, located in the southwest portion of the site, and the highest proposed fill
height above the elevation is 185 feet (top of landfill is at elevation 517 feet amsl).
Therefore, subparagraph (v) above is not applicable.
DEIS Area 7
16
2.1.2 Potential Impacts

The work area for the proposed Area 7 Development would be approximately 132 acres. Of
this disturbed area, the majority of the development would occur on historically disturbed
areas or former landfill areas, with approximately only 23 acres of new waste footprint.
Final grades for the proposed Area 7 Development include developing the landfill side
slopes at 33% consistent with the provisions of Part 360. Top slopes would be developed at
the regulatory minimum slope of 4% to promote adequate surface water collection and
drainage. The maximum permitted elevation of the proposed development would be
approximately 517 feet amsl. Additional detail on changes to the topography and potential
impacts to the visual resources are discussed in Section 2.9, Visual Resources.
Due to the location of Albany International Airport at less than the five mile minimum
distance specified in the regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.12(c)(3)(ii) applies and an opinion
from the FAA regarding potential hazards to aircraft is required. An electronic submittal
was made to the FAA on April 1, 2014, in accordance with FAA requirements for a
determination regarding potential hazards. Based on the submittal, the FAA made a
determination, on May 22, 2014 (2014-AEA-1962-OE) that the proposed structure would not
pose a hazard to air navigation. A subsequent submittal was made to the FAA on
September 11, 2014 to request a determination for the temporary use of construction
equipment in constructing the cap of the landfill. The FAA provided a determination on
October 20, 2014 (2014-AEA-5585-OE) that the construction equipment would not pose a
hazard to air navigation. Therefore, in the opinion of the FAA, the Area 7 Development
would not result in impacts to air navigation. Supporting documentation, including the
submittal information and the letters of determination from the FAA, are provided in
Appendix B of this DEIS.
2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures

The proposed topographic modifications are required to achieve the Project goals and
would be consistent with the existing land use patterns in the Project vicinity. Existing
vegetative buffers would be maintained around the perimeter of the Area 7 Development
and the landfill as a whole. Section 2.9, Visual Resources, further discusses the potential
impacts and mitigation measures associated with the visual resources in the vicinity of the
Project area.
The Area 7 Development would not pose a hazard to air navigation as determined by the
FAA, and therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.
DEIS Area 7
17
2.2 Bedrock Geology

2.2.1.1
Regional Geology
The Town of Colonie landfill lies within the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands physiographic
province (Broughton, et al., 1966). Bedrock in the Project area is mapped as shales and
graywackes of the Austin Glen Formation (Fisher et. al., 1970). The occurrence of the Austin
Glen Formation in this area is the result of landsliding and thrust faulting which occurred
during the Taconic Orogeny of the late-medial Ordovician period.
During this time period the land to the east of the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands province
was undergoing continued uplift approaching the climax of the Taconic Orogeny that
occurred in the late-Ordovician. The end result of this orogeny was a high standing
mountain range in eastern New York, Vermont and southern New England (Empire, 1989).
This uplift caused the thrust faulting and landsliding of bedrock and soils which
transported the nappe of Austin Glen Formation to its current location. As bedrock
mapping of the area indicates (Fischer et. Al., 1970), the formation is an oval shaped, thrust
fault surrounded feature nearly 13 miles long (north to south) and five (5) miles wide (east
to west).
2.2.1.2
Site Geology
The bedrock underlying the site consists of interbedded layers of greywacke (gray, poorly
sorted sandstone) and shale, believed to be part of the Ordovician aged Austin Glen
Formation. The depth to bedrock varies from as little as 2 feet to greater than 89 feet across
the site.
Collectively, the data indicate that the bedrock surface slopes downward, from an elevation
high of approximately 260 feet amsl in the southwest corner of the site towards the
Mohawk River to the east and north. A top of rock contour map is presented in Figure 2-1.

Bedrock is not expected to be encountered during the subgrade preparation of the Area 7
Development or of the ancillary facilities. The engineering design of the Project would
maintain a minimum 10-foot vertical separation from the surface of the bedrock to the
baseliner of the landfill, as required by 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13(e).

The Area 7 Development would not significantly impact bedrock geology, and therefore,
mitigation measures are not required.
DEIS Area 7
18
2.3 Soils
2.3.1.1
Regional Unconsolidated Deposits
Surficial geologic mapping indicates the presence of exposed bedrock, lacustrine silt and
clay, glacial till, kame deposits, and recent alluvium in the general area of the Town of
Colonie Landfill site (Caldwell and Dineen, 1987). With the exception of deposits of recent
alluvium that occur along the Mohawk River, overburden in this area originated from the
depositional activities that took place during the Pleistocene epoch.
The glacial soils of the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands province were deposited by the
advance and retreat of the most recent, or Wisconsin, glacial episode. Wisconsin glaciation
removed evidences of earlier glacial periods (Van Diver, 1985). Deglaciation events in the
lower Hudson Valley blanketed the previously existing bedrock with ice-contact, fluvial
and lacustrine sediments. This retreat was characterized by the deposition of melt water
sediment in pro-glacial lacustrine and deltaic environments.
2.3.1.2
Site Specific Soils
2.3.1.2.1 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey

Based on a review of the Albany County Soil Survey (NRCS 2011), the on-site soils at the
landfill consist primarily of Dump (Du), and Hudson silt loams (HuB, C, D, E), with smaller
areas of Nassau channery silt loam (NaB and NrC), Nunda silt loam (NuB, C), Rhineback
silty clay loam (RhB), and Udorthents (Ug, Uh, Uk). The NRCS soil descriptions are set
forth below and a site soils map is included as Figure 2-2.
Dumps (Du) This map unit consists of sanitary landfills, industrial dumps, and
other sites that have been used for the disposal of trash and rubble.
Hudson Series (HuB, C, D, E) silt loam, 3-45% slopes. The Hudson series consists
of deep, moderately well-drained soils on lake plains. These soils formed in
lacustrine silt and clay deposits.
Nassau Series (NaB and NrC) channery to very channery, 3-15% slopes. The
Nassau series consists of shallow, rolling, somewhat excessively drained soils found
on bedrock controlled ridges and hills. The channery loam till of the soil series is
derived mainly from slate or shale.
Nunda Series (NuB, C, D) silt loam, 3-25% slopes. The Nunda series consists of
very deep, gently sloping to strongly sloping, moderately well drained soils. These
soils formed in a thin silty mantle over glacial till derived from clayey shale.
DEIS Area 7
19
Rhinebeck Series (RhB) silty clay loam, 3-8% slopes. The Rhinebeck series consists
of deep, nearly level and gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained, moderately fine
textured soils on glacial lake plains. These soils formed in deposits of lake-laid
deposits of silt and clay.
Udorthents (Ug, Uh, Uk) loamy and clayey Urban land complex. This complex
consists of very deep, level to gently sloping areas of well drained and moderately
well drained, loamy and clayey soil material that resulted from manmade cuts and
areas of Urban land.
2.3.1.2.2 Soil Investigations

Information from numerous hydrogeologic investigations of varying scope and purpose
completed at the site over the years and other available data were used to support the
findings of the current Hydrogeologic Investigation. The unconsolidated deposits
underlying the facility generally consist of an upper glaciolacustrine, varved silt and clay
unit underlain by till. Where the glaciolacustrine unit is absent, till is present at the ground
surface. Also present is a limited area of Alluvium deposits at the northeast corner of the
site. Each of these units is described below. Figure 2-3 depicts a geologic cross section of
the site (cross section location can be found on Figure 2-1).
Glaciolacustrine Silt and Clay
The glaciolacustrine deposits typically consist of an upper oxidized brown silt and clay unit
containing some silt partings, and a lower gray unoxidized silt and clay to clay unit. These
units contain minor amounts of wood fragments and both units contain varves of either silt
or fine sand. The contact between the upper brown clay unit and the lower gray clay unit is
typically gradational, with mottling occurring above the transition to solid gray.
The thickness of the glaciolacustrine deposits varies across the site from thin to absent to as
much as 60 feet. In general, the glaciolacustrine deposits are thickest to the east, closer to
the Mohawk River and thinnest to the west at higher elevations. At the eastern edge of the
site, the glaciolacustrine deposits directly overly bedrock (i.e. the glacial till is not present).
Glacial Till
The glacial till unit is generally characterized as a heterogeneous mix of gravel, cobbles,
boulders, and fragments of the underlying shale bedrock, within a matrix of clay, silt and
sand. It is typically brown near the ground surface due to oxidation, and grades to gray
with depth.
The till varies in thickness across the site ranging from thin to not present near the eastern
portion of the site and greater than 89 feet to the west underlying the higher elevations.
DEIS Area 7
20
Alluvium
The alluvium deposits generally consist of medium to course grained sand and fine gravels
and are found in the northeast corner of the site. These deposits are assumed to be
hydraulically connected to the Mohawk River and range in thickness from 4 to 22 feet
across an area of approximately 800-square feet.
Recent Fill Materials
Much of the northern portion of the proposed Area 7 Development consists of fill (waste)
materials overlaying natural soils. Waste was found to be overlaying glacial till,
glaciolacustrine deposits and alluvium deposits. The waste encountered was covered with
fill material consisting primarily of silt and clays.

Potential impacts to surface geology would involve the disturbance of soils through the
excavation, filling and stockpiling activities during construction and operation of the Area 7
Development. Due to the presence of soft soils at the subgrade surface and below,
undercutting of naturally occurring unsuitable subgrade soils and replacement with
compacted, structural fill would be required in certain areas of the Project site.
Erosion and sedimentation are potential impacts that can occur when ground is disturbed
for construction. This is of particular concern if sediment-laden runoff from a project site
reaches aquatic resources such as streams, rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands.

Stormwater discharges from construction activities disturbing one acre or more of land are
regulated under the landfills SPDES Multi-sector General Permit (MSGP) GP-0-12-001. The
discharges authorized under this general permit must neither cause nor contribute to a
violation of the water quality standards contained in 6 NYCRR Parts 700 through 705. The
landfill site (operations and construction) are already covered under this permit and the site
has an existing Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to construction of the
proposed development, the SWPPP would be updated to incorporate the proposed
construction and operations and would include erosion and sediment control features as
required in the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment
Control (August 2005), and the New York State Stormwater Design Manual. Measures that
would be implemented during both the construction and operational phases of the Area 7
Development to minimize soil erosion and fugitive dust are presented in Sections 2.4 and
2.11, respectively of this DEIS. They include:
DEIS Area 7
21
Use of an engineered stormwater management system in accordance with the MSGP

that includes erosion and sediment control measures, and practices to stabilize soil
surfaces and effectively manage or reduce soil migration/losses due to the erosive
forces of stormwater impact and runoff.
The incorporation of stormwater collection and conveyance structures including

diversion swales, downchutes, stilling basins, channels, and culverts. These
conveyance structures are designed to function effectively under the range of
anticipated rainfall events.
Soil erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the conditions of the MSGP
consistent with New York State guidelines would include placement of temporary control
structures such as:
Silt fence,
Stone check dams,
Rock outlet protection,
Soil stabilization through surface roughening, mulching, and establishment of

vegetation,
Stabilized construction entrance,
Diversion channels,
Sedimentation basins and/or traps, and,
Sump Pits.
These and other similar control measures would be implemented as necessary during the
initial construction phases in order to reduce potential sedimentation or erosion problems
created by the Area 7 Development.
2.4 Surface Water

2.4.1.1
Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff at the landfill drains to several separate discharge points that eventually
discharge to the Mohawk River to the east of the site.
DEIS Area 7
22
Surface water features in New York are designated with a water quality classification for
the purposes of regulating discharges into these water bodies in accordance with the SPDES
permit program. These classifications refer to the suitability of a given water feature (lake,
pond, river, stream) for human use; the higher the classification (i.e. A), the better the water
quality. The Mohawk River in the vicinity of the landfill is designated a Class A water
body, which is suitable for primary contact (swimming) and for a drinking water supply.
The landfill site is located within the designated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) boundary of the Town of Colonie. The activities and controls in place at the landfill
are consistent with the requirements established by the Town and support the Towns
overall stormwater management program being implemented for compliance with its MS4
General Permit.
In accordance with SPDES MSGP GP-0-12-001 for stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity, the Town maintains a SWPPP, most recently prepared by Crawford &
Associates Engineering, P.C. The SWPPP details the existing drainage areas on site, which
are described below.
OUTFALL I (Inactive Outfall) is located at the Northern tip of the site adjacent to
the intersection of US Route 9 and Cohoes-Crescent Road. Stormwater that comes
into contact with the on-site portion of this drainage area infiltrates into the ground
(which contains a closed/capped (vegetated), class III, inactive hazardous waste
landfill - Site Code 401004) within the Unnamed Area described previously. The
riprap-lined drainage swale associated with Outfall I located immediately west of
the inactive hazardous waste landfill area (which ultimately discharges via a 24-inch
diameter storm drain pipe to the Mohawk River), receives stormwater run-off from
the adjacent roadway (US Route 9). Since stormwater run-off/flow from this outfall
does not have contact with industrial activities which occur on-site, it is not required
to be monitored as an active outfall.
OUTFALL II is located approximately 1,140 feet southeast of Outfall I, adjacent to

Cohoes-Crescent Road. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes into
contact with a portion of the Unnamed Area, a small portion of landfill Areas 2, 3
and 4, and, from a majority of Area 1. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area
also has contact with the facilitys vehicle fueling area; the residential drop-off area
(containers covered with tarps after hours); the truck scale area; the medical waste
collection and storage area (covered); the transfer station (covered); the household
hazardous waste storage area (covered); a stormwater ponding area and the truck
tire-wash station (self-contained) and flows overland via sheet flow to a series of
catch basins and a rip-rap lined swale. A 54-inch storm drainage pipeline is located
somewhat perpendicular to US Route 9 which discharges to the Mohawk River
approximately 1,150 feet north of the intersection of US Route 9 and CohoesCrescent Road. Several drop inlets on the interior of the northern portion of the site
also collect stormwater runoff and discharge to the 54-inch pipe.
DEIS Area 7
23
OUTFALL IIIA is located between the two on-site leachate storage lagoons (at the
eastern side of the site). Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes into
contact with capped landfill Areas 2, 3, and 4 and ultimately discharges to a wetland
drainage area through a 36-inch corrugated pipe. The existing leachate lagoons do
not discharge to surface water. Leachate is directed through a forcemain and
ultimately to the Town wastewater treatment plant.
OUTFALL IIIB is located ~517 feet south of the southern edge of the southern
leachate storage lagoon. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes into
contact with the eastern slope of capped landfill Areas 2, 3 and 4 and ultimately
discharges to State wetland on the east side of the site through a 12-inch corrugated
pipe, which runs under the site access road.
OUTFALL IIIC is located in a catch basin along the perimeter access road which is
south of landfill Area 6. Stormwater runoff from this drainage area comes into
contact with a small portion of covered landfill Areas 4 and 6; a moderate portion of
landfill Area 5 (which has intermediate cover); a stormwater holding pond; a stone
anti-tracking pad; a stone check dam; and a series of culverts, swales, and ditches
which ultimately discharge to a wetland drainage area located in the southeast
corner of the site via a 48 inch diameter pipe. Due to the large volume of runoff that
contributes to this outfall, a rock-filled gabion outlet structure was constructed to
dissipate the energy before the flow is discharged into the drainage area to the State
wetland on the east side of the site.
OUTFALL IIID is located approximately 1,050 feet south of the southern edge of the
southern leachate storage lagoon. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes
into contact with a small portion of covered landfill Areas 4 and 6, and a moderate
portion of landfill Area 5 (which has intermediate cover). Accumulated stormwater
collects in drainage swales along the lower perimeter access road, passes under the
access road via a drainage culvert, and is then directed down a rip-rap lined
downchute to the State wetland on the east side of the site.
OUTFALL IIIE is located along the southern most border of the property, along
Arrowhead Lane. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area flows towards the
south (away from the landfill) and either collects on site or flows (sheet flow) into a
catch basin system located along Arrowhead Lane which flows towards/joins
stormwater discharges associated with landfill operations at the southern portion of
the property.
OUTFALL IIIF is located in the same catch basin as Outfall IIIC (which is located
along the perimeter access road that is south of landfill Area 6. Stormwater run-off
from this drainage area comes into contact with the outer portion of landfill Area 6
(which is capped with partial intermediate cover).
DEIS Area 7
24
OUTFALL IIIG is located along the access road to the landfill gas-to-energy
(LFGTE) Facility at the southeastern end of the landfill. Stormwater run-off from
this drainage area comes into contact with a small portion of a hill which has the
potential to receive surface flow from the landfills perimeter road. There is a
drainage culvert that extends from north to south beneath the roadway.
OUTFALL IIIH is located just north and east of the MBI maintenance shop.
Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes into contact with the gravel
covered parking lot located immediately north of the MBI Maintenance shop.
OUTFALL S-5 is a 24-inch HDPE pipe located along a rip-rap lined drainage swale
located in the north-western portion of the site (prior to where the swale receives
stormwater run-off from nearby US Route 9). Stormwater run-off from this drainage
area comes into contact with the residential waste drop-off area (recyclables, used
oil/antifreeze and MSW); the scale area; the truck tire wash area (self-contained); the
vehicle maintenance garage; the Materials Recycling Building; the vehicle fueling
area; the medical waste collection and storage area; the household hazardous waste
storage area; and, the transfer station area.
The existing SWPPP also provides guidelines for quarterly visual monitoring and annual
benchmark monitoring of stormwater discharges in accordance with the requirements of
the MSGP, GP-0-12-001. The MSGP provides industrial sectors subject to annual
benchmark sampling with industry specific pollutants of concern/effluent limitations, and
sites containing multiple industrial sector activities are required to comply with applicable
sector limitations. Since the site consists of operations including landfilling, recycling, and
trucking, Sectors L, N, and P apply to the stormwater discharges from the site, respectively.
Effluent limitations for each sector and sampling performed at each outfall are detailed in
the existing SWPPP.
2.4.1.2
Flood Plain
The Colonie landfill is located in the northeastern corner of Albany County along the
Mohawk River. The flood map, as seen in Figure 2-4A, indicates that the limit of the 100year flood plain generally follows Cohoes-Crescent Road in the area along the northeast
portion of the site but in some cases the flood plain extends to the west side of the road. A
more detailed analysis, as described in Section 2.4.2, indicates the flood plain will overlap
with the project limits at the northeast corner of the site by approximately 0.07 acres.

The proposed limits of the Area 7 Development would be greater than 100 feet from the
closest water body, which is the Mohawk River (approximately 120 feet away) and the
Mohawk impoundment at Crescent Dam is not a known water source. The Mohawk River
is used as a water source for the City of Cohoes further downstream of the Crescent Dam.
DEIS Area 7
25
The water intake is located in the National Grid Canal along North Mohawk St. (1.5 miles
from the site) and is pumped to a storage reservoir before being treated.
With respect to the construction and operation of the development, a series of engineering
design controls have been incorporated into the design to mitigate potential impacts that
could occur. This would include the use of sediment basins constructed per the design
specifications of the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment
Control (NYSDEC, 2005). Therefore, no adverse surface water impacts would be anticipated
as a result of construction and operation of the Project.
A water quality and quantity control plan is required to meet NYSDECs unified sizing
criteria and pollutant removal goals and the Part 360 requirements. The New York State
Stormwater Management Design Manual (NYSSMDM) contains design criteria for water
quality and quantity components of the SWPPP. The proposed stormwater management
practices (SMPs) are listed in the NYSSMDM as capable of treating the entire water quality
volume. Appropriate management practices have been selected from the design manual
and are described in the following sections.
The stormwater management system for the Area 7 Development is designed to provide
long-term erosion protection of cover soils, convey stormwater, contain sediment,
temporarily store runoff, and reduce peak discharge rates. The ultimate receiving water
body for site stormwater discharges would be the Mohawk River.
Stormwater management systems would be utilized to capture and treat the water quality
volume, and attenuate storms up to and including the 100-year frequency, 24-hour duration
design storm. These quality and quantity requirements would be met with the construction
of two wet ponds (North and South ponds) at the site. At proposed pond inlets, a forebay
would be installed as required in the NYSSMDM to provide additional sediment control.
The ponds would gravity discharge via engineered outlet control structures designed to
gradually discharge accumulated stormwater, and appropriately manage high peak
discharges, leading to an increase in water quality, and reduce the potential for
downstream erosion.
The development would not result in adverse environmental impacts to the surface water
resources in the vicinity of the Project area. The development of two ponds with designed
outlet structures would appropriately manage discharge rates into the Mohawk River
during a period of significant storm events. This is due to the reduction of peak discharge
from a particular storm event. The reduction of peak discharge is beneficial because the
flood elevation would not be adversely impacted. The ponds that would be created as a
result of the Project would provide improved management of runoff discharging into the
Mohawk River and the tributaries and drainage features thereof.
The quality of the surface water surrounding the existing site would not be affected by the
Area 7 Development. The stormwater design provides appropriate features that can
capture and treat the water quality volume (WQv). A basin, sized using the WQv, would
DEIS Area 7
26
capture 90% of 24 hour rain events. The volume provided in each detention pond is greater
than the WQv for its respective drainage area. Currently the overall site does not have
significant stormwater volume and almost none is available for runoff discharging from the
north end of the site. The proposed development would provide an improvement to the
stormwater quality by adding stormwater treatment volume at the site and particularly at
the north end of the site.
The flood map indicates the limit of the 100-year flood plain would overlap with the Project
limits at the northeast corner of the site. Based on detailed analysis shown in Figure 2-4B,
the overlap is approximately 0.07 acres. The proposed construction within the flood plain
consists only of the installation of an access road and does not include any waste
footprint. The flood plain in this area of the site for the Mohawk River ranges from 1,770- to
2,840-feet-wide and the proposed development would extend, at most, approximately 40
feet into the flood plain. It should be noted that the proposed overlap is associated with a
perimeter access road and associated drainage features and these features (along with a
perimeter berm) would prevent encroachment of the flood plain on the active portions of
the solid waste facility.
The Town of Colonie, which administers the flood plain and associated development under
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines, currently allows the level of
development that is proposed for Area 7 in flood plains under the flood plain management
requirements in the Towns Zoning and Land Use Law. A flood plain development permit
would be required. An engineering analysis showing that proposed development in the
flood plain would not result in physical damage to any other property is required to be
included with the permit application. Town flood plain development permit requirements
associated with buildings and watercourse (i.e., floodway) alterations do not apply because
the proposed development is limited to soil fill and is not within the watercourse.
To support the permitting process, calculations have been performed that indicate the
proposed development in the flood plain would not result in physical damage to any other
property. The calculations (included in the Part 360 Application Engineering Report)
indicate that the reported water surface elevation, cross-sectional capacity, and flow
velocity would not change as a result of the proposed encroachment. This is likely the
result of the extremely limited amount of development relative to the overall width and
size of the river at that location.
The calculations, indicating the proposed development would not have an impact on
upstream properties, would be included as part of the anticipated flood plain development
permit process.

The stormwater management system for the proposed Area 7 Development includes:
Erosion and sediment control measures and practices;
DEIS Area 7
27
Stormwater collection and conveyance structures;
Pollution prevention measures; and
Stormwater detention/sediment basins.
The erosion and sediment control measures and practices would serve to stabilize soil
surfaces and prevent or reduce soil migration/losses due to the erosive forces of
stormwater impact and runoff. Stormwater discharges from construction activities
disturbing one acre or more of land are regulated under the landfills SPDES MSGP
GP-0-12-001. The discharges authorized under this general permit must neither cause nor
contribute to a violation of the water quality standards contained in 6 NYCRR Parts 700
through 705. The landfill site (operations and construction) are already covered under this
permit and the site has an existing SWPPP. Prior to construction of the proposed
development, the SWPPP would be updated to incorporate the proposed construction and
operations and would include erosion and sediment control features as required in the New
York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (NYSDEC 2005),
and the NYSSMDM. The drainage areas for the Area 7 Development would be slightly
larger than those shown in the existing SWPPP (shown in Figure 2-5); however, the
additional areas are not significant and are addressed in the stormwater management
system design for the landfill.
Temporary measures and practices, consistent with New York State guidelines, would be
employed during landfill operations and permanent measures and practices would be
established in a phased approach as final cover is constructed. Permanent stabilization
measures include the establishment of grass cover in open areas and linings along open
channels. Open ground areas would be stabilized initially with mulch and ultimately with
grass. Open channels used for stormwater collection would be stabilized with grass,
erosion control matting, riprap or gabions, depending on hydraulic design velocities and
channel slope.
Stormwater collection and conveyance structures would include final cover sideslope
swales, downdrains, stilling basins, channels, and culverts. Final cover sideslope swales are
the first line collection structures and would be located at intervals on steep slopes to
intercept surface water runoff and reduce the development of concentrated runoff, thereby
reducing rill and gully erosion. Structures (both permanent and temporary structures for
operational phases) would be designed to safely convey the predicted 25-year peak
discharges from the landfill areas to the detention/sediment basins. Structure designs
would follow generally accepted stormwater design practices and New York State
guidelines.
The detention/sediment basins would be containment ponds where site runoff is detained
and stored temporarily. The existing basin on the west side of the existing landfill would
be used along with two (2) proposed basins/detention ponds on the south and north end of
DEIS Area 7
28
the site to accommodate the stormwater runoff patterns for the Area 7 Development (see
Figure 2-5). Compared to the existing site, the majority of the landfill working area and
final cover area for the Area 7 Development would be routed to detention ponds before
being conveyed offsite.
The design of the stormwater detention ponds complies with the requirements of the
SPDES MSGP for Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activity (GP-0-12-001), which
mandates use of the standards documented in the NYSSMDM, and the 6 NYCRR Part 360
Regulations. As such, the ponds must provide treatment of the Water Quality Volume (the
90% runoff event as described in the NYSSMDM), the Channel Protection Volume (24-hour
extended detention of the 1-year, 24-hour storm), Overbank Flood Control (attenuation of
the peak discharge from the 10-year, 24-hour storm), and the Extreme Flood Control
(attenuation of the peak discharge from the 100-year, 24 hour storm). The Part 360
requirements also require attenuation of the peak discharge from the 25-year, 24-hour
storm. Accurate sizing of these proposed stormwater basins for both temporary and
permanent conditions would provide no increase to the peak discharge exiting the site.
These basins would provide the following benefits:
Extended Stormwater Detention - temporary storage and hydraulic control of site

runoff to reduce peak discharges, providing channel protection as well as flood
attenuation;
Water Quality Treatment capture and treat the water quality volume for the site
through extended detention in an open water body; and
Sedimentation - water quality improvement by allowing suspended solids to settle

out of the stormwater prior to discharge from the site.
Inlet structures are provided, where appropriate, at culvert entrances to reduce inlet
velocities. Outlet structures would facilitate discharge control, pond draining and
emergency overflow. Under normal operation after closure of the landfill, the basin outlets
would discharge at a relatively constant flow rate to extend the discharge period to
effectively manage downstream channel erosion and flooding. Basin grading and
compartmentalization allow for sediment removal and provide storage capacity in each
series of ponds for runoff from a 100-year design storm.
The proposed stormwater management methods would provide for stormwater quantity
and quality control in an economic and effective manner. In accordance with the
requirements of the MSGP, GP-0-12-001, the landfill would continue to perform quarterly
visual monitoring and annual benchmark sampling of stormwater outfalls from the site, as
determined by the relevant SWPPP.
DEIS Area 7
29
The removal of the existing leachate storage lagoons and their replacement with covered
leachate storage facilities in the southeast portion of the site would also reduce potential
impacts to surface water quality related to leachate storage.
The Area 7 Development is outside of the existing mapped flood plain and the proposed
construction within the anticipated future flood plain consists only of the installation of an
access road and does not include any waste footprint. As discussed above, the proposed
development within the future flood plain would not impact upstream properties, and
therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
2.5 Groundwater
The Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report (SIR) (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001) describes
groundwater flow beneath the facility and assigns three water-bearing zones:
An upper water-bearing zone where the water table is present.
An intermediate water-bearing zone at the glacial deposit/bedrock interface.
A lower water-bearing zone in the bedrock.
The information collected under the Area 7 Development Hydrogeologic Investigation, and
discussed in the Area 7 Development SIR (submitted as Attachment #2 to the Part 360
Application Engineering Report) continues to support the division of groundwater into the
three distinct water-bearing zones as summarized below.
2.5.1.1
Upper Water-Bearing Zone
The saturated glaciolacustrine silt and clay, as well as the till, act as a single lowpermeability, unconfined, hydrogeologic zone. The water table is found within the till in
the western portion of the site and in the glaciolacustrine silt and clay in the eastern portion
of the site. Thus, the upper water-bearing zone is not coincident with a single stratigraphic
unit.
Groundwater flow in the upper water-bearing zone is generally to the east toward the
Mohawk River, which represents the regional groundwater discharge area. Historically,
localized discharge points have been reported associated with topographically low areas
across the site. However, these localized areas are no longer present following re-grading
and development of the site.
Water level data collected on November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 was used to construct the
upper water-bearing zone potentiometric surface maps, as shown in Figure 2-6.
Groundwater flow as mapped by the most recently collected data is generally consistent
DEIS Area 7
30
(absent localized discharge points as described above) with mapping completed as part of
previous investigations.
2.5.1.2
Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
The interface between the saturated glacial deposits and top of bedrock acts as a single,
moderately permeable, confined, hydrogeological zone with groundwater flow to the
Mohawk River to the east. Historically, localized upward gradients were observed between
this zone and the upper water-bearing zone near topographically low areas of the site.
However, these topographically low areas are no longer present and downward vertical
gradients now dominate with the strongest downward gradients observed at the higher
elevations to the west and decreasing to the east towards the Mohawk River. Upward
gradients are present between the intermediate and upper water-bearing zones on the east
side of the site along the Mohawk River.
Infiltration into the underlying bedrock from the intermediate water-bearing zone is
minimal given the higher hydraulic conductivity of the intermediate water-bearing zone in
comparison to the low hydraulic conductivity values within the bedrock. This disparity in
hydraulic conductivity between the intermediate and bedrock water-bearing zones results
in predominantly horizontal flow within the intermediate zone with little vertical flow to
the underling bedrock.
Water level data collected on November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 was used to construct the
intermediate water-bearing zone potentiometric surface maps, as shown in Figure 2-7.
Groundwater flow as mapped by the most recently collected data is generally consistent
with mapping completed as part of previous investigations.
2.5.1.3
Lower Water Bearing Zone
As described in the Area 6 Supplemental SIR (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001) groundwater flow
within the bedrock is primarily contained in secondary features such as fractures, joints,
bedding, and cleavage planes. Groundwater flow is to the east, with discharge to the
Mohawk River. As described more fully within the Area 7 Development SIR, the lower
(bedrock) water bearing zone is not part of the critical stratigraphic section as defined in
Part 360 and therefore is not required to be monitored.
2.5.1.4
Groundwater Usage
2.5.1.4.1 Residential Wells

The Area 6 Supplemental SIR (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001) and current research indicate that all
residents and businesses located within a one-mile downgradient and one-quarter mile
upgradient radius of the site are served by a public water supply. In addition, the
downgradient perimeter of the site is proximate and parallel to the Mohawk River, which
represents the regional groundwater discharge location, and there is no development
DEIS Area 7
31
between the facility property boundary and the Mohawk River to the east. Two privatelyowned wells are located approximately 1,800 feet northwest (upgradient) and
approximately 3,400 feet southeast (crossgradient) of the site.
2.5.1.4.2 Primary/Principal Aquifers
Primary Aquifers as defined within the Division of Water Technical & Operational
Guidance Series (TOGS) 2.1.3 are highly productive aquifers presently utilized as sources
of water supply by major municipal water supply systems. Principal Aquifers are
aquifers known to be highly productive or whose geology suggests abundant potential
water supply, but which are not intensively used as sources of water supply by major
municipal systems at the present time. No Principal or Primary Aquifers are present at the
site; however, an area defined as producing 10 to 100 gallons per minute (i.e., the lower
capacity category considered principal aquifers) is mapped immediately south of
Arrowhead Lane (Potential Yields of Wells in Unconsolidated Aquifers in Upstate New
York Hudson Mohawk Sheet, Bugliosi, et. al.).
The Town of Colonie Solid Waste Disposal Facility is located in the far eastern portion of
the mapped region of the Schenectady-Niskayuna Sole Source Aquifer. However, the
geology (consisting principally of low-permeability silts and clays) is inconsistent with
productive aquifer deposits and the alluvium underlying the northeast corner of the study
area is of insufficient thickness and areal extent to meet the definition of a Principal
Aquifer. The absence of a productive aquifer is further supported by the limited use of
groundwater within the area and availability of public water as described above.
2.5.1.5
Groundwater Quality
Existing groundwater quality at the site was evaluated through the use of data collected
under the current Area 5 and Area 6 Environmental Monitoring Programs (EMP) from
seventeen (17) existing monitoring wells, and from the first and second rounds of
groundwater samples collected from seven (7) monitoring wells installed as part of the
Area 7 Development Hydrogeologic Investigation. The first round of samples under the
current investigation were collected in December 2013 and the second set in June 2014. The
collected samples were analyzed for Part 360 expanded and baseline parameters,
respectively.
Groundwater samples were not collected from bedrock wells, as these locations are
identified in the currently approved Environmental Monitoring and Site Analytical Plan
(EMSAP) as contingency sampling locations. Likewise, based on the existing water quality
data from Areas 5 and 6, the Town received a waiver of the requirement for analysis of
dioxins and furans. Analytical data reports are provided in Appendix E of the SIR,
included as an appendix to the Part 360 Application.
Water quality samples collected under the current investigation are generally consistent
with results that have been reported under the Area 5 and Area 6 monitoring plans.
DEIS Area 7
32
Localized impacts to groundwater are observed and are likely associated with the historical
solid waste activities at the site.
Existing water quality can be divided into four distinct regions: up-gradient upper
water-bearing zone, up-gradient intermediate water-bearing zone, down-gradient upper
water-bearing zone, and down-gradient intermediate water bearing zone. Each of these
subcategories is discussed below. The monitoring wells used in the evaluation are shown
in Figure 2-8.
2.5.1.5.1 Up-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone
The up-gradient upper water-bearing zone samples contained concentrations above the
6 NYCRR Part 703 Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS). These included the metals
aluminum, antimony, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, selenium, sodium and
vanadium, as well as general chemistry parameters sulfate, phenolics, total dissolved solids
(TDS) and cyanide. In addition, low levels of two volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were
detected within the up-gradient upper water-bearing zone, with benzene being the only
constituent above its GWQS.
2.5.1.5.2 Up-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
The up-gradient intermediate water-bearing zone samples contained concentrations above
the 6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS. These included the metals aluminum, antimony, chromium,
cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, sodium and vanadium, as well
as general chemistry parameters sulfate, phenolics, total dissolved solids (TDS) and
cyanide. In addition, VOCs and pesticides were detected at J qualified values (value was
laboratory estimated: below the laboratory reporting limit but above the method detection
limit), but their concentrations were below their respective GWQS.
2.5.1.5.3 Down-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone
The down-gradient upper water-bearing zone samples contained concentrations above the
6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS. These included the metals aluminum, antimony, boron,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, sodium
and vanadium, as well as general chemistry parameters chloride, sulfate, ammonia,
phenolics and TDS. In addition, VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and
pesticides were detected at J qualified values, with two pesticides (aldrin and dieldrin)
above their respective GWQS.
2.5.1.5.4 Down-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
The down-gradient intermediate water-bearing zone samples contained concentrations
above the 6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS. These included the metals aluminum, antimony,
barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel,
potassium, selenium, sodium and vanadium, as well as general chemistry parameters
DEIS Area 7
33
chloride, ammonia, phenolics and TDS. In addition, VOCs, SVOCs and pesticides were
detected at J qualified values, with only three pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin and chlordane)
above their respective GWQS.
The observed concentrations from the Area 7 Development Hydrogeological Investigation
wells for both the upper and intermediate down-gradient water bearing zones are likely
related to the locations of these wells being directly below and down gradient of historical
solid waste.

Potential impacts to groundwater resources at the site would be significantly minimized by
the proposed Area 7 Development design and hydrogeologic setting of the site location,
and the Part 360 design standards and groundwater monitoring requirements.

In accordance with the Part 360 requirements, the liner system design would provide for
effective primary and secondary leachate collection and removal. The proposed liner
system would meet, at a minimum, the requirements of Section 360-2.13, which limit the
leachate head on the primary composite liner to not exceed one (1) foot at the expected
leachate flow capacity. Due to the fact that the proposed liner would be constructed over
37 acres of existing historic landfill (Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4), the reduction in recharge
associated with the Area 7 Development is anticipated to result in a reduction in the
potential for impacting groundwater. The proposed final grading would also facilitate
stormwater runoff, and therefore, help to reduce leachate generation over the existing
grading at the landfill.
The landfill design and operational features that would be implemented to significantly
minimize the potential for impacts to groundwater quality and the monitoring programs
proposed to detect a release from the landfill are described below.
2.5.3.1
Dual Composite Liner System
The first line of defense for groundwater protection is the landfill dual composite liner
system. The liner system contains two separate leachate collection systems (primary and
secondary), and two separate low-permeability protective barrier layers where the liner
slope is less than twenty-five percent (25%). Primary leachate would be collected by a
series of perforated pipes and a 24-inch stone collection layer placed above the sloped liner
surface. Downward migration of leachate through the liner would be minimized by the
runoff-inducing slope and high conductivity of the leachate collection materials, which
would manage the buildup of hydrostatic head on the liner.
The secondary leachate collection system (beneath the primary system) consists of a
geocomposite drain (GCD) combined with a sand drainage layer with an embedded
DEIS Area 7
34
perforated pipe network. The system is designed to not only provide for detection of
leakage from the primary liner system, but to function as a second liner/leachate collection
system that can effectively convey leachate. The secondary leachate collection system has
been designed to allow separate and distinct monitoring of each subcell of the primary liner
system. Both the primary leachate collection system and leachate detection system
(secondary leachate collection system) would be monitored during the operational and
post-closure periods.
2.5.3.2
Overlay Liner
As described more fully within the SIR, groundwater quality data collected from wells
installed down gradient of the proposed development area indicated exceedances of water
quality criteria that were attributed to historical waste disposal activities. As a conservative
(i.e., low) estimate, infiltration rates through low-permeability vegetated caps similar to
those within the overfill area are on the order of 100 gallons per acre per day. Construction
of a double composite liner essentially reduces the infiltration rate to near zero.
Accordingly, construction of a double composite liner over 37 acres of existing landfill
cover would result in a reduction of roughly 3,700 gallons per day. As the generation of
leachate and the associated potential impacts to groundwater are directly related to the
volume of recharge, this reduction is anticipated to improve existing down-gradient
groundwater quality.
2.5.3.3
Porewater Drainage System
To maintain heads below the double composite liner system, a porewater drainage system
would be installed on the prepared subgrade (beneath the secondary soil liner) of the Area
7 Development in areas where the subgrade elevation is below the seasonal high
groundwater table elevation. The porewater drainage system would be dewatered until
such time as the head above the liner system is equalized by the liner system and overlying
waste, and would help provide a firm, stable foundation upon which the liner system
would be constructed.
The components of the porewater drainage system are as follows:
A geosynthetic composite drainage (GCD) layer as a blanket drain over the area in
which porewater collection is necessary.
Piping along the low points of the porewater drainage system to collect the
groundwater and convey it to a sump.
A sump and submersible pump from which collected porewater would be pumped
to the site-wide stormwater system.
Both Area 5 and Area 6 of the existing landfill were constructed with similar porewater
drainage systems.
DEIS Area 7
35
2.5.3.4
Leachate Storage
The removal of the existing leachate storage lagoons and replacement with leachate storage
tanks and secondary containment in the southeast portion of the site would reduce
potential impacts to groundwater quality related to leachate storage through the
installation of a new system constructed to Part 360 standards.
2.5.3.5
Groundwater Quality Monitoring
In the unlikely event of a landfill leachate release, monitoring of the primary and secondary
leachate collection systems, porewater drainage system beneath the landfill, and
groundwater monitoring well network around the perimeter of the landfill would allow
detection and remediation of such a release before it could enter the environment.
Groundwater monitoring continues to be conducted on a quarterly basis for the existing
landfill facility, which provides a mechanism for detecting potential contaminant releases
from the landfill. Following construction of the Area 7 Development, groundwater would
continue to be monitored in accordance with the revised EMP for the site, including both
samples from groundwater monitoring wells and the porewater drainage system. The
revised EMP has been submitted to NYSDEC for approval with the Part 360 permit
application.
The revised EMP also provides the basis for evaluating groundwater quality within the
proposed Area 7 Development during the landfill operational and post-closure periods.
Existing water quality values (EWQVs) would be established for the development area
monitoring well network based on pre-operational groundwater quality data. Pursuant to
the Part 360 regulations, the EWQVs and current NYSDEC ambient water quality standards
would be utilized to determine if statistically significant increases in parameter
concentrations have occurred during each quarterly monitoring event. Specifically, a
significant increase is defined in the Part 360 regulations as a parameter concentration
which exceeds the EWQV by three standard deviations or exceeds both the EWQV and
regulatory guidance value for that parameter. In the event that statistically significant
increases are identified during the future monitoring events, the EMP also specifies the
necessary contingency monitoring that would be required to further evaluate the significant
increases and characterize potential impacts. The proposed monitoring program is
discussed in detail in the EMP.
2.6 Terrestrial Resources

The site consists largely of the existing landfill and associated roads, storage facilities,
compost and debris areas, water treatment areas and offices. The undeveloped portions of
the site consist of mowed field, old field, and successional upland woodland or
DEIS Area 7
36
forested/emergent wetlands. Most of these areas have been disturbed by the landfill
construction and operation.
2.6.1.1
Wetlands
As part of the Part 360 permit modification application for the Area 7 Development, a
delineation of "Waters of the United States" was performed by Bagdon Environmental on
approximately 167 acres of land owned by the Town that encompasses the Area 7
Development project limits. Waters of the United States were identified and delineated
using the criteria established under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the
United States, as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, include wetlands,
intermittent streams, natural drainage courses, lakes and ponds.
The focus of the delineation study was to identify wetlands boundaries on Town property
(no streams are present on site). Wetland boundaries were delineated using the routine
on-site delineation method, three-parameter approach in accordance with the 1987 ACOE
Wetlands Delineation Manual. In addition to the wetlands delineation, additional data was
collected on soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife present in the wetlands to further
evaluate the wetlands communities.
Based upon the delineation, approximately 4.64 acres of wetlands were identified on the
167-acre area investigated, including federal wetlands and NYSDEC-regulated wetlands.
These wetlands are generally topographically driven and are the result of landfill
construction and activity. Much of the water on site is directed via extensive subsurface
pipe systems, culverts and riprap drainages, manmade berms and water treatment ponds.
Almost no natural or previously existing water features can be found within the area.
On-site meetings were held among representatives of Bagdon Environmental, Cornerstone,
NYSDEC and ACOE to verify the wetland limits in the field delineated by Bagdon
Environmental. Upon field concurrence with the agencies, Bagdon Environmental
submitted the delineation report to the ACOE.
After review and subsequent
correspondence, ACOE issued a letter of jurisdictional determination on April 16, 2014,
confirming the wetland areas as follows. The delineation report, revised delineation figure,
and letter of jurisdictional determination are included in Appendix C of this DEIS.
DEIS Area 7
37
Wetland Designation
A
B
C-1
C-2
D
E
F
Delineated Wetlands
Type
Emergent
Emergent-Forested
Isolated
Isolated
Isolated
Emergent/Roadside
Emergent
Total =
Size (ac)
0.13
2.80
0.54
0.27
0.002
0.77
0.13
4.64
Wetlands A and B in the northern and western portion of the property are under federal
jurisdiction. Areas C-1, C-2, and D, which are associated with existing landfill drainage
systems at the south end of the site, were determined to be isolated and therefore, nonjurisdictional.
Wetlands E and F, located in a deed restricted area on the eastern edge of the site, are part
of the NYSDEC-mapped wetland TN-10. These wetlands are not within the proposed
Area 7 Development disturbance limits and were delineated primarily to determine the
estimated limits of the wetland mitigation Project that was completed during the
development of landfill Area 6.
Common species found in the forested and emergent wetlands include boxelder (Acer
negundo), red ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), soft rush (Juncus
effusus), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), barnyard grass (Echinochloa sp.), green bulrush
(Scirpus atrovirens), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria).
Invasive common reed
(Phragmites australis) dominates the wetlands, as well as the disturbed upland areas.
2.6.1.2
Forested Area
Common woody species found in the forested upland areas of the site include buckthorn
(Rhamnus cathartica), green ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and poplars
(Populus tremula and Populus deltoides). Upland herbaceous species include goldenrods
(Solidago canadensis, S. rugosa), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Queen Annes lace
(Daucus carota), timothy (Phleum pretense), chickory (Cichorium intybus), birds foot
trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), bedstraw (Galium sp.), selfheal (Prunella vulgaris), clover
(Trifolium sp.), and ragweed (Ambrosia artimisifolia).
The forested upland woodlands constitute a small portion of the landfill site and do not
have significant habitat value.
DEIS Area 7
38

The Area 7 Development facilities are proposed within the boundaries of regulated
wetlands. As shown in Figure 2-9, portions of federally-regulated wetlands A and B would
be impacted by the proposed Area 7 Development. A small area (0.01 acres) of Wetland A
would be disturbed to provide an outlet for a proposed stormwater pond and 0.54 acres of
emergent wetland and 0.88 acres of forested wetland, both Wetland B, would be impacted
by construction of the proposed perimeter berm. The disturbance of approximately
1.43 acres of federally-regulated wetlands would require an Individual Section 404 permit
from ACOE to impact Waters of the U.S. The wetlands that would be impacted as a part of
the proposed Area 7 Development are in previously disturbed landfill areas and in some
cases are over existing waste/fill placement areas.
While there is no proposed disturbance of NYSDEC-regulated wetlands E and F, there
would be an impact to the 100-foot buffer of wetland E associated with the proposed Area 7
Development construction and operation, specifically the removal of the existing leachate
storage lagoons (to be replaced with leachate storage tanks) and installation of perimeter
access roads and berms. The site development and the proposed use affecting the 1.32 acres
of buffer would be consistent with the existing use (constructed berms that are part of a
waste management facility). The impacts to the buffer area would require a Section 401
Water Quality Certification and an Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit from NYSDEC.
Impacts to the surrounding wetlands that would not be disturbed would be effectively
managed by the stormwater and leachate management systems employed by the landfill,
discussed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of this DEIS.
A small wooded area (successional forest) located within the proposed Area 7 Development
area would be eliminated by the Project. The remaining areas proposed for development
are already developed, largely as part of the existing solid waste management facility. The
small wooded area is located immediately north of the existing transfer station and parallel
to US Route 9, as seen in Figure 2-10. Other small portions of young successional
woodlands would be impacted along the eastern Project periphery and also in the vicinity
of the existing treatment lagoons. A total of approximately 6.6 acres of successional
woodlands would be impacted by the Area 7 Development.

The Area 7 Development has been carefully designed to minimize impacts to the
environment. Access to the site using existing infrastructure and the required footprint of
the Project necessitate unavoidable impacts to Waters of the U.S. The portion of wetland A
and B proposed for disturbance is located in an integral area of the proposed landfill
development area and cannot be avoided for both practicable and economic reasons.
Avoidance of these wetlands and applicable watershed to maintain their hydrology would
DEIS Area 7
39
result in a significant loss of the available Area 7 Development volume. The Town is
applying for wetland permits from NYSDEC and ACOE.
There is limited opportunity for wetland mitigation on the site that would be both
environmentally and economically feasible for wetland creation or restoration. Primary
limitations are the inability to excavate due to landfill material and the pronounced
topography over most of the landfill area. The only portion of the site that has less
topographic variability is along the eastern edge of the site; however, this area contains a
NYSDEC-mapped wetland bordered by mature upland forest, resulting in limited available
area for mitigation needs. The rest of the landfill site is developed with office buildings,
facilities, and landfill activities, leaving no other area for on-site wetland creation or
restoration. The area immediately surrounding the landfill is bordered by the Mohawk
River to the east and residential and commercial development to the south and west,
leaving no area adjacent to the landfill available for mitigation. An area immediately north
of the landfill was considered for mitigation; however, it was deemed unsuitable due to the
presence of an inactive hazardous waste disposal site (Unnamed Area).
Given the lack of suitable mitigation options on site, and as recommended by the ACOE,
the Town and CRL have evaluated utilizing the Wetland Trust Approved Susquehanna
Basin Headwaters and Adjacent Basins In-Lieu Fee Program (a preferred mitigation option
as set forth in the Mitigation Rule) and are proposing to use the program to satisfy
mitigation requirements for this project.
The Town and CRL will provide, as indicated in the wetland application and subsequently
confirmed through additional discussions with the ACOE, 3.2 acres of credits in the
Susquehanna Basin Headwaters and Adjacent Basins In-Lieu Fee Program. A letter of credit
can be seen in Appendix D in the October 26, 2015 correspondence to the ACOE.
Overall improved water quality and water quality treatment would be provided through
the protection and preservation of additional wetland and upland buffer adjacent to the
Mohawk River. The Project would result in no significant degradation to Waters of the U.S.
and would be in compliance with all other applicable laws.
There is no proposed mitigation for the disturbance of the forested areas on the Project site.
The 6.6 acres of upland woodlands being disturbed by the Area 7 Development do not hold
significant ecological value as discussed further in Section 2.7.
2.7 Wildlife Resources

Most of the proposed affected area is active landfill with some peripheral areas containing
old field/disturbed areas (old capped landfill), successional woodlands, young forested
wetland and emergent wetlands. These areas have been disturbed in the past by previous
DEIS Area 7
40
landfill activities, including the existing wetlands and successional forest areas. None of the
vegetation communities on site, or adjacent to the site, are representative of rare ecological
communities. Many of these areas contain extensive stands of the invasive reed grass
(Phragmites austrailus), indicative of previous soil and plant disturbance.
A
comprehensive list of plant and wildlife species observed on the site is presented in
Appendix C of this DEIS.
As with all operating landfills, a number of birds congregate to forage in the active waste
disposal areas. These species consist primarily of gulls, especially the ring-billed gull
(Larus delawarensis); crows, including the common crow (Corvus brachrynchous) and fish
crow (Corvus ossifragus); European starling (Sturnus vulgaris); and turkey vultures
(Cathartes aura). In addition, the presence of rodents and other small mammals attracted
to these areas draw raptors such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Other species
observed at the landfill are listed in Appendix C of this DEIS.

Wildlife that utilize the active landfill areas would experience some disruption during
Area 7 Development construction/operation and likely tend to move around the site to
other areas with active waste disposal. These small shifts in habitat location would occur
without loss of habitat availability.
Most of the species observed, as well as those likely to inhabit adjacent undisturbed areas
outside of the Area 7 Development limits, would continue to be present in the area.
Species that utilize the previously capped areas now in various stages of old field habitat
would seek other areas as the proposed Project is constructed and operated throughout the
life of the landfill. As areas are again capped and vegetated, they would revert to field
habitat used by these same species.
The landfill facility currently implements a wildlife hazard management plan to control
nuisance birds that may be attracted to the landfill, and it would continue to do so. Any
additional measures needed to control nuisance species would be taken if identified as
being necessary.
Rodenticides are not proposed for use at the site or any of its facilities. The concern is that
of secondary poisoning to non-target species such as raptors that feed on the poisoned
animals. Avoiding the use of rodenticide should negate these impacts.
2.7.2.1
Bald Eagles
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), New York Natural Heritage Program
(NYNHP) and NYSDEC Region 4 office (Schenectady) were contacted for information on
Endangered Species and significant ecological communities. According to the NYNHP
letter (dated 6/12/12 and included in Appendix E of this DEIS) there are no known
DEIS Area 7
41
state-listed or federally-listed (or proposed for listing) endangered or threatened species

found in the immediate vicinity of the site.
However, upon consultation with NYSDEC wildlife biologist Karl Parker (Region 4), the
applicant was asked to address potential Project impacts to the state-listed (threatened) bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) due to its known presence in the area, including a
documented nest site. While the bald eagle has been de-listed at the federal level, it is still
protected under federal law by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Lacy Act.
Bagdon Environmental conducted surveys for bald eagles in the late winter/early spring of
2014 and determined that while present in the area, no impacts would occur to this species
as a result of the Project. A report of findings from these surveys is included in Appendix E
of this DEIS. This report has been reviewed and accepted by NYSDEC.
Bald eagles are generally associated with the environs of the adjacent Mohawk River and its
abundant fish supply as their primary food source. Bagdon Environmentals surveys found
that their movements and activities were primarily along the Mohawk River. Bald eagles
are known to fly over the landfill and on one occasion an eagle was observed chasing prey
on a closed portion of the landfill. However, their presence is generally incidental to the
landfill and focused on foraging activities along the Mohawk River. As noted in the report,
a bald eagle nest is located northwest of the landfill along the edge of the Mohawk River.
Landfill activities, including the proposed development, are unlikely to have any impact on
the bald eagle.
As stated in the bald eagle report, the other potential hazard for eagles associated with
landfills is the presence of gas flares utilized to control methane build-up. Instances at
other landfills have been documented where eagles have been injured or killed while
perching on the burners or flying over them while the flare was operating. The only flare
for the project is immediately adjacent to the existing LFGTE plant. This plant has been in
operation for a number of years and is a very unlikely location for eagles to perch. Also, the
height of the existing gas flare is lower than surrounding structures such as nearby trees
and poles that provide more elevated perches for raptors. Red-tailed hawks have been
observed on occasions using these higher perches. Since there are no additional burners
proposed as part of the development, there is no anticipated impact.
2.7.2.2
Northern Long-eared Bat
A recent initiative has been proposed by the USFWS to list the Northern Long-eared Bat
(Myotis septentrionalis) as endangered throughout its range to protect its severely declining
populations. The Northern Long-eared Bat was relatively common in New York State prior
to the wide-spread fungal infection known as White-nosed Syndrome. There is currently
very little available information on the location of Northern Long-eared Bats in New York
State due to the decimation of populations by the fungus. Similar impacts have occurred to
DEIS Area 7
42
the endangered Indiana bat throughout the northeast. Note: The Indiana bat is no longer
considered extant in Albany County, and therefore the Project would have No Effect on this
species.
According to the NYNHP:
Northern myotis (also referred to as Northern Long-eared Bat) were relatively
common in New York prior to the first appearance of white-nose syndrome (WNS)
in 2006. They have since declined dramatically with only an estimated 2% of the preWNS population numbers remaining in 2012 (NYSDEC 2012). The northern myotis
is now one of the least commonly encountered species during winter hibernacula
surveys (NYSDEC unpublished data).
Northern myotis have declined approximately 98% since white-nose syndrome
began in New York in 2006. Similar declines have occurred in the northeastern part
of their range (Turner et al. 2011; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Numbers
dropped from 911 to only 18 individuals counted among 36 hibernacula sites
repeatedly surveyed from 2007-2012 (NYSDEC 2012). These numbers do not
represent complete counts of the statewide population, however, since this species
may roost individually and in crevices prohibiting a complete count of the
remaining population.
Northern Long-eared Bats utilize habitats similar to Indiana bats for summer time maternal
roosts. In general, suitable roost trees are over 3-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) such
as snags (dead trees/tree sections) and trees with ex-foliating bark. No such trees are
present in the area where the initial construction for the Area 7 Development would occur.
The initial work would involve the installation of the new leachate storage tanks in the
southeastern portion of the site, removal of the existing leachate storage lagoons in the
northeast portion of the site, and installation of piping between these areas and south into
existing sewers to Fonda Road. Subsequent phases would involve some tree removal,
particularly in the northwest corner of the site (immediately north of the existing transfer
station).
The low potential for suitable roost trees within the disturbance area indicates that an
impact would be unlikely to occur to Northern Long-eared Bats if trees were disturbed
during the summer roost season. Moreover, the likelihood of impact is extremely low given
the low populations of this species and the fact that trees can be removed outside the
summer roost period (i.e., trees would be cut between November 1st and March 31st).
Therefore, a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination is valid for the Northern
Long-eared Bat as a result of the Area 7 Development.
2.7.2.3
While-tailed Deer
The white-tailed deer is common throughout the site and is often observed on the field
habitat present on closed portions of the landfill. Deer utilize the forested areas adjacent to
DEIS Area 7
43
the landfill as well as a variety of other habitats near the site. The State wetland in the
southeast corner of the site appears to provide suitable refuge for deer from the nearby
residential and commercial activities. This area remains protected under deed restrictions
and would not be impacted by the Project.
Deer stands erected by hunters have been observed in these wooded areas in the southeast
corner of the site, however, hunting is not sanctioned due to liability issues. It is assumed
that other areas nearby may be accessible to hunters for recreational purposes with the
benefit of controlling the deer populations to an acceptable level.

The proposed Area 7 Development is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse
impacts on wildlife resources, and therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.
2.8 Land Use and Community Character

2.8.1 Land Use and Zoning
2.8.1.1
Existing Environmental Setting
2.8.1.1.1 Surrounding Land Use

The landfill is located on the bank of the Mohawk River in the northeast corner of Albany
County (pop. 304,204) in the Capital District Region of New York State. The Project site is
within the Town of Colonie (pop. 81,591) and directly across the river from the townships
of Halfmoon (pop. 21,535) and Waterford (pop. 8,423) in southern Saratoga County (pop.
219,607). The surrounding area is a moderately populated suburban to urban landscape.
To the west of the Project site is US Route 9, with mixed commercial, residential/planned
residential properties west of US Route 9. There are several residential and commercial
parcels located between the site and US Route 9 at the sites southwestern corner, including
a church. North of the site is a commercial property (currently unoccupied due to a recent
fire); the Mohawk River is farther to the north. To the east of the site is Cohoes-Crescent
Road, with the Mohawk River immediately east of the road. The properties south of the
site are commercial and industrial in nature and include the Town-owned parcels.
Residential uses are present southwest of the landfill property and a new development
(including both commercial and residential uses) is under construction west of US Route 9
from the southern portions of the existing landfill.
2.8.1.1.2 Open and Recreational Spaces
The Project site is located within two heritage corridors. The Erie Canalway National
Heritage Corridor encompasses 524 miles of New Yorks canal system and the surrounding
communities. It works to preserve the heritage of the canal system and foster tourism
DEIS Area 7
44
within the corridor. Lock 6 of the Erie Canal is located due east of the Project site across the
Mohawk River. The Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor is a New York State heritage area
that stretches from Albany to Rome, New York, including eight counties within the
Mohawk Valley. State Heritage Areas help preserve and develop areas that have special
significance to New York State.
The Project site is also located near the Mohawk Towpath Byway, a National Scenic Byway
recognized by the U.S. Department of Transportation as having an intrinsic historic quality.
The Byway is a series of local, county, and state highways that follow the historic route of
the Erie Canal between Schenectady and Waterford/Cohoes. The byway route includes
Cohoes-Crescent Road, which wraps around the east and north side of the landfill, and
continues north on US Route 9 to cross Crescent Bridge into Saratoga County.
The proposed Area 7 Development is not located near National Forests or Parks, State
Forests or Parks, Forest Preserve Lands, or Wildlife Management Areas. It is also not
located near open space priority areas, as determined by the 2014 Draft New York State
Open Space Conservation Plan, prepared by NYSDEC.
The Colonie Town Park is located approximately 0.5-miles to the southwest of the landfill
property. The 175-acre park is the largest park in the Town and consist of the Town pool,
softball and football fields, tennis courts, and a boat launch on the Mohawk River. The park
is due west of the Fonda Road intersection with US Route 9, and the park entrance is at
71 Schermerhorn Road, which has access to US Route 9 farther south of Fonda Road.
According to the Town of Colonie Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Strategy and
Action Plan, the Colonie Bike-Hike Path is part of the statewide Canalway Trail from
Buffalo to Albanya 340-mile linear park, or Greenway. The Town of Colonie maintains
the 7.4 miles of trail within its confines, although approximately 2 miles of the trail is
owned by New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Bike-Hike Path near
the site runs just south of, and parallel to Fonda Road, and then adjacent to the southern
edge of Colonie Town Park.
2.8.1.1.3 Other Properties
After Capital Region Landfills, Inc. and the Town of Colonie executed the operating
agreement in 2011, a review of property records identified two parcels that had been
landfilled decades ago as part of the Towns landfill operations and were encompassed by
other Town of Colonie properties, but The Town was not the owner of record. From 2014 to
2016, the ownership of these two parcels (parcels 2.3-2-7 and 2.3-2-8, which have historically
been part of the landfill facility and were landfilled decades ago) has been corrected to
properly reflect the historical use of these parcels by the Town of Colonie. Both parcels are
now owned by the Town of Colonie.
DEIS Area 7
45
2.8.1.1.4 Unnamed Area

The proposed Area 7 Development would occur to the south of an historical disposal area
identified as the Unnamed Area. The boundary of the Unnamed Area as seen in Figure 1-2
is based on the area indicated as Area Filled Early-1970s in prior investigations (URS
Consultants, 1991) north of the drainage culvert which has been previously used to
demarcate the Unnamed Area. The Unnamed Area reportedly accepted MSW and
incinerator ash beginning in the 1960s until it ceased accepting waste in 1972. The
Unnamed Area is unlined and has a vegetated soil cover (installed in 1983 and
approximately 300 feet north of the Area 7 Development limits) incorporating a lowpermeability soil component and covers and area approximately 12 acres in size. The
Unnamed Area is a listed as a Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site on the
NYSDEC Registry (Site Code 401004), and in accordance with Section 360-1.9(g)(1),
sufficient information must be provided to NYSDEC to determine whether the proposed
activity (Area 7 Development) would interfere significantly with potential, ongoing, or
completed inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial program, or would expose the
environment or the public health to a significantly increased threat of harm.
In accordance with 360-1.9(g)(1), the following data needs are presented and discussed
relative to the proposed Area 7 Development proximate to the Unnamed Area:
A general description of the hydrogeologic setting, including description of the

geology in the vicinity of the inactive hazardous waste disposal site, the occurrence
of groundwater in the vicinity of the site, the direction of groundwater flow, and the
extent and direction of movement of the contaminant plume.
Description and evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial actions taken to date at

the classified site and/or discussion and preliminary evaluation of appropriate
alternative remedial programs or supplemental remedial programs that would
provide the required remediation of the classified site.
A discussion of the effects the proposed development may have on contemplated or

completed remediation and a discussion of the constraints the proposed
development may have on the alternative or supplemental remedial programs,
including the preclusion of alternatives and the availability of sufficient land to
implement, monitor, operate, maintain and modify, if necessary, an alternative
remedial program.
Information relative to the sites geologic and hydrogeologic setting is presented in Section
2.3 and Section 2.5 of this DEIS and discussed in greater detail within the Area 7
Development SIR submitted as Attachment #2 to the Engineering Report.
DEIS Area 7
46
Remedial Actions Completed for the Unnamed Area

The Unnamed Area reportedly accepted MSW and incinerator ash beginning in the 1960s
until it ceased accepting waste in 1972. The Unnamed Area is approximately 12 acres in
size, is unlined, and was closed, capped and vegetated in 1983. The original cap included
approximately 36 inches of clay underneath a 6-inch layer of vegetated topsoil. In 2006 the
top soil component of this cap was removed and significant quantities of additional
low-permeability clay were added above the original clay cap and graded for positive
drainage, significantly improving the cap in this area.
At this time, there are no alternative or supplemental remedial actions planned for the
Unnamed Area. However, such actions, as necessary, may include repairs and/or
upgrades to the cap, installation of leachate collection lines along selected perimeter areas
of the waste mass, or the collection and treatment of groundwater/leachate within selected
areas.
Effect of the Area 7 Development on the Unnamed Area Remedial Actions
As noted above, the Unnamed Area soil cover is approximately 300 feet north of the
proposed Area 7 Development footprint and associated infrastructure. Access to the
Unnamed Area would not be affected by the Area 7 Development and the perimeter of the
unnamed area remains fully accessible. In addition, groundwater flow is predominantly to
the east such that the two areas are cross gradient to each other. The Area 7 Development
would, therefore, result in no adverse impact on the performance of the completed
Unnamed Area remedial actions (capping), the ability to implement repairs to the existing
cap, or the implementation of alternative or supplemental remedial actions.
Monitorability
As described above and in more detail within Section 2.5, groundwater flow at the site is
generally to the east with discharge to the nearby Mohawk River. As a consequence, the
Unnamed Area is located cross gradient to the proposed Area 7 Development and
groundwater flow paths originating beneath each of the areas can be monitored
independently. Likewise, there is sufficient room for the installation of monitoring wells
between the two areas, such that cross-gradient flow paths may also be monitored.
The Area 7 Development would include the construction of a double-composite liner in
accordance with current Part 360 requirements. As such, the volume and quantity of
liquids in the secondary containment system would be monitored such that a potential
release from Area 7 would be identifiable and distinguishable from a release from the
Unnamed Area or other areas of the facility. As described in Section 2.5, groundwater
impacts are currently present down gradient of Area 7 due to past waste disposal and it is
anticipated that the reduction in recharge associated with the Area 7 Development would
result in improved water quality. However, irrespective of the anticipated changes in water
DEIS Area 7
47
quality, the EMP for the site specifies quarterly groundwater quality sampling. The data
from this sampling would create a database of water quality specific to each well to be
developed. Water quality data from future sampling events would then be statistically
compared to the historical water quality such that statistically significant changes could be
further assessed. Further assessment may include additional sampling, evaluation of
potential changes in concentration of leachate indicator parameters, comparison of
analytical data from the wells to that obtained from the Area 7 secondary collection system,
secondary collection system liquid volumes, use of graphical methods of water quality
assessment such as Stiff and Piper Trilinear diagrams, etc. Through this suite of assessment
methods, the objective of differentiating current or future impacts from the existing areas
can be met.
In summary, the site hydrogeology, the construction of Area 7 with a double composite
liner, and the on-going EMP allows for separate monitorability between Area 7, the
Unnamed Area and other waste disposal areas present at the site.
2.8.1.1.5 Zoning
The Town of Colonie solid waste management facility, including the landfill, is located on
contiguous Town-owned parcels comprising approximately 212 acres. Based on the Town
of Colonie Zoning District Map, adopted January 4, 2007, the facility is located primarily
within the IND-Industrial District of the Town of Colonie, with a small portion in the
LC-Land Conservation District.
In general, properties to the south of the landfill are zoned IND Industrial District, to the
east is Cohoes-Crescent Road and the Mohawk River, to the north is COR Commercial
Office Residential, to the west before US Route 9 is OR Office Residential, and to the west
across US Route 9 is NCOR Neighborhood Commercial Office Residential and PDD
Planned Development District. The Town of Colonie zoning districts within the general
vicinity of the landfill are depicted in Figure 2-11 and a description of these zones is below:
IND Industrial District. The purpose of the Industrial District is to encourage the
development of light and heavy industrial uses that require highway access to move
goods and materials. These areas provide critical economic development
opportunities and allow the Town to grow its industrial base. These areas are prime
locations for revitalization and redevelopment.
SFR Single Family Residential District. The purpose of the Single Family
Residential District is to provide areas primarily for single-family residential
development in the form of detached dwellings. The purpose is to create
neighborhoods where people live and conduct their domestic activities. The Single
Family Residential District is characterized by traditional suburban residential
development.
DEIS Area 7
48
OR Office Residential District. The Office Residential District is a mixed-use

district with a focus on the integration of office and residential with no retail uses.
This district is intended to serve as a transition between districts of higher intensity
uses and residential districts. The scale of development is intended to relate to the
scale of the adjacent residential neighborhood.
NCOR Neighborhood Commercial Office Residential District. The purpose of the

Neighborhood Commercial Office Residential District is to promote the
development of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development in neighborhood areas
at a scale consistent with small neighborhood uses. This district provides for the
intermixing of neighborhood commercial, office, and residential land uses. This
neighborhood-scale mixed-use district will help reduce the need for excessive
parking and lay the foundation for an increase in the use of public transit and
pedestrian access. Flexibility is the key to this district, allowing a mix of uses based
on the ability of the applicant to be creative. The NCOR District will unify these
varied uses through design. Elements such as limited front yard setbacks; two- or
three-story buildings with active retail and service uses on the ground floors;
on-street parking, where appropriate, and off-street parking on the side or rear of
buildings will be encouraged in this district through the use of design standards.
COR Commercial Office Residential District. The purpose of the Commercial

Office Residential District is to promote the development of mixed-use,
pedestrian-friendly areas. This district provides for the intermixing of commercial,
office and residential land uses. The mixed-use district will help reduce the need for
excessive parking and lay the foundation for an increase in the use of public transit.
Flexibility is the key to this district, allowing a mix of uses based on the ability of the
applicant to be creative. The COR District will unify these varied uses through
superior design. Elements such as limited front yard setbacks; multistory buildings
with retail, food service and other active uses on the ground floors; on-street
parking, where appropriate, and off-street parking on the side or rear of buildings
will be encouraged in this district through the use of design standards.
PDD Planned Development District. The purpose of a planned development

district is to allow for flexible land use and design for parcels where the objectives of
Town's zoning and planning documents as well as the needs of the community can
be achieved by creative planning and design. The planned development district
should allow development that is matched to the unique characteristics of its site
and allow innovative development techniques that might not otherwise be possible
through strict application of standard use, area, bulk and density specifications.
LC Land Conservation District. The purpose of the Land Conservation District is

to maintain land areas that contain open space and important resources. Permitted
uses include: farms; fire stations; municipal uses; nurseries; recreational fields; and
truck gardens.
DEIS Area 7
49
2.8.1.2
Potential Impacts
The Area 7 Development is not expected to impact the existing land use and zoning in the
vicinity of the landfill. While landfilling is not identified as a specific use within the
Colonie Land Use Law, Municipal Uses (existing landfill and proposed Area 7 Development are
considered Municipal uses) are an approved use for both the IND-Industrial District and
LC-Land Conservation District. The proposed landfill footprint is located within areas
currently used for landfilling or other solid waste activities.
The Area 7 Development would not interfere significantly with potential, ongoing, or
completed inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial program for the Unnamed Area,
and would not result in any significant adverse impacts to the environment or public
health.
2.8.1.3
Proposed Mitigation Measures
The Area 7 Development would not have significant adverse impacts on land use and
zoning, and therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.
2.8.2 Local Economy

2.8.2.1
The Town of Colonie is located in the northeast corner of Albany County in the Capital
District Region of New York State. The Town includes densely-developed commercial
corridors and has many suburban neighborhoods with single-family homes. The
population recorded in the 2010 U.S. Census was 81,591, a 2.9% increase from 2000.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, Colonies labor force
(ages 16 and over) in 2013 consisted of 45,776 people with a median household income of
$72,642 and unemployment rate of 5.5%. Colonies median home value in 2013 was
$215,800 with a property vacancy rate of 6.0%.
According to its 2013 Fiscal Profile by the Office of the New York State Comptroller (OSC),
the Town of Colonie struggled financially in the past decade despite its strong tax base.
Due to multiple years of recurring deficits in multiple funds, Colonie had significant fiscal
stress. Colonie was in a stronger financial position at the end of 2011 than it had been since
2002 because of certain property tax increases and revenue received from the landfill
operator, CRL. Between 2002 and 2012, Colonies total revenues increased by 42%, or an
average of 3.6% annually. However, despite an annual surplus in 2012, the Towns General
Fund ended with a cumulative deficit from prior years, and Colonie was rated by the OSC
as being In Significant Fiscal Stress.
CRL is a major employer in the Town and makes a major contribution to the local economy
by providing local employment and purchases, providing community benefits payments to
DEIS Area 7
50
the Town, and through monetary contributions to the community.

contributions are summarized in the following report sections.
These major
2.8.2.1.1 Local Employment and Purchases

CRL has 16 hourly and 4 salaried employees working for the landfill with over $1.0 million
in payroll and benefits. CRLs Hudson Valley Division employs approximately 400 people
with a payroll including benefits of over $25 million. These employees collect and manage
solid waste and recyclables from businesses and communities throughout the Hudson
Valley.
The true value of the above noted economic benefits are greater than CRLs direct
expenditures because of multiplier effects that ripple through the local economy to create
new jobs and income. A multiplier summarizes the total impact that can be expected from
an economic activity, like the presence of a large manufacturing or service industry.
Multipliers usually range between 1.0 and 3.0 and vary by the amount of economic activity
within an area and the interaction of industries within the area (Miller, 2004). While the
value of the multiplier associated with ongoing operations of the landfill has not been
calculated, it is worth noting that considerable additional value is created, for example, as
CRL employees spend their earnings locally, and as employees of local vendors employed
by CRL spend their earnings also.
2.8.2.1.2 Community Benefits Payments to the Town
In 2011, CRL signed a 25-year agreement with the Town to operate the landfill. Among
other things, the agreement provides for payments to the Town over the life of the landfill.
If the Area 7 Development were permitted, the Town would be entitled to additional
revenue under the agreement with CRL.
In 2015, the Town will receive $2.3 million in payments under its agreement with CRL.
Beginning in 2016, the payments are based on the tonnage of waste accepted at the landfill.
Presently, these payments are projected to be more than $1.6 million annually through the
active life of the landfill.
These payments result in tax relief for Town of Colonie residents through reductions in
local real property tax rates. In the 2015 Town of Colonie Budget, the Town estimates
revenues of $30 million from real property taxes. The projected annual payments of
$1.6 million represent 5.3% of the Towns revenue from property taxes. Therefore, if the
Area 7 Development were not approved and the landfill stopped accepting waste in 2017,
the Town would have to find other sources of revenue, cut costs, or raise real property taxes
by 5.3% to make up for these losses.
The Town also budgets revenue from electrical sales from the LFGTE Facility associated
with the landfill. If the landfill closes, these revenues would also be lost as the production
of gas would cease.
DEIS Area 7
51
2.8.2.1.3 Contributions to Local Communities

CRL has donated over $150,000 to local community efforts since 2012. These include:
American Red Cross
Boght Fire Department
Town of Colonie Police Department K9 Vests
Mohawk Hudson Humane Society
Town of Colonie Dog Park Fence Donation
Town of Waterford Tugboat Festival
Town of Colonie Harvest Festival
Cohoes Community Center
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts
Colonie Youth Center 5K Challenge and Kids Run
Colonie Shooting Stars
Halfmoon Baseball
Colonie Softball
Waterford-Halfmoon Parent-Teacher Organization
2.8.2.2
Potential Impacts
The Area 7 Development would not restrict development of adjacent properties and is not
anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on current population or housing trends.
The Project would result in an overall positive economic impact for both the local
community and the local economy by allowing CRL, as operator, to provide continued
economic benefit to the local and regional economies. The Area 7 Development would
support business in the Capital Region by providing cost-effective waste disposal and
through the purchases of materials and services. The Project would also contribute to the
local economy by providing local employment and through the generation of additional tax
revenues and other monetary benefits to local governments, and through financial
contributions to the community.
The Area 7 Development is not anticipated to create additional long-term jobs, but minimal
additional employment would be created temporarily for the construction of the Project.
Regardless, the Area 7 Development would allow continued operation of the landfill in a
cost-effective manner, which would allow CRL to maintain current jobs.
DEIS Area 7
52
2.8.2.3
As noted above, no significant adverse impacts to the local economy are anticipated. The
Town and its taxpayers should benefit from continued revenues and real property tax relief
if the Area 7 Development is permitted.
2.8.3 Community Services

2.8.3.1
The following public services and utilities are currently available to the landfill site:
Fire Boght Fire Protection District
Police Protection Colonie Police Department; Albany County Sheriff; New York
State Police
Ambulance Town of Colonie EMS
Water Town of Colonie Department of Public Works, Division of Latham Water
Electric National Grid
Sewer Town of Colonie Department of Public Works, Division of Pure Water
Highway Town of Colonie Department of Public Works, Division of Highway;

Albany County Department of Public Works
2.8.3.2
Potential Impacts
The Area 7 Development is not expected to increase the current costs for local government
services, such as police and fire protection, and ambulance services. The proposed Project
would require minimal police and fire protection due to an on-site security system and the
basic firefighting capabilities of staff at the landfill.
The Project would not create a new demand for water, nor would it generate new or
additional demands for energy. The landfill would continue to use the Mohawk View
Water Pollution Control Plant, operated by the Towns Department of Public Works,
Division of Pure Waters, to treat leachate and sanitary wastewater from support facilities.
The plant would have sufficient capacity to treat the leachate generated by the Area 7
Development.
2.8.3.3
The Area 7 Development would not impact community services, and therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
DEIS Area 7
53
2.9 Visual Resources

2.9.1.1
Visual Setting
Existing landfill operations (active, inactive and closed areas) occupy approximately
153.2 acres of the 212-acre landfill site. The majority of the site has been heavily disturbed
by landfill construction and active filling operations, including removal of vegetation and
overburden soil. Consequently, much of the site is characterized by an irregular ground
surface (including ditches, excavated areas, and steep sloped landfill. The landfill is
currently within an IND (Industrial) zoning district.
Trucks currently access the landfill site from US Route 9. The property contains a number
of buildings related to the landfill operation including material recovery, recycling
building, transfer station, scale house and office located near the site entrance. Vegetation
immediately surrounding the Project site is a mix of meadow, scrub brush, and mature
woodland. A portion of the existing landfill has been re-vegetated with grasses.
The Mohawk River is the dominant natural feature of the visual resources 3-mile radius
study area. Downstream of the Crescent Dam the natural course of the Mohawk River
drops 170 feet in approximately three (3) miles with areas of steep rapids and falls. Much of
the natural waterway is dammed. Upstream of the Crescent Dam the river serves as a
canalized portion of the Erie Barge Canal. At the Crescent Dam the navigable canal diverts
into the Waterford flight of locks which includes a series of five (5) locks stepping the
waterway up 169 feet from Lock 2 at the Hudson River to the Crescent Dam at Lock 6.
Undeveloped portions of the region are generally vegetated with mature deciduous species.
With the exception of extended views along the river, the combination of vegetation and
landform generally restrict or screen views to an observers immediate surroundings.
Terrain throughout the study area consists largely of undulating hills and ridges often
bisected by ravines.
Industrial development is common along the Mohawk River shoreline. The New York
Power Authority Crescent Plant is directly adjacent to the Project site. Dams, power houses,
transmission towers and overhead conductors are directly visible along this portion of the
waterfront. The Project site is bordered to the north by industrial land uses north of Fonda
Road along Arrowhead Lane and Green Mountain Drive which include approximately ten
(10) light manufacturing and industrial service businesses.
The City of Cohoes (population 16,153) and the Village of Waterford (population 2,245) are
approximately two miles southeast of the Colonie Landfill along the Mohawk River. In
these areas built structures and streets dominate the visual landscape. Views are generally
short distance and focused along the streetscape.
DEIS Area 7
54
The Towns of Colonie, Halfmoon and Waterford are regional residential and commercial
centers, consisting of residential neighborhoods and a mix of commercial, institutional and
manufacturing land uses. Low to moderate density residential development is located in
planned subdivisions. Structures and trees typically limit long distance views in these
areas.
2.9.1.2
Visual Resources
2.9.1.2.1 Park, Recreation and Open Space Resources

Peebles Island State Park is located at the confluence of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers.
The park includes a variety of recreational opportunities including fishing, jogging, hiking,
cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. The existing landfill and proposed Area 7
Development would not be visible from Peebles Island State Park.
The Lock 2 State Canal Park/Waterford Harbor Visitor Center in the Village of Waterford is
a National Heritage Area along the Champlain Canal. Facilities for boaters, picnic areas
and a visitors center are located along a popular pedestrian promenade at the confluence of
the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. The existing landfill and proposed Project would not be
visible from the National Heritage Area.
The Lock 6 State Canal Park in the Town of Waterford is directly across the Mohawk River
from the existing landfill. The park has facilities and picnic area for boaters, cyclists,
fishing. The existing landfill is currently a dominant visual element from this park. The
proposed Area 7 Development would be similarly visible.
Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway extends 26.2 miles connecting the City of Schenectady
with the Village of Waterford. The existing landfill is currently visible from segments of the
Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway including Old Canal Road in the Town of Halfmoon, and
US Route 9 and Crescent Road in the Town of Colonie. The existing landfill is also visible
from a short segment of the scenic byway on Fonda Road at Mallards Landing North in the
Town of Waterford. The proposed Project would be similarly visible from the same places.
The Mohawk Hudson Hike/Bike Trail is an 86-mile trail in New York's Mohawk Valley
and Capital District. Views of the existing landfill and proposed Project would be
completely screened by dense foreground vegetation for most of the trail. A brief view of
the existing landfill (less than 50 yards of trail) exists at a trailhead parking area east of US
Route 9 where the trail parallels Fonda Road. The proposed Area 7 Development would be
similarly visible.
Municipal parks (e.g., Halfmoon Baseball Fields, Colonie Town Park, Waterford Town
Park, Sunset and Park), recreational and open space resources, trails (e.g. Crescent Trail),
golf courses, fishing areas, and other small community playgrounds and athletic fields are
scattered throughout the study area. Most municipal parks are not and would not be
impacted by the existing landfill and proposed Area 7 Development. Visibility of the
DEIS Area 7
55
existing landfill and proposed Project above the foreground trees may occur from portions
of the Colonie Town Park on Schermerhorn Road.
2.9.1.2.2 Cultural Resources
Within the study area, there are 28 resources listed on the State and National Register of
Historic Places. These include:
Noxon Bank Building;

Oakcliff;
Crescent
Methodist
Episcopal
Godfrey Farmhouse;
Cohoes Company Head Gatehouse;
CATAWISSA;
URGER;
Waterford Village Historic District;
Ormsby-Laughlin Textile Co. Mill;
Champlain Canal;
Northside Historic District;
Peebles (Peobles) Island;
Harmony Mill Historic District;
Enlarged Erie Canal Historic District;
Lock 18 of Enlarged Erie Canal;

Harmony Mill No. 3;
Music Hall;
Silliman
Memorial
Presbyterian
Delaware and Hudson RR Freight
Downtown Cohoes Historic District;
Olmsted Street Historic District;
Lackman, J. Leonard House;
Dickey, William J. House;
Fonda House;
Van Denbergh-Simmons House;
Simmons Stone House;
Dunsbach, Martin House; and
Vischer Ferry Historic District.
Of these, a view of the proposed Area 7 Development would be possible from the Godfrey
House, which is directly across US Route 9 from the existing facility, and the Noxon Bank
Building and Oakcliff, which currently overlook the existing landfill on the north side of the
Mohawk River near the Crescent Bridge.
A view of the proposed Project may also occur from portions of the Harmony Mill Historic
District in the City of Cohoes. Within this historic district the proposed Project would
become visible above the tree line from the vicinity of Falls View Park, a well-known and
popular overlook point for the Cohoes Falls. The park is approximately 1.5 miles from the
landfill. The existing landfill (at completion) would not be visible from this vantage point.
2.9.1.2.3 Residential Neighborhoods
The Mallards Landing South, Mallards Landing North and Steamboat Landing singlefamily residential neighborhoods are along the eastern shoreline of the Mohawk River and
adjacent west facing slope directly opposite the existing Colonie Landfill. These
subdivisions include approximately 330 single-family homes on roughly - to -acre lots.
The existing landfill is visible from homes that have river views. Several upland homes
have views of the existing landfill to a varying degree between or above neighboring
structures and foreground vegetation. The majority of homes in these neighborhoods are
fully screened from the existing landfill by intervening structures or vegetation.
DEIS Area 7
56
Intermittent visibility of the proposed Area 7 Development may occur between or above
neighborhood structures and intervening vegetation on the west facing slopes of
Canvasback Ridge, Towpath Lane near Pheasant Run and Mallards Landing North near
Fonda Road at Strawberry Ridge Apartments. The existing landfill is currently visible from
much of these same areas. The proposed Project may become visible in small geographic
extensions of adjacent lands that are already impacted by views of the existing facility.
Other residential neighborhoods would not be significantly impacted.
2.9.1.2.4 Highway Corridors
Primary roads within the study area include, but are not limited to: US Route 9, I-87
(Adirondack Northway), NY Route 470 (Columbia Street), and NY Route 32.

In order to assess the visual/aesthetic concerns of the Area 7 Development, a Visual
Resources Assessment (VRA) consistent with NYSDEC Policy DEP-00-2 was performed by
Saratoga Associates, and is included as Appendix F of this DEIS.
Viewshed maps were prepared to determine whether or not the proposed Project would
likely be visible from a given location. For comparative purposes, individual viewshed
overlays illustrate the potential viewshed areas of the existing facility (at completion) and
the proposed Area 7 Development (at completion). One viewshed map was prepared
defining the area within which there would be no visibility of both the existing landfill and
the proposed Area 7 Development because of the screening effect caused by intervening
topography (see VRA Appendix Figure 1). A second map was prepared illustrating the
probable screening effect of existing mature vegetation (see VRA Appendix Figure 2).
Table 1 of the VRA indicates the degree of theoretical visibility illustrated on the viewshed
maps within the 3-mile radius study area. Some portion of the existing facility is already
visible, or would be theoretically visible upon completion of currently permitted
operations, from a maximum of 2.2%of the 3-mile radius study area. From these areas the
proposed Area 7 Development represents a continuation of existing visibility of Colonie
landfill operations. Visibility of the existing facility is most common on properties adjacent
to or near the existing landfill and along the northern bank of the Mohawk River. Direct
visibility is found along US Route 9 and Crescent Road adjacent to the Project site. Direct
visibility is also found within in the adjacent Arrowhead Lane/Green Mountain Drive
industrial area. Smaller areas of visibility are scattered throughout the study area where
cleared lands with down slope vistas in the direction of the site exist.
While the viewshed map indicates relatively minor areas of visibility within the City of
Cohoes, and residential subdivisions, field confirmation determined the prevalence of
residential and commercial buildings and/or localized vegetation, mature street trees and
site landscaping to block most views in the direction of the Area 7 Development.
DEIS Area 7
57
Upon completion of the proposed development, the landfill would be visible from a
maximum of 4.4% of the study area. This is an increase of 2.2% (approximately 400 acres)
over what is currently visible (permitted condition) in the 3-mile radius study area. These
areas are generally small geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are already impacted
by views of the existing facility. Where the proposed development would be visible, views
would be limited to the upper portions of the Area 7 Development appearing above the
foreground tree line.
Viewshed analysis and field investigation determined that seven (7) visual resources of
Statewide Significance (as defined by the NYSDEC Visual Policy) would have visibility of
the proposed Project. These locations are:
Oakcliff;
Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway;
Crescent Trail;
Godfrey Farmhouse;
Lock 6 State Canal Park;
Harmony Mill Historic District; and
Six (6) of these resources are currently impacted by direct and proximate views of the
existing landfill. Only the Harmony Mill Historic District would be newly potentially
impacted. Within this historic district the proposed Area 7 Development would appear low
to intervening tree line at a distance of approximately two miles.
Topography, vegetation and existing structures fully screen the existing landfill and
proposed Project from other visual resources of statewide significance.
The NYSDEC Visual Policy states:
Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty
of a place or structure. Significant aesthetic impacts are those that may cause a
diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource,
or one that impairs the character or quality of such a place. Proposed large facilities
by themselves should not be a trigger for a declaration of significance. Instead, a
project by virtue of its siting in visual proximity to an inventoried resource may lead
staff to conclude that there may be a significant impact.
Based on this definition, the proposed Area 7 Development would not result in a significant
adverse visual impact on resources of statewide significance.
DEIS Area 7
58
Because of the scale of the existing facility, some portion of the existing operations and
proposed Project would be visible from places of local interest that do not necessarily meet
the broader statewide threshold for visual significance. Riverside vantage points and
upland locations where cleared down slope views allow distant vistas would potentially be
impacted. Direct views of the Area 7 Development are found along US Route 9 and
Crescent Road in the vicinity of the Project site. Views are also possible from locations
within the Mallards Landing and Steamboat Landing residential neighborhoods.
Most local parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities, and residential neighborhoods,
located in and around the City of Cohoes and the Village of Waterford where the
prevalence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story
residential and commercial structures substantially limit distant views.
2.9.2.1
Photo Simulations
The SEQR Scoping Document requires photo-enhancements from five (5) perspectives to
illustrate the future view toward the landfill. These locations are:
US Route 9, North of Crescent Bridge;
West of US Route 9 South of the Crescent Bridge;
West of US Route 9 South of Arrowhead Drive;
East of the Mohawk River near Towpath Lane in the Town of Waterford; and
East of the Mohawk River at Canal Park in the Town of Waterford
Due to potential new visual impact and visual sensitivity, a supplemental photo simulation
from Falls View Park in the City of Cohoes at the Harmony Mill Historic District is also
provided.
The locations for photo simulations were selected to illustrate the most exposed vantage
point in the vicinity of the each viewpoint identified for simulation by the Scoping
Document. Therefore, photo simulations represent worst-case views of the existing landfill
and proposed Project. As illustrated by viewshed mapping, the proposed Area 7
Development would not be visible from approximately 95.6% of the study area due to
intervening landform and vegetation.
The view from each perspective location has been be enhanced to illustrate the currently
permitted landfill geometry at full development. Additional enhancements have been
prepared to illustrate the proposed Area 7 Development at a mid-life condition and at full
development for comparison. All photo simulations are presented in the VRA Appendix.
DEIS Area 7
59
2.9.2.2
Character of Project Visibility
2.9.2.2.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns

Visual Character of Existing Facility - Given the Project consists of continued filling
activities, the visual character of the proposed development would be substantially
consistent with the visible patterns and composition of the existing landfill.
Areas of Final Cover The following is a general evaluation of compatibility of the existing
landfill and proposed Area 7 Development (under final cover) with the patterns of the
regional landscape in which it is viewed.
Form - The regional landscape is an undulating terrain. Scattered rolling hills add a
vertical dimension; however such vertical form is generally subtle and not visually
apparent over distance. The steep sided and highly pronounced mounded form of
the existing landfill is somewhat distinct from subtle rolling elevation changes
common in the study area.
Line The mounded shape visible above the horizontal tree line creates a distinct
break in the linear character of the existing horizon.
Color The light meadow grass color of the re-vegetated areas is consistent with the
light earth tone - colors of the surrounding landscape. However, when viewed above
the horizon, the darker color of the meadowed landfill contrasts with the muted
blues and grays of the background sky. Atmospheric hazing begins to diminish the
degree of color contrast over distance.
Texture The relatively fine texture of the revegetated landform is consistent with
the fine texture of the surrounding landscape.
Contrast of Scale and Spatial Dominance When viewed within the foreground and
middle ground distances, the Project appears larger in scale than other visible
landforms and is a highly dominant feature when viewed within the context of the
surrounding topography. The impact of both scale and dominance is reduced with
distance. From background viewpoints, dominance is overshadowed by other
visible natural and built elements within view.
Operational Areas - The following is a general evaluation of compatibility of the operational
portions of the landfill with the existing patterns of the landscape in which they are viewed.
Form and Line The difference in the geometric form and line noted above
gradually increases over the operational period until the peak elevation is reached.
Color Reflective waste material and landfill vehicles heighten the color difference
of active operational areas within the earth-tone context of the foreground and
DEIS Area 7
60
middleground landscape. Such impact is limited to the relatively small portions of

the landfill that are open to active filling at a given point in time. The effect of color
difference diminishes with distance as atmospheric hazing begins to blend the
landfill with the background landscape.
Texture The varying color of visible waste material would be perceived as a semicourse texture when compared with the smooth texture of non-active or re-vegetated
areas of the landfill. Such impact would be limited to the relatively small portions of
the landfill that are open to active filling at a given point in time. The effect of
textural difference diminishes with distance as atmospheric hazing begins to blend
the landfill with the background landscape.
Contrast of Scale and Spatial Dominance The impact of scale and spatial
dominance on the visible landscape gradually increases over the operational period
until the peak elevation is reached.
The visual character of the proposed Area 7 Development during filling operations will be
substantially consistent with the visible patterns and composition of the operational areas
of the Existing Landfill. Photo simulations were created to illustrate representative
topographic conditions, construction and operations vehicles, daily cover and other
visually relevant conditions associated with active landfill operations during a mid-life
condition as presented in the VRA Appendix.
Visual Character of the Proposed Project When visible, a noted difference in form, line,
color, texture or scale/dominance resulting from the Area 7 Development would be highly
consistent with the currently experienced visual composition of the existing facility.
Considering the proposed Project would result in an increased landfill height, the effect of
the proposed Area 7 Development on the studied receptors would be an increase in the
visible profile of the Colonie Landfill facility.
2.9.2.2.2 Qualitative Impact Summary
The proposed Area 7 Development represents a continuation of existing visibility of
Colonie Landfill operations with limited areas of new visibility. Where the existing facility
is visible, it is a large and dominant feature on the foreground landscape. While the
proposed Area 7 Development would increase the elevation of the landfill by 87 vertical
feet, the visual patterns and composition of the proposed Project would be consistent with
what is already seen. In most areas, the effect of the proposed action on the surrounding
landscape is a change in the degree of exposure rather than a new or visually different
impact. Areas of new visibility are typically small geographic extensions of adjacent lands
that are already impacted by views of the existing facility. In such areas, the upper portions
of the proposed Area 7 Development would appear low to intervening tree line and similar
in form, line color and texture with the local landscape.
DEIS Area 7
61
2.9.3 Mitigation Measures

practicable are included in the proposed action. Mitigation measures that have been
incorporated into the Project include:
2.9.3.1
Screening
To minimize the duration and magnitude of operational impacts, landfilling within each
successive vertical lift would be phased in a manner that would screen much of the
day-to-day operations from off-site receptors. Upon initiating each successive vertical lift, a
berm constructed of waste material would be placed along the perimeter of the lift area.
External side-slopes would receive a final cover of soil and would be planted with grass
and herbaceous vegetation. This interim berm would create a visual barrier that
progressively screens views of operation and construction vehicles, as well as daily
operational areas of uncovered waste material. This berm would be maintained at a typical
height of 10-13 feet above the adjacent elevation of the active fill area. Maximum visibility
of operational impacts would occur during the period of berm construction when waste
material is being placed at the perimeter of the lift area. During this period, waste hauling
and operation vehicles as well as uncovered waste would be visible from off-site receptors
not screened by intervening landform or topography. However, such views would be
relatively short in duration compared to the duration of the internal filling operations the
interim berm is designed to screen.
2.9.3.2
Project Siting/Relocation
The proposed Area 7 Development is a continuation of existing landfill operations.

Continued use of the Colonie Landfill for landfilling operations avoids the need to open
new landfill sites that would likely adversely impact visual resources that are not currently
impacted by landfill operations. For this reason, alternative Project siting for the purpose of
further minimizing aesthetic impact was not considered.
2.9.3.3
Camouflage/Disguise
A revegetation plan has been prepared which uses a blend of native seed types to create a
subtle camouflage effect to help blend the final landform into the surrounding landscape
as viewed from key vantage points. The selected seed mixtures included grasses,
wildflowers and other herbaceous plants that will visually present a variety of heights,
DEIS Area 7
62
colors and textures. Four different seed blends will be planted in horizontally and vertically
sinuously formed planting zones across the landfill for visual interest and to imply a more
naturalistic and undulating landform.
The seed mixes are suitable for use on slopes of 3:1 or greater and are specifically designed
for slope stabilization and erosion control. Individual plant species are also selected to
encourage habitat diversity.
Seed blends will include:
Type 1 Autumn Bentgrass (6%), Virginia Wildrye (18%), Little Bluestem (68.8%), Butterfly
Milkweed (.5%), Smooth Aster (2%), Round Headed Bush Clover (2%), Dotted Mint (.5%),
Hairy Beardtongue (1%), Narrow Leaved Mountain Mint (.2%), and Black Eyed Susan (1%)
Type 2 Autumn Bentgrass (6%), Big Bluestem (35%), Virginia Wildrye (14%), Little
Bluestem (40.8%), Smooth Aster (1%), Round Headed Bush Clover (1%), Dotted Mint
(.5%), Hairy Beardtongue (.5%), Narrow Leaved Mountain Mint (.2%), and Black Eyed
Susan (1%)
Type 3 Autumn Bentgrass (6%), Virginia Wildrye (14%), Little Bluestem (36%),
Indiangrass (36.8%) Butterfly Milkweed (.5%), Smooth Aster (2%), Round Headed Bush
Clover (2%), Dotted Mint (.5%), Hairy Beardtongue (1%), Narrow Leaved Mountain Mint
(.2%), and Black Eyed Susan (1%)
Type4 - Autumn Bentgrass (6%), Virginia Wildrye (14%), Big Bluestem (255), Virginia
Wildrye (14%), Switchgrass (25.8%), Indiangrass (25%), Smooth Aster (1%), Round Headed
Bush Clover (1%), Dotted Mint (.5%), Hairy Beardtongue (1%), Narrow Leaved Mountain
Mint (.2%), and Black Eyed Susan (1%)
Additional information concerning the proposed seed blends is provided in a planting plan
(Attachment A to the Visual Resource Assessment Report). Illustrations of the general
appearance of the seed mitigation concept are provided in additional photo simulations for
the perspectives with significant views of the completed landfill (Rt 9 south of the Crescent
Bridge, and East of the Mohawk River at Canal Park).
Visible landfill infrastructure components such as monitoring wells and standpipes are a
telltale indicator that a meadowed landform is a constructed landfill rather than a natural
feature. Use of neutral or dark color components would substantially reduce the visibility
of these elements. Monitoring wells and standpipes would also be installed as close to
ground level as practicable to minimize visibility.
DEIS Area 7
63
2.9.3.4
Low Profile/Downsizing
The proposed Project is a continuation of existing landfill operations. The existing Colonie
Landfill property is insufficient to support horizontal development only. Therefore the
proposed increase in vertical elevation is the only practicable alternative for continued
operation of the facility.
2.9.3.5
Alternate Technologies
No practicable alternative technologies were discovered that would minimize the aesthetic
impact of landfill operations or long-term visibility.
2.9.3.6
Non-specular Materials
To the extent practicable, landfill structures would not include reflective materials.
2.9.3.7
Lighting
The proposed Project does not include nighttime operations. As such, site lighting would
be limited to the minimum necessary for site security and would result in little or no site
visibility at night.
2.9.3.8
Maintenance
Waste material is the most notable element of visual contrast during the operational period
of a landfill. To minimize this contrast to the maximum extent possible, daily placement of
refuse would be limited to as small an area as functionally practical. Moreover, newly
deposited refuse would be covered with soil cover or alternate daily cover, on a daily basis
to minimize visual impact and blowing litter. The existing litter control program would
also be continued.
2.9.3.9
Decommissioning
Upon completion of active landfilling and site closure, unneeded structures and equipment
would be removed. The site would be graded and seeded, and be left in a clean and
orderly condition.
2.10 Traffic and Transportation

Landfill-related traffic includes residents of the Town, landfill employees and contractors,
and commercial trucks transporting waste and materials to the landfill. The existing site
entrance and exit to the landfill is provided via separate driveways on US Route 9. Traffic
DEIS Area 7
64
access also exists from Green Mountain Drive, but it is not open to the public. The existing
traffic flow to and from the facility is shown in Figure 2-12.
US Route 9 is a major north-south arterial road that is a key link to various interstate
highways in New York. It extends approximately 325 miles from just south of the
Canada-US border to the George Washington Bridge. The portion of US Route 9 adjacent to
the landfill consists of four (4) travel lanes separated by a two-way left turn lane, with a
posted speed limit of 55-mph. The intersection of US Route 9 and the landfill entrance and
exit driveways does not have a traffic signal.
Fonda Road is a twolane eastwest arterial road located to the south of the Project site
connecting Crescent Road (Route 159) and US Route 9. The frontage of the corridor is
predominantly residential with a 30-mph speed limit. The western section between Green
Mountain Drive and US Route 9 is a designated truck route and the eastern section between
Crescent Road (Route 159) and Green Mountain Drive has a weight limit of 4 tons.
Green Mountain Drive is a twolane northsouth local roadway with a 30-mph speed limit
located to the south of the Project site connecting Arrowhead Lane and Fonda Road. Green
Mountain Drive services an industrial park south of the landfill which includes trucking for
warehousing and cement plant operations. To the north of Arrowhead Lane, Green
Mountain Drive continues towards the landfill.
Arrowhead lane is a twolane eastwest arterial with a 30-mph speed limit located to the
south of the Project site connecting Green Mountain Drive and US Route 9. The frontage of
the corridor is a mix of residential properties to the west and commercial establishments to
the east.

As part of the Area 7 Development, the Town proposes to relocate the main site access to
Arrowhead Lane so site-generated traffic would use that entrance/exit. The US Route 9
entrance and exit driveways would be closed and decommissioned. The new traffic pattern
would be as follows: Vehicles entering the site from US Route 9 would turn onto Fonda
Road via an existing signalized intersection. From Fonda Road they would turn left onto
Green Mountain Road, then turn left onto Arrowhead Lane, and then turn right to enter the
site, via stop sign controlled intersections. The proposed traffic flow to and from the facility
is shown in Figure 2-13.
As part of the Part 360 permit modification application for the Area 7 Development, a
Traffic Impact Study was completed by SIMCO Engineering, P.C., included as Appendix G
of this DEIS. The Traffic Impact Study provides an assessment of operating conditions on
the transportation infrastructure serving the Project site both with and without the
proposed modification.
DEIS Area 7
65
An extensive analysis of the existing roadway and traffic conditions in the study area was
undertaken to forecast future traffic conditions. An exponential annual growth rate of
0.14% was applied to the existing traffic conditions as well as traffic that would be incurred
from three (3) development projects proposed in the area that are unassociated with the
landfill. The Proposed Area 7 Development does not include a change to the existing
landfill permitted daily capacity, and therefore, operational traffic (i.e., trip generation) is
not expected to change. The only additional traffic incurred from the proposed Project
would be from construction traffic, which was estimated to be approximately 20 additional
vehicles per day on a temporary basis.
Intersection capacity and level of service (LOS) was determined for six (6) critical
intersections under five (5) peak hour traffic conditions for existing conditions, and three (3)
future horizon years for both the build (future with the proposed Area 7 Development) and
no build (future without the proposed Area 7 Development) conditions. These future
horizon years are 2017 (start of Area 7 Development construction), 2021 (continuation of
Area 7 Development construction and relocation of the site driveway to Arrowhead Lane),
and 2038 (completion of Area 7 Development construction).
The traffic service and operating conditions are qualitatively expressed in terms of six (6)
LOS categories "A" through "F", where LOS "A" represents the best traffic flow condition
with little or no delay, and LOS "F" describes the worst operating condition with extensive
congestion and delays. LOS "C" represents a stable flow of good traffic operation, and is
normally used as the desirable design objective. The LOS "D" is generally considered to be
a minimum acceptable traffic operating condition in urban areas for short time periods. The
LOS "E" represents the theoretical capacity of the particular intersection approach, and is
defined as the maximum flow volume that can reasonably be expected to pass a point or a
uniform section of a lane or roadway under the prevailing roadway, travel demand, and
traffic control conditions.
For the no build condition for the 2017, 2021, and 2038 future horizon years, all but three (3)
peak hour intersection conditions operate at an LOS C or better. For the build condition,
all but the same three (3) peak hour intersection conditions operate at an LOS C or better.
The results of the 2017, 2021, and 2038 traffic analyses indicate that the proposed Area 7
Development would not cause significant deterioration in traffic service levels at the critical
intersections in the study area. Also, the relocation of the site entrance to Arrowhead Lane
would provide a safer traffic route to and from the landfill; vehicles entering and exiting the
site would use a signalized intersection along US Route 9 and use low-volume, 30-mph
roads to reach the site.
DEIS Area 7
66

The Area 7 Development would have no significant impact on the LOS ratings of the
intersections and would provide a safer route to the landfill, and therefore, mitigation
measures are not proposed.
2.11 Air Quality

Landfill construction and operations have the potential to affect local air quality due to
emissions from hauling and landfill equipment, temporary and localized generation of
dust, and the generation and destruction of landfill gas (LFG).
Air quality is regulated on a federal and state level through the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NYSAAQS). The NAAQS specify permissible levels for six pollutants: carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulates, and sulfur dioxide. The NYSAAQS include
additional criteria pollutants, including beryllium, fluoride, and hydrogen sulfide.
Air emission sources are regulated through a number of state and federal programs,
including Title V Permit Program, Non-attainment New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (NNSR/PSD) regulations, New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
In New York State, the Title V Permit Program is regulated under 6 NYCRR Part 201-6. The
facility currently holds a Title V air permit ID #4-0126-00033/00009 which was renewed on
October 24, 2013 and expires on October 23, 2018. The current Title V permit includes
emission control for active and closed landfill areas contributing to the generation of LFG
and the apparatus necessary to collect and combust the LFG. Colonie Landfill maintains an
active GCCS of horizontal collectors and vertical collection wells connected by a header
system and routed to either the on-site LFGTE Facility or a utility flare.
IES is currently operating the LFGTE Facility on the southeastern portion of the site. IES
has been granted a lease by the Town of Colonie for a 1.25-acre area on which its
recovery/power generating facility is located. The emissions from IES generator engines
are authorized under a separate Air Title V permit issued by NYSDEC to IES. The current
Title V permit for Colonie Landfill covers the existing utility flare on site, which has a
permitted capacity of 3,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) based on flare design.
The existing Title V Permit has two (2) emission units:
Emission Unit: 1-COMPO; Emission Unit Description: Grinder related to composting
operations.
DEIS Area 7
67
Emission Unit: 1-MSWLF; Emission Unit Description: This unit consists of closed and active
landfill areas contributing to the generation of LFG and the apparatus necessary to collect
and combust the LFG.
In addition to the Emission Units above, the following processes and emission
source/controls are part of the Title V Permit:
Emission Unit: 1-MSWLF

Process: FUG
Source Classification Code: 5-02-006-02
Process Description: Fugitive LFG emissions (beyond the collection efficiency of the
gas collection system) from the closed and active landfill areas.
Emission Source/Control: LNDFL - Process
Emission Unit: 1-MSWLF

Process: GAS
Source Classification Code: 5-02-006-01
Process Description: LFG is collected and combusted in one open flare (max. 3,000
CFM).
Emission Source/Control: ECF02 - Control
Control Type: FLARING
Emission Source/Control: LNDFL - Process
The Colonie landfill is currently subject to the MSW Landfill NSPS (40 CFR 60, Subpart
WWW)/NESHAPs (40 CFR 63, Subpart AAAA), but is not subject to the design and
operational standards of those rules because emissions of nonmethane organic compounds
(NMOC) are less than 50 Mg/year. In the event the landfill produces greater than 50
Mg/year NMOC, the landfill would then be required to meet NSPS operational
requirements. Colonie Landfill is required to submit a GCCS Plan to the EPA/NYSDEC
within one (1) year of reporting NMOC emissions greater than 50 mg/year. The Town
submitted the NSPS-required NMOC Tier 2 Sampling and Emissions Report dated
January 7, 2014 that showed NMOC emissions would be less than 50 Mg/year through the
year 2018.
Current landfilling operations at the site produce vehicular emissions from heavy
equipment and there is a potential for dust generation with the placement of cover soil on
the working face.

The active GCCS for the Area 7 Development would be similar to the system that is
currently installed. The GCCS would be designed to manage the collection of generated
LFG and mitigate the potential for subsoil LFG migration and surface emissions to the
atmosphere. The design would consist of features to promote compliance (if needed in the
future) with the gas collection standards specified under NSPS for new MSW landfill sites
DEIS Area 7
68
(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW, Standards of Performance for New Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills and 6 NYCRR Part 208).
Due to the proposed increase acreage associated with the development, certain assumptions
in the existing Title V permit record would need to be updated. For example, as a result of
the proposed development, annual VOC emissions are expected to be approximately
1.46 tons/year higher than the VOC emission estimates stated in the 2012 Title V Operating
Permit Renewal Application submitted to NYSDEC and approved on October 24, 2013
which would be considered insignificant. The Town submitted a Minor Modification
Application on February 17, 2015 to address the modification associated with the Area 7
Development (included as Appendix H of this DEIS). Additionally, the application
included the removal of the emission unit associated with the composting facility as it have
been removed from the site.
Dust generation would occur during the construction of the Area 7 Development due to the
disturbance of soil, including stockpiling and the loading and unloading of trucks. These
impacts are considered to be temporary and would cease once construction is completed.
There is also the potential for dust generation during landfilling operations on the working
face with the placement of cover soil.
Vehicular emissions from the construction and operation of heavy equipment are not
anticipated to have a significant impact on air quality due to the emission controls installed
on such equipment.

The Area 7 Development is a continuation of current waste placement operations at the
landfill. As described above, the Town has submitted to NYSDEC an application for a
minor modification of its Title V Permit to account for the proposed Project and related air
emissions. The Town is not proposing mitigation measures related to air emissions from
the Area 7 Development.
The landfill would continue to use water trucks and other operational measures discussed
in the existing Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to effectively mitigate the
generation of dust.
2.12 Odor Control

Odor from landfilling operations is associated with air emissions from the decomposition
(anaerobic digestion process) of waste. The two main components of LFG (methane and
carbon dioxide) are odorless, but other trace components, such as hydrogen sulfide and
organic acids, can produce odors. Odors tend to be more noticeable during summer
DEIS Area 7
69
months when high temperatures increase the microbial activity associated with the
decomposition process and odors may be more noticeable with increased outdoor activity.
The landfill takes odor concerns very seriously and relies on feedback from the public to
diagnose odor issues. Odor complaints are received through the Landfill Hotline (both
phone and email) and a log is maintained to assist in the evaluation and response to
reported complaints. The number of odor complaints received between 2012 and 2014 are
summarized by month in Table 2-1. In the event that odors are detected off site, the odor
issue is investigated to verify that the landfill is causing the odor.
The most significant factors affecting odors, besides weather conditions, are the
maintenance of the working face and LFG collection. The landfill minimizes the size of its
working face and currently employs odor control measures, such as an odor neutralizer in
the vicinity of the existing leachate lagoons and focused placement of landfill cover.
Colonie Landfill maintains an active landfill GCCS comprised of horizontal collectors and
vertical collection wells connected by a header system and routed to either the on-site
LFGTE Facility or a flare. Applicable regulations (40 CFR 60.753) require that GCCS
components be installed in waste that has been in place for 5 or more years in active areas
of the landfill or 2 years in areas that are closed or at final grade.
In late 2012 and early 2013, under an emergency authorization, the landfill accepted debris
resulting from Hurricane Sandy. The waste was placed in a relatively new area of the
landfill which was not yet required to have an active GCCS in place. Due to the nature of
the material (i.e., high moisture and high proportion of waste drywall) unexpectedly rapid
degradation began soon after placement and the resulting LFG was particularly odorous
(drywall decomposition creates hydrogen sulfide). This resulted in off-site odors being
identified in August 2013. LFG collectors were installed in this area and connected to the
GCCS in September 2013. The response was immediately effective in controlling odors
from the Hurricane Sandy debris. Maintenance of the active GCCS (including the
equipment added to respond to the odors related to the Hurricane Sandy debris) to collect
and treat LFG has proven to be an effective odor control measure. The total number of odor
complaints in 2012 was 18 and the total in 2013 due to Hurricane Sandy waste was 59, as
shown in Table 2-1.
In 2014 there were a total of 11 odor complaints. Most of the odors that were the subject of
the complaints were not detected upon investigation and were therefore considered
unconfirmed, transient conditions. One was related to the leachate lagoons and was
corrected within two hours. Two other complaints were related to LFG operations and
were handled upon notification. Related to those findings, in 2015 and 2016, CRL
implemented several GCCS improvements to increase LFG collection, including 11 vertical
gas collection wells and over 2,000 feet of horizontal collector pipes.
Composting activities which had been the source of some past odor concerns have recently
ceased at the landfill site.
DEIS Area 7
70

The proposed Area 7 Development would result in working face operations (and potential
odors associated with them) occurring to the north and west of current operations, at times
putting the operations approximately 500 feet closer to receptors to the north and to the
west.

Existing odor control/management measures would be continued throughout the
operational period of the Proposed Area 7 Development. Odors are not expected to be
produced more frequently than those occurring in connection with current permitted
activities. Best management practices would continue to be used to minimize odors at the
landfill and manage the potential for odors to move off site.
At a minimum, daily and intermediate cover soils would be applied to the waste mass in
accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360. When atmospheric conditions are optimal for odor
generation, or when waste loads have a particularly strong odor, the working face would be
covered more frequently and odor neutralizers would be used. Waste placement
operations would maintain a minimum 100-foot distance from to the property line.
The landfill would continue to operate an active GCCS which would be implemented
throughout the Area 7 Development. The GCCS would significantly reduce odors through
the capture and destruction of odor causing components of the LFG.
LFG will continue to be collected through a series of vertical and horizontal collectors
placed in the waste mass, and through connections to the leachate cleanouts. The collectors
are interconnected by a conveyance pipe which conveys the collected LFG to a perimeter
header which leads to the blower/flare station or the LFGTE facility for combustion, in
order to control air emissions and landfill gas odors. Additional wells and collectors are
added as the landfill development proceeds and the site plan is updated to reflect these
additions. Valve adjustments at the collection points are necessary to extract the maximum
amount of LFG while maintaining good gas quality and minimizing air infiltration. Due to
the complex nature of LFG generation, ongoing adjustments are typically needed to
maximize the collection systems effectiveness. Increasing the vacuum at a collection point
typically causes the flow to increase, methane concentration to decrease, and the oxygen
and balance gas (nitrogen) concentrations to increase. Decreasing the vacuum generally
results in the opposite effect. Each valve should be adjusted to the maximum flow rate
possible while maintaining the gas quality, temperature, and static pressure within the
specified target ranges. Wells with parameters that cannot be maintained within the
acceptable ranges, despite repeated adjustment, shall be further analyzed for possible
operation outside of the ranges listed.
DEIS Area 7
71
The Landfills flare is a 10-inch utility flare, manufactured by LFG Specialties, Inc. The flare
is utilized as a control device augmenting the LFGTE facility. The flare has a 10-inch burner
tip and reaches an overall height of 28-feet. The flare is equipped with a propane pilot
assembly with an automatic igniter system. A thermocouple exists within the flare which
monitors for a flame and will shut down the blower/flare station if a flame is not present.
The LFGTE facility is owned and operated by Innovative Energy Systems (IES). Under
typical operation, the IES blowers provide vacuum to the collection system and deliver the
collected gas to the IES engines. The flare and blower are used to supplement the IES
system and during downtime of an engine or backup the IES system during downtime of
the entire facility. The operation and maintenance of the LFGTE facility is not included in
this document.
During IES facility downtime, the flow to the flare will automatically increase to maintain
vacuum to the GCCS. If the flare is not already operating during IES facility downtime and
a decrease in vacuum below set points are detected, the blower and flare are started using
the automatic startup procedure described above. If flare startup is due to unplanned
downtime of the IES facility, landfill personnel respond to notification by IES within 1 hour
(typical response during business hours is approximately 10 minutes).
The active gas collection system for the proposed landfill expansion will be similar to the
system that is currently installed, and will be designed to prevent the build-up of excess
LFG pressure within the landfill and to control subsoil gas migration or surface emissions
to the atmosphere.
The Proposed Area 7 Development would also include the replacement of the current
open-air leachate lagoons with covered tanks to manage off-site odors from leachate storage
and the need for odor neutralizers in the vicinity of the lagoons.
2.13 Noise
A noise assessment was performed to evaluate the potential sound level impacts that
operations associated with the landfill development might have on receptors in the
surrounding area. Cornerstone staff recorded existing sound pressure level (SPL)
measurements produced by on-site operations at the landfills working face, at the facility
entrance, and at eight (8) additional potential receptor locations in the surrounding area
(included as Appendix I of this DEIS). A description of the monitoring locations included
in this assessment is in Table 2-2. The locations are shown on Figure 2-14.
The goals of any project should include minimal increases in SPLs above ambient levels at a
chosen point relative to the receptor. Increases in the ambient sound levels from 0 to
3 decibels generally have no appreciable effect on receptors. Increases from 3 to 6 decibels
may have the potential for adverse noise impacts, but typically only where the most
sensitive receptors are present. A sound level increase of 6 decibels or more may require a
DEIS Area 7
72
closer analysis of impact potential depending on the existing sound levels and the character
of the surrounding land uses and receptors 1.
2.13.1 Sound
2.13.1.1
Description of Sound
Sound is any pressure variation (in air, water, or other medium) that the human ear can
detect. The number of pressure variations per second is known as the frequency of the
sound and is measured in cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz). Typical human hearing can
detect sounds between 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz (20 kHz) 2. The amplitude of a sound wave is
equivalent to the sound pressure, and therefore, the loudness of a sound increases as the
pressure increases.
When conducting a noise study, the ambient noise levels, existing noise sources, and sound
receptors in proximity to an activity are important factors to consider. Additionally, the
topography, vegetation and the relative location of both the sound source and the receptors
must be considered when assessing noise impacts. The expression of overall sound levels,
as it relates to the listener, is a single value of sound over a period of time that provides an
indicated average of the sound in an area (Leq).
The environmental effects of sound and human perceptions of sound can be described in
terms of four characteristics 3:
1. SPL may also be designated by the symbol Lp or perceived loudness, and is
expressed in decibels (dB) or A-weighted decibel scale (dBA), which is weighted towards
those portions of the frequency spectrum, between 20 and 20,000 Hz, to which the
human ear is most sensitive. Both SPL and dBA measure sound pressure in the
atmosphere.
2. Frequency (perceived as pitch) is the rate at which a sound source vibrates or makes
the air vibrate.
NYSDEC, Division of Environmental Permits; Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts10/6/00, Articles 3, 8,
23 & 27.
Ibid.
Ibid.
DEIS Area 7
73
3. Duration may be the recurring fluctuation in sound pressure or tone at an interval;

sharp or startling noise at recurring interval; the temporal nature (continuous vs.
intermittent) of sound.
4. Pure tone, which is comprised of a single frequency. Pure tones are relatively rare in
nature, but if they do occur, they can be extremely annoying.
2.13.1.2
Description of Noise
Most sounds are mixtures of frequencies and amplitudes. The mixture of frequencies and
amplitudes contributes to a particular sound having a characteristic signature and being
clearly distinguishable from other sounds. Sounds that are considered annoying and
unwanted are termed noise.
2.13.1.3
Decibel Equivalency
Sound measurement gives a clear indication of when a sound may be heard by the human
ear. As such, it is the primary diagnostic tool used in evaluating requirements for
acceptable community noise levels. Sound pressure levels perceivable by the human ear fall
within a very large range, which is difficult to manage due to the large numbers involved.
The decibel scale simplifies this condition by compressing the million to one audible range
into a 140 dB range. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micro pascals (a unit
of pressure) as its starting point or reference pressure. This is defined as 0 dB. Each time the
sound pressure in pascals is multiplied by 10, 20 dB are added to the decibel level.
Human hearing starts at 0 dBA (with 10 dBA being just audible) and goes up to 150 dBA,
although at 130 dBA noise is considered painfully loud and speech is severely limited.
2.13.1.4
Attenuation
The intensity of a sound wave diminishes (attenuates) as it gets farther from the source.
This attenuation is due to a combination of factors: distance - being the length of path of
transmission and the most important factor; absorption by surfaces such as vegetation,
buildings, earth formations, etc.; atmospheric conditions such as fog, rain and snow; and
the nature of the ground over which the transmission occurs.
The intensity of an unobstructed sound wave is reduced by 6 decibels each time the
distance from the source is doubled, provided the source is not linear in nature. Therefore, a
sound level of 70 dB at 50 feet would have a sound level of approximately 64 dB at 100 feet.
At 200 feet from the same source, the sound would be perceived at a level of approximately
58 dB. Decibel level attenuation from linear sources, such as continuous flowing highway
traffic, drops by about three decibels each time the distance from the source is doubled.
DEIS Area 7
74
2.13.2 Regulatory Information

2.13.2.1
Federal Noise Goals and Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the primary Federal
Agency responsible for providing guidelines related to noise impacts. It is a HUD goal that
exterior noise levels not exceed 55 decibels. This level is also recommended by EPA as a
goal for outdoor noise levels in a residential area, but in areas with mixed land use, a higher
level of 65 dBA is held as the acceptable level by the agencies. Therefore, sites with a
reading of 65 decibels or below are considered acceptable, and do not require additional
attenuation measures.
Numerous environmental factors determine the level of perceptibility of sound at a given
point of reception. These factors include: distance from the source of sound to receptor;
surrounding terrain; ambient sound level; time of day; wind direction; temperature
gradient; and relative humidity. The characteristics of a sound are also important
determining factors for considering it as noise.
The amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), impulse patterns and duration of sound all
affect the potential for a sound to be considered noise. The combination of sound
characteristics, environmental factors, and the physical and mental sensitivity of the
receptor of a sound will determine whether or not a sound will be perceived as noise.
2.13.2.2
State Guidance
The NYSDEC Program Policy Memorandum (Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts,
October 2000) was developed to provide direction to NYSDEC staff for the evaluation of
sound levels and characteristics generated from existing and proposed facilities in New
York State.
The Policy Memorandum outlines the procedures to be followed in performing a noise
assessment and criteria that would necessitate mitigation actions to alleviate unacceptable
adverse noise impacts. The Policy Memorandum also provides guidance on the procedures
used to calculate the attenuation or reduction of sound over distance from the source and
where a potential receptor may be impacted. The Policy Memorandum was used as a basis
for the performance of the noise assessment for the Area 7 Development. The NYSDEC
Solid Waste Regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 360, limit the sound levels at property lines at
locations zoned or otherwise authorized for residential purposes for both nighttime
(10:00 AM to 7:00 AM) and daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) periods. Since the landfill only
operates during the day, nighttime conditions were not evaluated. The Part 360 SPL limits
for rural, suburban, and urban residential areas are provided in Table 2-3, as a point of
reference.
The area surrounding the Project can be described as suburban in nature based on the
development that has occurred, the commercial and industrial activity in the vicinity of the
DEIS Area 7
75
site, and the traffic on US Route 9 and the surrounding roadways. Additionally, New York
defines a rural area as a county with a population of less than 200,000 4. In counties with
populations greater than 200,000, towns within them having population densities of 150
persons per square mile or less are considered to be rural areas. Neither Albany nor
Saratoga Counties are identified as being rural areas, and the towns of Colonie and
Waterford both have population densities greater than 150 persons per square mile. As
such, the daytime SPL limit associated with landfill operations would be limited to 62 dBA.

In the vicinity of the landfill, the noise environment is characterized by traffic related noise
along US Route 9, from within the industrial park south of the landfill (e.g., trucking,
warehousing and cement plant operations), and water flow of the Mohawk River over the
New York Power Authority Dams. The majority of noise produced at the landfill comes
from truck traffic traveling to and from the landfill and from engine, exhaust and back-up
alarms sounds associated with the heavy equipment (waste delivery vehicles, dump trucks,
loaders, dozers and compactors) used at the landfills working face.
Areas surrounding Colonie Landfill are zoned for commercial, industrial, and residential
uses. Nearby residential land uses to the west of US Route 9 include homes on Crescent
Terrace near the northern limit of the facility, a single home across US Route 9 from the
existing entrance, and a new Shelter Cove development off Bay Boulevard. On the east side
of US Route 9, two residences are located adjacent to the west side of the landfill site south
of the existing entrance and a number of homes are located along US Route 9 to the
southwest and adjacent to the industrial park located south of the landfill. Residential
properties to the south and southeast along Fonda Road are located more than 1800 feet
from the landfill site and the industrial park is located between the residential properties
and the landfill. To the east of the landfill are Crescent Road and the Mohawk River, with
residential uses in the Town of Waterford. Residential land uses to the east side, across the
Mohawk River, include the Mallards Landing area where the closest homes are between
2,000 and 3,000 feet of the landfill, and to the south in the Liberty Lane area where the
nearest residential property is over 2,600 feet from the southeast corner of the proposed
development.
Executive Law, Article 19-F Rural Affairs Act, Section 481(7).
DEIS Area 7
76
2.13.3.1
Ambient Noise Levels
As previously noted, the sound level readings were collected in November 2014 at eight
(8) locations in the vicinity of the Colonie Landfill. Ambient sound measurements were
taken from 5 of the locations prior to the 7 AM opening of the landfill and one following the
cessation of operations in the late afternoon. As indicated on Table 2-2, the locations nearest
US Route 9, east of the intersections with Crescent Terrace and Bay Boulevard, had the
highest early morning SPLs, with Leqs of 62.4 dBA and 65.7 dBA prior to the opening of the
landfill, respectively. Noise measurements at the exiting entrance in the afternoon after
landfill operations had ceased resulted in a Leq of 77.8 dBA. All 3 of these locations
reported SPLs above the NYSDEC suburban daytime limit of 62 dBA. While the ambient
measurements at the other 3 locations, Green Mountain Drive approximately 150 feet north
of Fonda Road (61.1 dBA) and in the vicinity of the proposed new entrance on Arrowhead
Lane, and near the eastern property line of the Grace Bible Church (57.1 dBA each) are just
below the daytime limit, they are all above the nighttime (i.e. before 7 AM) limit of 52 dBA.
Ambient noise levels at all of these locations are generally related to traffic on US Route 9
and or within the industrial park, as reflected in the higher SPLs recorded closer to US
Route 9. Traffic volumes and vehicle types are not expected to change as a result of the
proposed landfill development.

Noise sources associated with the landfill operations from the proposed development
would be consistent with current conditions. Trucks traveling to the relocated landfill
entrance would continue to travel on US Route 9 as they currently do, turning onto
Arrowhead Lane and into the industrial park with the existing truck traffic to access the
facility. To assess the potential impacts of the projected operational sound levels associated
with the proposed Area 7 Development, SPL measurements were obtained at the working
face of the landfill and at potential residential receptors in the vicinity of the landfill.
Data from the existing operations was used to project the expected Leq noise levels away
from the landfill that would be expected when operations were occurring at the limits of the
landfill at any given time, as these would represent times when potential noise sources
would be closest to receptors. Existing operations sound level measurements were obtained
at a distance of approximately 50 feet from the working face of the landfill. Equipment in
use included a compactor, a bulldozer, the trailer tipper, and waste delivery vehicles
maneuvering and tipping waste. Table 2-2 presents the projected SPL at each of the
monitoring locations as well as background sound levels and sound level measurements
recorded during landfill operating hours. Figure 2-14 presents a depiction of the expected
Leq SPLs with distance from the edge of the landfill, demonstrates that projected SPLs
associated with the landfilling activities would be below the New York State Suburban SPL
threshold at all areas with residential land uses except for the two residential properties
DEIS Area 7
77
immediately adjacent to the landfills southwest corner and the residence across from the
existing entrance.
Data collected at the existing landfill entrance and at Locations 2 and 3 (intersections of US
Route 9 and Crescent Terrace and Bay Boulevard, respectively) indicate that sound levels
along US Route 9 are well above the Suburban Leq energy equivalent sound level of 62 dBA
due to traffic. Part 360 states that if the background residual sound level (excluding any
contributions from the solid waste management facility) exceeds the limit, the facility must
not produce a Leq exceeding the background level. The projected SPL at the Godfrey
Farmhouse property line abutting the west side of the US Route 9 right-of-way associated
with landfilling sounds when the active landfilling is closest to this location is 60.9 dBA,
below the New York State Suburban SPL threshold.
Sound pressure levels at the property lines of the two nearest residential properties adjacent
to the southwest portion of the facility are projected to be up to 68.5 dBA when landfilling
operations are in the vicinity of these properties. SPLs at the property line in this area were
calculated to have been 65.9 dBA when previous operations were occurring in this area
during the filling of Area 6. As a result, the projected SPL of 68.5 dBA at the property line in
this area associated with the proposed Area 7 Development landfilling operations is less
than a 3 dBA increase, which typically is not a noticeable increase in sound level.
Additionally, it is noted that these SPLs are limited to times when operations are closest to
the property lines and sound levels would be lower as the distance between operations and
the property line increase. The 10-foot high perimeter berm, the downward slope of the
ground surface away from the facility, and the generally lower elevations of the potential
receptors all result in a change in the line of sight between source and receptor which, as
a consequence increases the distance between the source of the sounds and the receptor,
resulting in lower SPLs.
Other potential sound related impacts considered include sound levels that would be
generated at the new entrance and scale location off Arrowhead Lane, the associated
potential increase in traffic on Arrowhead Lane, and construction.
The new entrance access roadway and the scale locations are between 240 and 320 feet from
the four residential property lines to the west. It should be noted that the landfill property
line is closer than 240 feet however, CRL owns the property immediately west of the
proposed scale location and the 240 to 320 foot distance includes this property. The
resultant SPLs when a truck is moving onto the access roadway or on and off the scales at
75 dBA are projected to be between 58.9 dBA and 61.4 dBA at the CRL property lines,
depending on where the vehicle is in relation to the different residential parcels. The sound
levels projected when two trucks are simultaneously maneuvering on the inbound and
outbound scales and or the access roadway is between 64.9 dBA and 67.4 dBA. These sound
levels do not take into account any reduction related to vegetation in the 200 to 300 feet of
wooded area between the property lines and the new entrance roadway and scale facilities.
Calculated sound levels at the rear property lines of the 4 residential lots related to traffic
DEIS Area 7
78
noise on US Route 9 using SPLs of 69.2 dBA (Bay Boulevard) and 75.5 dBA (existing landfill
entrance) range from 56.7 dBA to 63.0 dBA. These calculated SPLs correlate well with the
measured sound levels of 55.6 dBA to 62.9 dBA on Arrowhead Lane at the new entrance
location. The projected sound levels represent a projected increase of 1.9 dBA to 4.9 dBAs
when two trucks are maneuvering in the new entrance and scale area. As referenced earlier,
increases in sound levels of 3-6 dBA typically only result in adverse noise impacts where
the most sensitive receptors are present. Given the nature of the sound levels associated
with traffic on US Route 9 in this area, any minor SPL increase associated with the entrance
and scale facility would not be noticeable and have no impact on potential receptors. Since
the time when waste materials would be brought on site would be restricted to the hours
between 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM, any increase in SPL from operations at the new entrance
and the scales would be limited to these times.
An increase in truck traffic on Arrowhead Lane from US Route 9 associated with the
relocation of the landfill entrance has the potential to increase traffic related sound levels at
the residences west of the new entrance on Arrowhead Lane. While this possibility would
exist if Arrowhead Lane were used to access the new entrance, the designated truck route is
via the signalized intersection with Fonda Road and via Green Mountain Drive into the
industrial park. No significant increase in traffic associated with the relocated entrance is
anticipated in the vicinity of the residential properties at the intersection of Arrowhead
Lane and US Route 9. As such, noise levels in this area, which are related to traffic on US
Route 9 and trucks and other vehicles associated with the occupants of the industrial park,
are not expected to change.
Construction activities include the creation of access roads and drainage basins, the
transport and deposition of soil, and liner placement. Sound level increases associated with
construction activities would be temporary and are not expected to be significant as all
activities would be performed during daytime hours. At the closest locations to residential
properties in the southwest portion of the Area 7 Development, noise levels may at times
increase more than 10 dBA during initial berm construction. Once the berm is constructed,
all construction would be behind the berm and up to 40 feet below it limiting noise impacts.
The noise level increases are also expected in conjunction with the construction of the new
entrance and scale facility. As with the construction activities associated with Area 7, sound
level impacts from the scale area construction would be limited and minor considering that
the activities would be limited to daytime hours and would proceed as quickly as possible,
and since the average noise levels generated during construction would not exceed the
NYSDEC recommended 65 dBA criterion at any receptor location.

The landfill would continue to employ reasonable measures (smart backup alarms,
properly maintained mufflers, working within the perimeter berms) to reduce noise
impacts. While projected SPL increases related to the Area 7 Development have been
identified at two residential properties adjacent to the southwest portion of the facility, the
DEIS Area 7
79
increases are projected to be less than 3 dBA more than sound levels that have been
experienced in this area. As such, no noticeable impact is projected. Additionally, a 10-foot
high soil berm would be constructed on the west side of the landfill, which would reduce
sound levels on this side of the facility. Berms can reduce sound levels by up to 10 to
15 decibels if they are several feet higher than the "line of sight" between the noise source
and the receiver. Based on the elevation of the berm, sound level reductions would be
achieved in the area of the two nearest residential properties, as well as along US Route 9 to
the north, particularly during initial operations in the areas when filling would occur at
lower elevations. As filling progresses and final elevations in these areas are approached,
the reductions would be less, though the distance from the source would be increased
because of the changed line of sight. This increased distance would result in a further
reduction in off-site sound levels from the operations. As previously indicated, the
projected sound levels represent the worst-case sound levels when operations are closest to
property lines. Actual levels would mostly be lower since all of the equipment is typically
not operating at the same time and the equipment would move farther from the potential
receptors as landfill operations progress to the east. Additionally, if sound levels are
disruptive, the trailer tipper could be relocated farther away from the perimeter in this area,
further reducing sound levels.
The projected sound levels at the residential property lines west of the new entrance and
scales represent a projected increase of between 1.9 dBA and 4.9 dBA over existing sound
levels when two trucks are maneuvering in the new entrance and scale area. Since the
potential sound level increases are calculated to be less than 6 dBA, no impacts are expected
to the nearby residential properties, given the existing sound levels associated with traffic
on US Route 9 and the existing truck traffic related to the industrial park.
Short-term sound level impacts associated with construction may occur at times. However,
because construction operations would take place during the day and would be temporary,
no mitigation measures are anticipated, other than the use of equipment that complies with
New York State noise emission standards.
2.14 Cultural / Archaeological Resources

In September 2012, a Phase 1A Literature Search/Sensitivity Assessment and a Phase 1B
Archaeological Survey were conducted by Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc. (included
as Appendix J of this DEIS), to assess the impact of the Proposed Area 7 Development on
historic and prehistoric archaeological sites.
The Phase 1A study consisted primarily of a literature review to establish the sensitivity of
the proposed development area. This study utilized existing databases, as well as two
previous archaeological surveys conducted within the existing landfill site, one
archaeological survey performed on the property containing the proposed Area 7
DEIS Area 7
80
Development, and three other surveys performed in the vicinity immediately to the west of
the site. Based on this review, the study determined the majority of the area of interest had
been previously disturbed or contains existing landfill deposits. Within the Project area, the
former locations of the old Erie Canal and the Fonda cemetery were identified as possible
occurrences of historic period sites. However, the old Erie Canal is under existing fill and
the Fonda cemetery was relocated in the 1930s to its current location on the west side of US
Route 9.
The Phase 1A study also documented listed and eligible sites on the National Register of
Historic Places within a one-mile radius of the Area 7 Development. Listed sites include a
church, bank, and house across the Mohawk River in the Town of Halfmoon, the Cohoes
Company Dam and appurtenances along Cohoes-Crescent Road/North Mohawk Street,
and the Godfrey Farmhouse located directly across US Route 9 from the landfill.
The Phase 1B study investigated apparently undisturbed areas by shovel testing at standard
15-meter (50-foot) intervals and confirmed apparent disturbed areas through additional
shovel testing. The recommendation from this phase of the investigation was consultation
with the SHPO for future activities that could impact the old Erie Canal or the former
Fonda cemetery.

The Phase 1A assessment concluded that the area of potential effect (APE) is considered to
have low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. The exceptions to this
assessment are the Erie Canal and the Fonda cemetery, as noted above. The Area 7
Development proposes grading and further waste placement in areas overlying the former
location of the Erie Canal, and the installation of a drainage culvert in the vicinity of the
former location of the Fonda cemetery.
Potential impacts to the listed and eligible sites on the National Register of Historic Places
consist of potential visual impacts, discussed in Section 2.9 of this Report.

Based on the recommendation from the Phase 1B Archaeological Survey, SHPO was
consulted to verify the conclusions of the study and state its recommendations for further
construction activities. In a response letter dated December 16, 2014, SHPO stated that it
has no concerns regarding the proposed construction activities in the area of the old Erie
Canal, as the area of concern is covered by existing fill and would not be disturbed.
Additionally, in accordance with SHPOs recommendations, excavation in the area of the
former Fonda cemetery would be monitored by an archaeologist, and SHPOs Human
Remains Discover Protocol would be implemented in the event that human remains are
encountered. Associated SHPO correspondence is included in Appendix J of this DEIS.
DEIS Area 7
81
3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Potential environmental impacts from the Area 7 Development will be avoided and
mitigated to the greatest extent possible as discussed in the previous sections. In addition,
the proposed engineering design and best management practices will minimize potential
impacts from the continued operation of the landfill. With the implementation of the
mitigation measures described previously and summarized below, no significant adverse
environmental impacts would result from the proposed Area 7 Development.
3.1 Topography & Soils

The Area 7 Development would inevitably alter the topography of the existing facility.
Much of the natural landscape on site has already been modified to a landfill slope, and the
proposed development would fall mostly as overfill to the existing landfill. The proposed
final grading would facilitate stormwater runoff and, therefore, minimize leachate
generation over the existing grading at the landfill.
No significant erosion and sedimentation impacts are anticipated due to control measures
that would be implemented in accordance with the sites SWPPP.
3.2 Water Resources

The proposed stormwater management methods would provide for stormwater quantity
and quality control in an effective manner. In contrast to the existing landfill, the majority
of stormwater from the landfill working area and final cover area for the Area 7
Development would be routed to detention ponds before being conveyed offsite, allowing
for improved water treatment prior to discharge.
The groundwater resources would be protected by the construction of a Part 360 double
composite liner and leachate collection and storage system. Groundwater would continue
to be monitored in accordance with the revised EMP for the site, including both samples
from groundwater monitoring wells and the porewater drainage system.
The removal of the existing leachate storage lagoons and replacement with covered leachate
storage tanks in the southeast portion of the site would also reduce potential impacts to
surface water and groundwater quality related to leachate storage.
3.3 Terrestrial Resources

Access to the site using existing infrastructure and the required footprint of the Project
necessitate unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States. The proposed Area 7
Development would impact approximately 1.43 acres of federally-regulated wetlands and
1.32 acres of 100-foot buffer of NYSDEC-regulated wetlands. Applications have been
DEIS Area 7
82
submitted to the ACOE for a federal wetlands permit and to NYSDEC for an Article 24
Freshwater Wetlands Permit for the disturbance of these wetlands. As part of this request,
the Town has developed a wetlands mitigation strategy recommended by the ACOE which
includes utilizing the Wetland Trust Approved Susquehanna Basin Headwaters and
Adjacent Basins In-Lieu Fee Program (a preferred mitigation option as set forth in the
Mitigation Rule). The Town and CRL are proposing to use the program to satisfy mitigation
requirements for this project. The Town and CRL will provide, as indicated in the wetland
application and subsequently confirmed through additional discussions with the ACOE, 3.2
acres of credits in the Susquehanna Basin Headwaters and Adjacent Basins In-Lieu Fee
Program. A letter of credit can be seen in Appendix D in the October 26, 2015
correspondence to the ACOE.
3.4 Visual Resources

The proposed Area 7 Development represents a continuation of existing visibility of
Colonie landfill operations with limited areas of new visibility. Upon completion of the
proposed development, the landfill would be visible from a maximum of 4.4% of the 3-mile
radius study area. This is an increase of 2.2% (approximately 400 acres) over what is
currently visible (permitted condition) in the study area. These areas are generally small
geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are already impacted by views of the existing
facility. Where the proposed development would be visible, views would be limited the
upper portions of the Area 7 Development appearing above the foreground tree line.
Where the existing facility is visible, it is a dominant feature on the foreground landscape.
While the proposed Area 7 Development would increase the elevation of the landfill by
87 vertical feet, the visual patterns and composition of the proposed Project would be
consistent with what is already seen. In most areas, the effect of the proposed Area 7
Development on the surrounding landscape would be a change in the degree of exposure
rather than a new or visually different impact. In such areas, the upper portions of the
proposed Area 7 Development would appear low to intervening tree line and similar in
form, line color and texture with the local landscape.
practicable have been incorporated into the Area 7 Development. To minimize the duration
and magnitude of operational impacts, landfilling within each successive vertical lift would
be phased in a manner that would screen much of the day-to-day operations from off-site
receptors through the use of berms to be placed along the perimeter of the lift area.
DEIS Area 7
83
3.5 Air Quality

The active GCCS for the Area 7 Development would be similar to the system that is
currently installed. The GCCS would be designed to manage the collection of generated
LFG and mitigate the potential for the build-up of excess LFG pressure which could result
in subsoil LFG migration or surface emissions to the atmosphere. Due to the proposed
increase acreage associated with the development, certain assumptions in the existing Title
V permit record would need to be updated. For example, as a result of the proposed
development, annual VOC emissions are expected to be approximately 1.5 tons/year
higher than the VOC emission estimates stated in the 2012 Title V Operating Permit
Renewal Application submitted to NYSDEC and approved on October 24, 2013. The Town
will submit to NYSDEC an application for a minor permit modification.
3.6 Noise
Sound levels from the landfill operations associated with the Area 7 Development would
remain unchanged. Since the Area 7 Development does not include any change to existing
permitted daily capacity, operational traffic is not expected to change. The only additional
traffic incurred from the proposed Project would be from construction traffic, which is
estimated to be approximately 20 additional vehicles on a temporary basis. Also, the
relocation of the site entrance to Arrowhead Lane would increase traffic-related noise in the
industrial park. All of the projected SPL increases would be less than 6 dBA, which given
the relatively elevated ambient sound levels related to the traffic on US Route 9, would not
result in any adverse impacts to potential receptors.
3.7 Cultural
The Literature Search/Sensitivity Assessment and Archaeological Survey performed for the
site concluded that the APE effect is considered to have low sensitivity for prehistoric and
historic archaeological sites, with the exception of the Erie Canal and the Fonda cemetery.
In regard to these two items, SHPO stated that it has no concerns regarding the proposed
filling activities in the area of the old Erie Canal, as the area of concern is covered by
existing fill and would not be disturbed. Additionally, in accordance with SHPOs
recommendations, excavation in the area of the former Fonda cemetery would be
monitored by an archaeologist, and SHPOs Human Remains Discover Protocol would be
implemented in the event that human remains are encountered.
DEIS Area 7
84
4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

The following provides various reasonable alternatives to the Area 7 Development and
discusses both the adverse and beneficial consequences for each.
4.1 No-Action/Waste Exportation (Off-Site Disposal)

To establish a baseline for assessing the relative costs and benefits of the Project, SEQR
requires a discussion of the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative discussion is
intended to describe and evaluate the adverse or beneficial impacts that are likely to occur
or not occur on the site and in the community in the absence of the proposed action.
The remaining permitted capacity at the existing landfill as of December 31, 2013 was
approximately 1,517,000 million cubic yards. Depending on the rate of utilization and inplace density, it is estimated that the currently permitted landfill will reach capacity by the
end of 2017 (using the currently permitted waste acceptance rate of 255,840 tpy). Without
an option for further development, no additional waste could be accepted at the site and
would have to be disposed elsewhere. This no-action alternative is therefore equivalent to
closing the landfill and transporting waste to another permitted disposal site.
There are currently twenty-eight permitted landfills in New York State, most of which are
publicly owned and typically restricted with respect to the origin of the waste that is
accepted. With the exception of the City of Albany Rapp Road Landfill, all of the other
permitted disposal facilities are outside of Albany County. If the existing landfill were to
close, waste would be diverted to other facilities, thereby requiring transfer and longdistance hauling, causing increased fuel consumption and an increase in air contaminant
emissions (CO2). Also, most landfills that provide commercially available disposal capacity
in New York are already operating at or near their design capacity.
There is an element of inherent unreliability and unpredictability in a waste exportation
arrangement. Tipping fees charged at landfills are subject to market fluctuations, and
residents and businesses in the Town and surrounding communities that rely on the landfill
for disposal would be subject to the variability of the market. Waste exportation costs will
also be more sensitive to changes in diesel fuel prices.
In addition to the increased cost of disposal for its residents, the Town would suffer
financially from closing the landfill. In the 2015 Town of Colonie Budget, the Town is
estimating revenues of $30 million from real property taxes. The projected annual
payments of $1.6 million by the private operator of the landfill represents 5.3% of the
current revenue from real property taxes. If this revenue were lost, the Town would have
to increase property taxes by 5.3% to make up the difference (or cut costs or find other
sources of revenue) as discussed in Section 2.8.2 of this DEIS.
DEIS Area 7
85
The cost of exporting waste to other permitted disposal sites would be more expensive for
the Town of Colonie residents and businesses, and surrounding communities than
continued disposal at the Colonie landfill. The adverse fiscal implications to the Town of
Colonie are too significant to consider the no-action alternative as a viable option. Waste
should be exported only if no other solution can be found.
4.2 Alternative Sites

No alternative sites were evaluated due to the proposed development and re-use of the
existing Project site. Given the large footprint and siting criteria required to site a new
landfill, it was not practicable or economically feasible to consider other sites. The
proposed Area 7 Development is included as part of the NYSDEC-approved LSWMP for
the Town of Colonie.
4.3 Alternative Technologies

While alternative waste disposal technologies are summarized below, the LSWMP for the
Town of Colonie Local Solid Waste Management Planning Unit indicates the landfill as the
first facility to be used for management of solid waste within the planning unit and the
Area 7 Development is included in the LSWMP schedule. The byproducts of the
technologies discussed below require landfilling for ultimate disposal.
4.3.1 Waste-to-Energy (WTE)

Waste has been converted to beneficial use on a large scale for well over 100 years.
Incineration with electric power generation was first applied to MSW in 1894 in New York
City. Since that time, the burning of municipal solid waste with energy recovery (now
known as WTE) has matured into an acceptable waste disposal technology.
While the market for incineration/mass burn WTE equipment has increased in Europe and
in Eastern Asia, procurements have declined in the United States. There are currently ten
(10) active WTE facilities in New York State, all of which were permitted and constructed
over twenty years ago. Although WTE facilities result in a reduction of waste to be
disposed, such facilities involve high initial construction costs, high operations and
maintenance costs, and uncertainty in revenue due to the variability associated with energy
sales. These factors lead to a higher cost of disposal for WTE facilities than for landfilling.
4.3.2 Refuse Derived Fuel

In the refuse derived fuel systems, MSW is mechanically processed in a front end system
to produce a more homogenous and easily burned fuel called Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).
RDF in its simplest form, is shredded MSW with ferrous metals removed. Additional
processing can be applied to the incoming waste stream to remove other non-combustible
DEIS Area 7
86
materials such as glass and aluminum. Additional screening and shredding stages can be
placed in the processing line to further enhance the RDF.
As with incineration/mass burn WTE systems, there have not been any new RDF systems
constructed in the United States in the past decade.
4.3.3 Emerging Waste Technologies

There are various technologies currently being proposed for the treatment and disposal of
MSW around the world. Most of these involve thermal processing, particularly those of
gasification and pyrolysis. These technologies were employed as early as the 18th century
in the thermal processing of coal and wood to produce various chemicals and fuels.
However, their application to MSW has been limited due to the heterogeneity of MSW.
There are some commercial scale plants in Japan, the United Kingdom, and certain other
countries, but these technologies are still considered to be emerging as a commercial scale
technology for MSW processing in the United States. Some others involve the biological or
chemical decomposition of the organic fraction of the waste to produce useful outputs like
compost or energy products, notably synthetic gas (syngas) for downstream combustion.
4.3.3.1
Pyrolysis
In the pyrolysis process, an organic waste (MSW) is heated without oxygen (or air), similar
to the generation of coke from coal or charcoal from wood. Both a char and a gas are
generated. The gas is burned out in a gaseous phase, requiring much less oxygen than
incineration, and the char will usually melt at the temperatures within the pyrolysis
chamber and will be discharged as a black gravel-like substance, termed frit. Advantages
of this process are in the lack of air entering the chamber and the resulting smaller size of
system components. Without air, there is little nitrogen oxide generation, and low
particulate (soot) formation. There have been many attempts to develop this technology
outside a laboratory or a pilot plant. In past demonstrations in the 1970s, it was difficult to
maintain a sealed chamber to keep air out, and waste variability created problems in
maintaining consistent operation. When the pyrolysis gas is fired in a combustion chamber
that is part of the system, the system is classified as an incinerator.
Currently, there are no full-scale pyrolysis systems in commercial operation on MSW in the
United States.
4.3.3.2
Gasification
Gasification is the heating of an organic waste (MSW) to produce a burnable gas

(approximately 85% hydrogen and carbon monoxide mix) for use off-site. While pyrolysis
systems are primarily focused on waste destruction, a gasifier is designed primarily to
produce a usable gas.
DEIS Area 7
87
There is a general perception that gasification technologies are more advantageous than
combustion technologies and have lower costs, greater efficiency, less emissions, and
overall reduced adverse impacts. There is merit to certain claims associated with
gasification technology, however, many of the perceived benefits are unfounded or have
yet to be confirmed through a reasonable period of operation on a commercial scale. Also,
there is no reason to believe these technologies are less expensive than conventional
combustion technologies when considering the all-in costs, particularly when in many
cases, they are more complex.
4.3.3.3
Mixed-Waste Composting
Composting is the aerobic decomposition of biodegradable organic matter, producing

compost from decaying vegetable and other plant materials. The decomposition is
performed primarily by aerobic bacteria, yeasts and fungi. Composting considerably
speeds up the natural process of decomposition as a result of the higher temperatures
generated. Composting has been used for hundreds of years to process a variety of
agricultural wastes.
Compost is also created by biological decomposition that eliminates oxygen (anaerobic).
Advanced anaerobic processes digest the organic waste in tanks, capturing the biogas made
from methane and carbon dioxide. This biogas can be used as a substitute for petroleum-based
fuel. The remaining physical material, compost, can be used as a soil supplement.
Compost processes can employ varying degrees of technology to convert the organic matter
into a usable soil product. Lower tech systems utilize long, outdoor piles or rows, called
windrows, in which to cure materials. Middle technology systems add features to these
windrows, such as aeration introducing additional air through fans, or flexible coverings
for the waste material during processing, like a large scale tarp or bag, also known as a
lower tech version of in-vessel composting. Higher technology systems employ an
enclosed process in which to generate the compost, including bagged in-vessel systems and
fully-enclosed composting done in a specially-designed building. Lastly, newer high-tech
composting methods include anaerobic digestion processes where, without air,
microorganisms break down the organic waste solids, generating a gas.
Mixed-waste composting requires large land areas or high capital investment. It also can
create significant odor and the compost is limited in its application.
4.3.3.4
Hydrolysis
Two types of hydrolysis have been applied to the organic components of solid waste: acid
hydrolysis and enzyme hydrolysis. They have also been used in combination. The
National Renewable Energy Laboratory developed and has operated pilot processes, which
have demonstrated technically feasibility. No production plants, however, have been built
to date.
DEIS Area 7
88
4.4 Alternative Development Scenarios

The current NYSDEC-approved Town of Colonie Solid Waste Management Plan (2007-2008
Solid Waste Management Plan Update, December 2009) anticipated the design of Area 7 in
2014. Therefore, alternative on-site development scenarios were developed and evaluated
in the early stages of planning the proposed Area 7 Development. Environmental,
economic, and logistical considerations were analyzed for each alternative to determine the
practicability and feasibility of implementing each option. Three alternative on-site
development scenarios were considered for the Area 7 Development as discussed below.
The first alternative involves further development to the east of the existing landfill. This
scenario would have approximately 27 acres of additional landfilling (baseliner) area, with
over 4-million cubic yards of additional waste volume. Although this scenario would
provide an increase to the volume of the Area 7 Development, it has the greatest impact to
wetlands on site as it extends into the deed restricted NYSDEC wetland TN-10. In addition
to the loss of wetlands, further development to the east would remove the vegetative buffer
that currently serves to limit visibility of the landfill. Steep slopes and difficulty accessing
this area make it infeasible for further development. For all of these reasons, this alternative
was dismissed from consideration.
The next alternative involves further development to the north of the existing landfill. This
scenario would have consisted of approximately 16 acres of additional landfilling
(baseliner) area, with over 1 million cubic yards of additional waste volume. The
significant concern with this alternative is that the development would overlay the
Unnamed Area which is a listed Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site (NYSDEC
Registry Site Code 401004), and could interfere with the potential, ongoing, or completed
inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial program. Additional wetlands would also
be impacted from this development scenario. For these reasons, and the need for a
stormwater basin to be located this area, this development scenario was avoided.
The final alternative would have involved extending the landfill footprint to the south of
the existing landfill. Due to the proposed relocation of the entrance facilities to this area in
order to have safer traffic route to and from the landfill, this scenario was not evaluated
further.
DEIS Area 7
89
5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS

OF RESOURCES
The Area 7 Development would cause certain irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
natural, man-made, and financial resources. Although a full range of engineering design
features and environmentally-sound mitigation measures would be implemented to
minimize these commitments to the greatest extent possible, some resources would become
unavailable for future use.
5.1 Natural Resources

Certain natural resources would be committed and unavailable for future use as a result of
the development and operation of the Area 7 Development components.
The commitment of the landfill footprint to waste disposal is considered to be an
irreversible commitment of land use due to limitations the landfill would pose to future use
of the land. However, the Area 7 Development design maximizes the use of the existing
landfill, and only 23 acres of land (most of it previously disturbed) would be new waste
footprint.
5.2 Energy Consumption and Man-Made Resources

The use of fuels would be required in the construction and operation of the Area 7
Development. Non-renewable fossil fuel, in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel, would be
consumed by the machinery required to construct the landfill components and for filling
operations. Since the Area 7 Development does not propose to increase the landfills daily
capacity of 820 tons, nor the hours or days of operation per year, the facility would not
increase its fuel consumption over current levels during operations.
Labor, building materials and equipment would be necessary to construct and operate the
landfill and associated facilities. The construction of new facilities provides the opportunity
to improve their energy efficiency. Various workers employed in connection with the
construction of the proposed Area 7 Development would be unavailable for other
construction Projects during the same time frame. The building materials and equipment
utilized during the construction/operation of the Area 7 Development would be committed
to the development of the landfill, and therefore, would not be available for use in other
development projects.
DEIS Area 7
90
5.3 Financial Resources

Financial resources are those funds that would be expended before, during, and after the
development of the Project. These resources include development capital as well as
operation, closure, post-closure, and monitoring costs.
Development capital refers to the costs associated with constructing the Project and
includes engineering, financial, legal and other professional services, labor and materials,
and project financing. Included in these costs are the premiums for insurance and other
risks that are part of a construction/development venture. The commitment of these
resources for the proposed Area 7 Development would make them unavailable for other
uses.
There would also be costs associated with the daily operations of the Project. The
commitment of these monetary resources to operate and maintain the facility would render
them unavailable for other uses.
DEIS Area 7
91
6 CUMULATIVE & GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS

6.1 Cumulative Impacts
In addition to environmental impacts associated with the proposed Area 7 Development,
cumulative impacts to area resources previously discussed could occur as a result of
existing, proposed or future projects and activities in the vicinity of the proposed landfill
development. However, due to minimal land in the vicinity of the landfill available to be
developed, and minimal additional development that would occur as a result of the
continued operation of the landfill at similar waste acceptance rates, cumulative impacts to
the surrounding area would not occur.
Although initial construction and operation of the proposed landfill development would
directly impact only a portion of the total acreage, the environmental analyses presented in
this DEIS address the cumulative impacts associated with the initial cell construction and
subsequent development efforts over the operating life.
6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts

Some proposed actions have the potential to trigger further development by either
attracting a significant local population, inviting commercial or industrial growth, or by
inducing the development of similar projects adjacent to the facility. The proposed landfill
development does not require additional permanent work force, and therefore, would not
lead to significant, permanent growth in local population or housing. The impacts
associated with the construction workforce would be temporary in nature.
Since the existing landfill has been in operation, it has not directly induced significant
population growth in the Town of Colonie or the surrounding area. Therefore, the
proposed Area 7 Development is not expected to directly induce population growth within
the Town. The development would allow for continued cost-effective waste disposal for
the Town and surrounding communities and prevent a significant increase in disposal
costs. Ultimately, an increase in solid waste management costs may have some impact on
where people and businesses choose to locate.
DEIS Area 7
92
7 CONCLUSION
Construction and operation of the Area 7 Development would result in minor potential
impacts to the existing environmental setting as discussed in Section 2 of this DEIS.
However, the implementation of the measures described above would mitigate, minimize,
or avoid these potential adverse impacts to the greatest extent possible. These measures
include:
Implementation of stormwater BMPs, including erosion and sediment control

measures and improved stormwater retention and treatment on site;
Overlay liner installation which would provide a reduction in recharge anticipated

to reduce the potential for impacting groundwater;
Wetlands mitigation which would provide benefits, including retaining flood

waters, increased wetland habitat and improved visual aesthetics;
Screening and camouflage to minimize duration and magnitude of visual impacts;
Relocation of the site entrance to provide a safer traffic route to and from the landfill;
Continued use of an active GCCS to manage the collection of generated LFG and
mitigate the potential for subsoil LFG migration and surface emissions to the
atmosphere; and
Continued use of smart backup alarms, properly maintained mufflers, and

maintaining operations within the perimeter berm when possible to reduce noise.
Furthermore, the Area 7 Development would be a significant fiscal benefit to the Town of
Colonie and provide the most economical means of waste management for residents and
businesses of the surrounding area.
DEIS Area 7
93
LIMITATIONS
The work product included in the attached was undertaken in full conformity with
generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices and to the fullest extent
as allowed by law we expressly disclaim all warranties, express or implied, including
warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The work product was
completed in full conformity with the contract with our client and this document is solely
for the use and reliance of our client (unless previously agreed upon that a third party
could rely on the work product) and any reliance on this work product by an unapproved
outside party is at such party's risk.
The work product herein (including opinions, conclusions, suggestions, etc.) was prepared
based on the situations and circumstances as found at the time, location, scope and goal of
our performance and thus should be relied upon and used by our client recognizing these
considerations and limitations. Cornerstone shall not be liable for the consequences of any
change in environmental standards, practices, or regulations following the completion of
our work and there is no warrant to the veracity of information provided by third parties,
or the partial utilization of this work product.
DEIS Area 7
94
REFERENCES
Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC, 2015. Draft Site Investigation Report Colonie Landfill.
Prepared for Capital Region Landfills, Inc.
Crawford and Associates Engineering, P.C., 2014. Colonie Landfill Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan. Prepared for Capital Region Landfills, Inc.
Erie Canalway Website: http://www.eriecanalway.org/
Loomacres Wildlife Management, 2014. Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. Prepared for
Town of Colonie-Capital Region Landfills, Inc.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012. Web Soil Survey Map Unit Description
Albany County, New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Website:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2005. New York State
Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2009. Draft New York State
Open Space Conservation Plan.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. December 2010. Beyond Waste,
a Sustainable Materials Management Strategy for New York State.
Office of New York State Comptroller, 2013. 2013 Fiscal Profile Town of Colonie.
Saratoga Associates, 2005. Town of Colonie Comprehensive Plan.
Solid Waste Association of North America, 2011. Waste Conversion Technologies.
The Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway, A Discovery Guide.
http://www.mohawktowpath.org/
Town of Colonie Website: http://www.colonie.org
Town of Colonie, 2005. Town of Colonie Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Strategy and
Action Plan.
Town of Colonie, 2014. Annual Budget 2015.
DEIS Area 7
95
Town of Colonie, 2007. Zoning District Map Adopted January 4, 2007.

Town of Colonie Landfill Website: http://www.townofcolonielandfill.com
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census. http://factfinder.census.gov
DEIS Area 7
96
TABLES
DEIS Area 7
97
Table 2-1
Odor Complaint Statistics 2012-2014
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
2012
2013
2014
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
18
1
1
8
9
20
15
5
59
1
1
1
2
2
1
11
Notes:
1)Tablerepresentsthenumberofodorcomplaintsbymonth
2)DataisfromCRLOdorComplaintLogsforyears20122014
Table 2-2
SPL Monitoring Locations
MonitoringLocation
1WorkingFace
LeqBefore
LandfillOpening
LeqDuring Dist.FromCurrent ProjectedSPLFrom

WorkingFace
LandfillOperations2
LandfillOperations1
DistanceFrom
Expansion
70.774.5dBA
2CrescentTerr.andRoute9
62.4dBA
65.568.9dBA
2700ft
58.9dBA
300ft
3BayBlvd.andRoute9
65.7dBA
64.969.2dBA
1100ft
53.7dBA
550ft
4FondaRd.andGreenMountainDr.
61.1dBA
58.762.3dBA
2750ft
41.2dBA
2300ft
5NewEntranceonArrowheadLn.
57.1dBA
55.662.9dBA
1100ft
50.9dBA
760ft
6GraceBibleChurch
57.1dBA
49.155.1dBA
425ft
62.9dBA
190ft
7ExistingEntrance
8BoatLaunchatStateCanalPark
916TowPathLn,Waterford
72.8dBA
240ft3
3100ft
1900ft
71.375.5dBA
1400ft
60.9dBA
49.456.1dBA
47.452.1dBA
4400ft
4300ft
38.9dBA
42.9dBA
1RangeofSPLs
2HighestworkingfaceLequsedincalculation.
3ProjectedSPLanddistancefromexpansionareatoresidentialpropertyat1313NewLoudonRd(Route9).
4Measurementstakenafterfacilityoperationsceased.
Table 2-3
NYSDEC Part 360 Sound Level Limits
Character of
Community
Leq Energy Equivalent Sound Levels

7 AM - 10 PM
10 PM - 7AM
Rural
57 dBA
47 dBA
Suburban
62 dBA
52 dBA
Urban
67 dBA
57 dBA
FIGURES
DEIS Area 7
98
1-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED FINAL GRADING
Legend
Property Line
Commercial Office
Residential (COR)
Industrial
Land Conservation
Neighborhood
Commercial Office
Residential (NCOR)
Office Residential
(OR)
Planned
Development District
(PDD)
\
y01dfs02\cstn\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\GIS\Maps\120076 - Zoning.mxd
Single-Family
Residential (SFR)
Prepared by:
K.S.D
Approved by:
R.A.H.
.
Coordinate System
1 inch = 1,500 feet
Datum
WGS 1984
Date Created: 01/19/2015
PREPARED BY:
CORNERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, LLC
This drawing represents intellectual property of Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC.

Any modification to the original by other than Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC
personnel violates its original purpose and as such is rendered void. Cornerstone
Environmental Group, LLC will not be held liable for any changes made to this
document without express written consent of the originator.
CAPITAL REGION LANDFILLS, INC.

TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL
COLONIE, NEW YORK
ZONING MAP
Units
Meter
FIGURE NO.
2-11
PROJECT NO.
150027
Ug
Wo
NrC
NaB
Legend
Property Line
NaB
MUSYM
BuB
NaB
ClA
ClB
Du
Fx
HuB
HuC
RhB
HuD
HuE
Ma
NuC
HuC
NuE
NaC
Du
NaB
NrC
NrD
NuB
NuC
HuD
NuD
NuE
Ma
NuD
NuB
Ug
RhB
NaC
Uk
NuB
RhA
NaC
Te
Ug
HuD
NuD
SuA
Uh
Uk
NrC
Ur
Ut
BuB
RhA
HuB
NaB
HuD
Wo
\
y01dfs02\cstn\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\GIS\Maps\120076 - Soil Survey.mxd
NuC
HuC
HuC
HuC
HuD
W
Te
Ug
Uh
NrC
HuB
ClB
HuC
NuC
HuE
Ug
HuC
RhA
Prepared by:
S.D.B.
NuB
Approved by:
R.A.H. HuB
RhB
HuC
Ur
HuB
Coordinate System
1 inch = 1,000 feet

Date Created:12/11/2014
Ut
PREPARED BY:
CORNERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, LLC
HuB
ClA
This drawing represents intellectual property of Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC.

Any modification to the original by other than Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC
personnel violates its original purpose and as such is rendered void. Cornerstone
Environmental Group, LLC will not be held liable for any changes made to this
document without express written consent of the originator.
Datum
WGS 1984
Units
Meter
CAPITAL REGION LANDFILLS, INC.

COLONIE, NEW YORK
FIGURE NO.
SOILS MAP
PROJECT NO.
2-2
150027
APPENDIX A
EAF, SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION, & FINAL SCOPING
DOCUMENT
SEQR
State Environmental Quality Review
POSITIVE DECLARATION
Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS
Determination of Significance
NYSDEC Project Number: 4-0126-00033/00001
Date: July 1, 2014
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State
Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as Lead Agency, has determined that
the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared.
Name of Action: Town of Colonie Landfill Part 360 Permit Modification (Area 7 Development)
Location:
1319 Loudon Road, Cohoes, NY (Town of Colonie, Albany County)
SEQR Status:
Type I
Description of Action:
The Town of Colonie proposes a horizontal and vertical expansion to the north and west of the active
landfill operations of the existing Town of Colonie Landfill. The proposed development area, to be
known as Area 7, will overlie portions of Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the existing landfill and a new
waste footprint will be developed over the current leachate storage lagoons to the east and west of the
existing landfill (including current locations of the transfer station, landfill offices and sedimentation
basin).
The entrance to the landfill will be relocated to Arrowhead Lane, to improve traffic safety.
Existing open leachate storage lagoons will be closed and new, covered storage tanks will be
constructed and stormwater treatment capacity will be increased.
A synthetic liner system will be installed in older sections of the landfill to reduce infiltration and
potential groundwater contamination and improve the efficiency of landfill gas collection.
Approximately 2 acres of federally-regulated wetlands and smaller portions of the buffer area of NYS
regulated Freshwater Wetland TN-10 will be impacted by the expansion (approximately 1.5 acres of
wetland will be filled along the northwestern project area and approximately 0.5 acres will be subject to
excavation and fill along the southern portion of the project area).
The proposed expansion would allow increased waste disposal capacity to approximately 10 million
cubic yards and add approximately 20 years to the life of the landfill.
Town of Colonie Landfill Part 360 Permit Modification

SEQR Positive Declaration
Page 2
Reasons Supporting this Determination:

Increased Disposal Capacity - As a result of the proposed modifications, the disposal capacity at the landfill
will increase by 10 million cubic yards, thereby increasing the length of time that the facility will be in
operation and the amount of materials that will be disposed there over the life of the facility. This
modification of the landfills operations should be evaluated in accordance with town and countys long term
solid waste management plans.
Ground Disturbance/Stormwater - The development will impact approximately 112 acres of the overall 200
acre site. Removal of native vegetation along with excavation and grading of soils can impact groundwater
recharge and contamination, stormwater runoff, soil erosion and sedimentation and remove valuable wildlife
habitat. The final configuration of the landfill will increase the topography of the site to an elevation of
approximately 430 feet above mean sea level. The change in elevation of the land can potentially affect
stormwater runoff form the property.
Groundwater can be impacted by leachate from the landfilling operation. Liner systems are typically
installed at landfill facilities to contain and collect leachate. The Colonie facility utilizes leachate storage
lagoons on the property to store leachate until such time as it can be transported to a treatment facility.
These lagoons will be decommissioned and replaced by closed storage tanks. The potential impacts to
groundwater from the current and expanded landfill operations must be addressed.
Wetland Impacts: Further site development would impact approximately 2 acres of federally-regulated
wetlands, and smaller portions of the buffer area of DEC-regulated Freshwater Wetland TN-10 will be
impacted by the expansion (approximately 1.5 acres of wetland will be filled along the northwestern project
area and approximately 0.5 acres will be subject to excavation and fill along the southern portion of the
project area).
Wildlife/Threatened-Endangered Species - A Bald Eagle has been observed in the vicinity of the landfill
area. Removal of groundcover may impact this threatened species, and other wildlife which may be utilizing
the site for habitat.
Land Use and Community Character - The impact of further development of the landfill site and what its
continued projected operation for an additional 20 years would have on the surrounding community.
Visual Impacts - The landfill is visible in various degrees from each direction. The final height of the landfill
will be to an elevation of approximately 430 feet above mean sea level. Vegetation which may currently
screen operations will be removed. The impact of the removal of vegetation, the change in height of the
landfill and its final configuration will have on the viewsheds must be evaluated for the period that the
landfilling activities will be occurring, and once the landfill is closed. Visibility of the equipment working
the face of the landfill, and the change in the direction and elevation of the working face over time should be
evaluated as well.
Town of Colonie Landfill Part 360 Permit Modification

SEQR Positive Declaration
Page 3
Traffic Impacts: The entrance/exit for the landfill will be relocated from Route 9 to Arrowhead Lane. This
proposed change should be evaluated for impacts to traffic patterns, volume, flow, and pedestrian and
motorists safety.
Air Quality - Emissions from the landfill are currently authorized under a permit issued by NYSDEC. The
facility has an active gas collection system is currently in place, and the collected gases are piped to the
Innovative Energy Systems, Inc. facility which is adjacent to the landfill and burned to generate electricity.
Any excess gas is burned in a flare. The expansion of the facility may impact the generation of gas quantity
and quality and dust associated with landfill roads and operations as well as the ability of capacity of the
current control devices to control gas odors. Any necessary modifications to the current air permit should be
discussed.
Odor Control - The DEIS will need to evaluate the impact that the expanded landfill operations would have
on the current gas collection system and odor control measures such as placement of landfill cover as well as
the combustion of excess gas by flare. A discussion is needed of past odor complaints and of the corrective
measures that were taken to correct past odor problems and to prevent future off-site odor problems.
Noise Impacts: Operation of equipment (dump trucks, loaders, dozers and compactors) used to deliver
wastes to the facility and to spread and compact the wastes, create noise. Equipment will be working at
higher elevations over the life of the landfill, which may affect noise levels in the surrounding community. A
noise analysis, consistent with the Part 360 Regulations and the NYSDEC Program Policy is required to
determine the potential impact of the noise could have on the nearest residential receptors and the
surrounding community.
Cultural Resources - The project site is located within an area that may have archaeological and historically
sensitive resources. The potential impact to the resources which may be present should be evaluated in the
form of a Phase 1A Literature Search/Sensitivity Assessment and Phase 1B Archaeological Survey for the
area of the Proposed Area 7 Development.
For Further Information:
Contact Person:
Angelo A. Marcuccio, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator
Address:
1130 N. Westcott Road, Schenectady, NY 12306-2014
Telephone Number: (518) 357-2446
E-Mail:
andy.marcuccio@dec.ny.gov
Signature:
A Copy of this Notice Sent to:
Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233
Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation
Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision where the action will be located
Applicant (if any)
Other involved agencies (if any)
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT
SCOPE
Town of Colonie Landfill, Proposed Area 7 Development
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Name of Action: Proposed Area 7 Development

SEQR Status: Type 1
Lead Agency: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
I.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Existing Town of Colonie Landfill Operations

The Town of Colonie owns and maintains permits for the operation of the Town of Colonie
Landfill Facility. The Town of Colonie Landfill is located between U.S. Route 9 and CohoesCrescent Road in the northeast portion of Albany County, New York. The facility is currently
operated by Capital Region Landfills, Inc. under contract with the Town of Colonie.
The landfill is permitted to accept a maximum of 820 tons of waste per operating day (tpd)
(based on a 25 operating day rolling average) provided that on an annual basis, no more than
255,840 tons per year are received and disposed of in the landfill. The wastes accepted at the
landfill generally consist of residential waste, commercial waste, industrial/institutional waste,
municipal solid waste, and other non-hazardous waste consisting of wastewater treatment
plant sludge, water treatment plant sludge, incinerator ash, construction and demolition (C&D)
debris, and non-hazardous contaminated soils. Of the approximately 253,000 tons of waste
accepted at the landfill in 2013, approximately 182,000 tons was municipal solid waste.
Consistent with the approved Solid Waste Management Plan and past practices, the landfill
operates as a regional, merchant solid waste management facility. In 2013, approximately
92% of the total 253,000 tons of waste disposed of at the landfill originated from within the
counties in the vicinity of the landfill: Albany (24%); Rensselaer (28%); Saratoga (35%); and
Washington (5%).
An Environmental Monitoring and Sampling Plan is implemented for the existing landfill areas
pursuant to which groundwater, surface water and leachate quality are monitored. A landfill
November 3, 2014
gas collection system is operated to collect and control landfill gas generated from the
decomposition of landfilled wastes. Collected landfill gas is combusted in a landfill gas flare and
an electric generating facility as described herein. Landfill leachate collected from the existing
landfill areas is stored in on-site lagoons prior to discharging through municipal sewers to offsite treatment facilities.
Upon reaching permitted capacity, the landfill will be closed in accordance with permit
documents and applicable regulatory requirements. This closure will include capping the active
areas (presently Areas 5 and 6) with an engineered geosynthetic membrane liner to prevent
infiltration of precipitation into and through in-place wastes. Post-closure care will be provided
for a minimum 30-year period following landfill closure, and will include continued
environmental monitoring as well as cover maintenance and continued leachate and landfill gas
management. Financial assurance is required by permit to ensure that closure and post-closure
requirements are met through the 30-year post-closure period.
Project Background
The Town has proposed to undertake a Project involving the further development of its existing
solid waste management facility (the Proposed Area 7 Development) as identified in the
NYSDEC-approved Town of Colonie Solid Waste Management Plan (2007-2008 Solid Waste
Management Plan Update, December 2009). This Scoping Document has been prepared in
accordance with the regulations of the NYSDEC set forth at 6 NYCRR (Codes, Rules and
Regulations of the State of New York) Part 617, which implement the State Environmental
Quality Review (SEQR) Act. This Scoping Document outlines the topics and analyses of the
potential environmental impacts of the Towns proposed Project.
The Scoping Document will describe the Proposed Area 7 Development Project, identify any
potentially significant adverse impacts, describe the extent and quality of information needed
to address each impact, identify possible mitigation measures, and describe reasonable
alternatives to be considered. The scoping process allows the scope of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) to be focused on the relevant environmental impacts to the
environmental conditions and resources that may be affected by the Project and to eliminate
irrelevant impacts or issues and to eliminate or de-emphasize non-significant impacts.
SEQR Act Status
SEQR establishes a process for the consideration of environmental factors in the planning
stages of discretionary actions that are directly undertaken, funded, or approved by local,
regional, and state agencies. SEQR requires an analysis of the range of potential significant
adverse environmental impacts of a proposed action and how those impacts can be avoided or
minimized.
November 3, 2014
The Town of Colonie completed Part 1 of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for the
proposed project dated March 11, 2014 and the EAF was submitted to the NYSDEC. NYSDEC
distributed a SEQR Lead Agency Coordination letter dated April 30, 2014 indicating its desire to
act as Lead Agency.
Project Summary
The proposed Project will involve the development of Area 7 of the existing Town of Colonie
Landfill which operates under NYSDEC Solid Waste Management Permit #4-0126-00033/00001.
The landfill development, which will provide continued waste capacity beyond the currently
permitted life, is proposed to continue to function as outlined in the Town of Colonie Solid
Waste Management Plan.
In all, the area of Project activities is anticipated to comprise approximately 112 acres on an
approximately 200 acre site. The Project is a proposed horizontal and vertical landfill
development generally to the north and west of the active landfill operations of the existing
landfill and will increase the permitted height of the landfill to 517 feet above mean sea level
(msl). The preliminary area of proposed liner construction (subject to completion of
engineering report and the Part 360 application) is anticipated to be approximately 58 acres
(approximately 25 acres will be new waste footprint with the balance of new liner to be
constructed over existing Areas 1-4 waste footprint), with an additional approximately 16 acres
of vertical landfill development over the existing Areas 5 and 6. The Project will also involve the
removal of the existing leachate storage lagoons and replacement with tanks and will involve
the relocation of the facility entrance.
II.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
An EAF was prepared to determine the potential significance of the Project impacts. Based on
this initial analysis, the following scope is provided for consideration.
A.
Topography, Geology & Soils
Existing Conditions: The Project site is an existing operating landfill. The majority of the
development area will be on historically disturbed areas or former landfill areas. The elevation
outside of the footprint of existing waste placement ranges from 190 to 330 feet above msl and
the existing permitted peak elevation within the waste placement footprint at closure is 430
feet above msl. The topography of the area surrounding the landfill can be described as rolling
hills within the Mohawk River valley. The bedrock underlying the site consists of shales and
graywackes of the Austin Glen Formation. Overlying bedrock are overburden glacial deposits
consisting of glaciolacustrine silts and clays and glacial till deposits. On the eastern edge of the
site alluvium deposits are present.
November 3, 2014
Potential Impact: The Project includes the development of the landfill to a completed peak
elevation of 517 feet above msl as compared to a currently-permitted elevation of 430 feet
above msl. Erosion and sedimentation are potential impacts that can occur when ground is
disturbed for construction. This is particularly problematic when sediment-laden runoff from a
project site reaches aquatic resources such as streams, rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands.
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: The Federal Aviation Administration
will be contacted to conduct an aeronautical study to determine any hazard to air navigation. A
Site Investigation Report will be completed in support of the landfill design which will present
detailed information regarding the site geology. The substantive findings in the Site
Investigation Report will be summarized in the DEIS.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: The DEIS will identify areas that are most
susceptible to erosion and stabilization issues and will describe anticipated measures to be
implemented during construction phases to minimize soil transport and deposition. A
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is in place for current facility operations and
construction. Prior to commencement of Area 7 construction activities, the SWPPP will be
modified to include erosion and sedimentation controls which will be implemented to prevent
erosion and sedimentation problems related to the construction and operation of the further
landfill development.
B.
Surface Water Resources
Existing Conditions: Surface water at the site generally flows directly or through perimeter
swales to eastern portions of the site and ultimately to the Mohawk River. In addition, surface
water from along Route 9 and west of Route 9 flow onto the northwest portion of the site
where it merges with site storm water and discharges as described above. Stormwater
discharges from the existing landfill are regulated by NYSDEC permit. Leachate storage lagoons
are present at the northeast portion of the site, but these do not discharge to surface water
(collected leachate is pumped to a sanitary sewer for off-site treatment).
Potential Impact: Construction activities have the potential to create impacts from erosion and
sedimentation. The Proposed Area 7 Development will provide additional stormwater
treatment capacity, which will improve the quality of stormwater discharges from the site.
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: Hydrologic modeling will be
completed to evaluate stormwater flows during construction and from the operational and
constructed landfill. The modeling and resulting stormwater controls will be summarized in the
DEIS.
November 3, 2014
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: Erosion and sedimentation controls will be

implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation impacts during and after construction.
Stormwater discharges from construction activities will be subject to the requirements of a
NYSDEC permit (MSGP for Industrial Stormwater Discharges). Additional stormwater treatment
capacity will be provided by the proposed Project, improving the quality of stormwater
discharges from the site. The removal of the existing leachate storage lagoons and replacement
with covered leachate storage facilities in the southeast portion of the site will reduce potential
impacts to surface water quality related to leachate storage.
C.
Groundwater Resources
Existing Conditions: The groundwater in the vicinity of the existing landfill has been impacted by
historical waste placement. Site-specific geology is not consistent with aquifer materials (i.e.,
consisting principally of low permeability silts and clays with limited alluvium deposits) and
there are no groundwater uses downgradient of the landfill. Groundwater flow across the site
is generally to the east. Leachate storage lagoons are present at the northeast portion of the
site, but these do not discharge to groundwater (collected leachate is pumped to a sanitary
sewer for off-site treatment).
Potential Impact: Landfill operations generate leachate from the exposure of waste (within
both active areas as well as closed cells) to rain and snowfall. This leachate has the potential to
leach into groundwater beneath the landfilled waste or due to accidental releases from the
leachate storage lagoons. The DEIS will evaluate methods to protect contamination of the
groundwater from the landfill operations.
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: A Site Investigation Report will be
completed in support of the landfill design which will present detailed information regarding
the site hydrogeology.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: The Proposed Area 7 Development will
incorporate baseliner systems meeting the requirements of NYSDECs current Part 360
regulations to mitigate potential impacts to groundwater quality. The removal of the existing
leachate storage lagoons and replacement with leachate storage tanks and secondary
containment in the southeast portion of the site will reduce potential impacts to groundwater
quality related to leachate storage.
D.
Terrestrial Resources
Existing Conditions: The Proposed Area 7 Development will be on an existing landfill site. The
majority of the footprint of the project overlies areas already developed as landfill. Other areas
November 3, 2014
proposed for development include existing solid waste facility buildings and pavement,
leachate storage lagoons, a sedimentation basin, mowed grass areas and a small area of
deciduous growth. Federal wetlands are located on the landfill property. NYSDEC-regulated
wetlands (a portion of the 27.6 acre TN-10) are located in the eastern portion of the landfill
property.
Potential Impact: A small wooded area located within the Proposed Area 7 Development area
would be eliminated by the Project. The ecological value of the small wooded area will be
evaluated in the DEIS.
The remaining areas proposed for development are already developed, largely as part of the
existing solid waste management facility.
The landfill property contains State and Federal wetland areas and the boundaries of the
wetland areas that may be impacted by the Proposed Area 7 Development will be fully
delineated and mapped.
Initial wetland mapping indicates that the proposed Area 7 Development will result in the filling
of approximately 2 acres of federal wetlands and that Project development activities will occur
in some portions of the buffer areas of the state-regulated wetlands.
Wetland impacts and work within buffer areas will be subject to USACE and NYSDEC review,
approval and permitting.
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: Potential on-site mitigation areas
were determined not to be feasible due to prior development, existing wetland areas and land
constraints. After consultation with USACE and NYSDEC, off-site mitigation within the
watershed was determined to be necessary. The DEIS will contain information related to the
construction of a wetland mitigation project on Town of Colonie property along the Mohawk
River west of the landfill site. Wetland impacts and mitigation will be subject to USACE and
NYSDEC review, approval and permitting.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: The wetland and buffer area impacts and the
mitigation project will be completed in accordance with permits issued by the USACE and
NYSDEC.
E.
Wildlife Resources
Existing Conditions: The Proposed Area 7 Development will be on an existing landfill site. The
majority of the footprint of the project overlies areas already developed as landfill and support
facilities with relatively low habitat value. This site is at the confluence of the Mohawk &
November 3, 2014
Hudson River which provides important habitat for a wide variety of birds. A bald eagle nesting
area is located west of Route 9 on the Mohawk River.
Potential Impact: A small wooded area located within the Proposed Area 7 Development area
would be eliminated by the Project. The remaining areas proposed for development are already
developed, largely as part of the existing solid waste management facility.
The ecological value of the wooded and open space areas of the landfill will be evaluated for
their habitat value and the potential impact that the development of these areas (e.g.,
conversion to landfill area followed by closure and return to open space) may have on bald
eagles, other threatened or endangered species, as well as bird and deer populations which
may be using these areas as part of their habitat.
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: The DEIS will present a detailed
description of wildlife resources within the Proposed Area 7 Development Area and will include
an evaluation of the potential impact to the bald eagle. Potential impacts to wildlife related
to operational issues, such as use of the gas flares and use of rodenticides at and around the
landfill, and any landfill buildings, will also be evaluated.
The DEIS will also address any current or anticipated future issues related to deer populations
at the landfill.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: The landfill facility currently implements a wildlife
hazard management plan to control nuisance birds that may be attracted to the landfill, and it
will continue to do so. Once the studies are completed, additional measures will be taken if
identified as being necessary.
F.
Land Use and Community Character
Existing Conditions: The existing Land Use is the Town of Colonie Landfill. Community character
can be described as highway commercial along U.S. Route 9 (west of the landfill), vacant along
Cohoes-Crescent Road (east of the landfill), and industrial (south of the landfill). Residential
uses are present southwest of the Landfill property and a new development (including both
commercial and residential uses) is under construction west of U.S. Route 9 from the southern
portions of the existing landfill. Beyond the Mohawk River to the north and east are the Towns
of Halfmoon and Waterford. These communities include industrial, commercial, recreational
and residential uses. The site lies near the National Heritage Corridor (Erie Canalway), the
National Scenic Byway (Mohawk Towpath Byway).
Potential Impact: The community impacts presented by landfills are primarily noise, odor, visual
impact, and truck traffic, although the Proposed Area 7 Development represents a general
November 3, 2014
continuation of existing uses within the footprint of the existing landfill operations and there
are no plans to modify landfill operational parameters. Each of these potential operational
impacts is discussed in a separate section below and will be discussed in the DEIS. No other
impacts to Land Use and Community Character are anticipated related to the Proposed Area 7
Development.
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: As described below, the DEIS will
present an evaluation of noise, odor, visual impact, and truck traffic related to the Proposed
Area 7 Development.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: As described below, the DEIS will present an
evaluation of noise, odor, visual impact, and truck traffic related to the Proposed Area 7
Development.
G.
Visual Resource
Existing Conditions: The topography of the area surrounding the landfill would be described as
rolling hills in a river valley. The landfill is, therefore, consistent with the surrounding landscape.
The existing landfill is a significant component of the landscape as viewed from Route 9 and
from areas to the east of the site (across the Mohawk River in Saratoga County) and that has
been the case for several decades as the landfill has been developed.
Potential Impact: The Project includes the development of the landfill to a completed peak
elevation of 517 feet above msl as compared to a currently-permitted elevation of 430 feet
above msl. Potential visual impacts in areas in proximity to the landfill will be evaluated as
described below. The visual character of the Proposed Area 7 Development is anticipated to be
consistent with the character of the existing permitted landfill (i.e., vegetated and operational
areas upon a significant topographical feature within the Mohawk River valley).
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: To document that the character of
surrounding views of the Proposed Area 7 Development will be consistent with the currently
permitted landfill development, the DEIS will present photo-enhancements from five
perspectives to illustrate the future view toward the landfill from the following locations:
Route 9, North of Crescent Bridge;

West of Route 9 South of the Crescent Bridge
West of Route 9 South of Arrowhead Drive
November 3, 2014
The view from each perspective location will be enhanced to illustrate the currently permitted
landfill geometry at full development. A second enhancement will be prepared to illustrate the
Proposed Area 7 Development at full development for comparison. The two enhancements for
each perspective location will be compared and differences discussed.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: Appropriate mitigation measures will be identified
to address both the short-term and long-term impacts to the visual character of the
surrounding area. The landfill operations will be designed to the extent practicable to minimize
impact on the immediate area (e.g., initial perimeter development to allow waste placement
activities to be screened from view for significant periods, maintenance and installation of
perimeter vegetation, etc.).
H.
Traffic
Existing Conditions: The existing entrance and exit to the landfill is on U.S. Route 9 and is not
signalized and there is a limited line of sight on U.S. Route 9. Currently, landfill-related traffic
includes residents of the Town of Colonie, landfill employees and contractors, and commercial
trucks transporting waste and materials to the landfill.
Potential Impact: The Proposed Area 7 Development does not include any change to existing
permitted design capacity and therefore, operational traffic (i.e., trip generation from waste
deliveries, operational soil and other materials deliveries, employees and contractors) is not
expected to change. However, as part of the Proposed Area 7 Development, the existing
landfill entrance will be relocated to Arrowhead Lane. Access to this new entrance will be from
the signalized intersection of U.S. Route 9 and Fonda Road through the Industrial Park onto
Green Mountain Drive to Arrowhead Lane. Landfill-related traffic will be directed to these
roads, which are not now used by landfill-related traffic. No additional traffic signals are
anticipated as part of the Project.
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: A Traffic Impact Study will be
presented in the DEIS to evaluate the significance of the proposed entrance relocation.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: Additional mitigation would be proposed if
required, based on the results of the Traffic Impact Study. The Project will include a queuing
area adjacent to Arrowhead Lane to prevent truck queuing on local roads.
I.
Air Quality
Existing Conditions: Emissions from the landfill are currently authorized under an Air Title V
permit issued by NYSDEC to the Town of Colonie. An active gas collection system is currently in
place, and the collected gases are used to generate energy and any excess gas is burned in a
November 3, 2014
flare. Measures are in place to control dust associated with landfill roads and operations.
Innovative Energy Systems, Inc. (IES) leases an area in the southeast portion of the landfill
property and operates the electrical generating station utilizing landfill gas to produce
electricity. The emissions from IES generator engines are authorized under a separate Air Title
V permit issued by NYSDEC to IES.
Potential Impact: The Proposed Area 7 Development will not increase landfill gas production
beyond the permitted capacity of the current control devices, therefore, no impact (i.e.,
increase in potential emissions) is anticipated. No changes to the flare or IES facility are being
proposed as part of the Project. At this time, no modification to the landfills current air permit
is anticipated for the Proposed Area 7 Development.
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: The DEIS will present a projection of
landfill gas generation by the landfill including the Proposed Area 7 Development to confirm
that the existing control devices have adequate permitted capacity to manage the projected
quantity of landfill gas.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: The landfill will continue to operate in compliance
with its air permit. IES will continue to operate under the requirements of its air permit.
J.
Odor Control
Existing Conditions: An active gas collection system is currently in place, and the collected gases
are used to generate energy and any excess gas is burned in a flare. The landfill currently
employs several odor control measures including an odor neutralizer in the vicinity of the
existing leachate lagoons, active collection and combustion of landfill gas, and focused
placement of landfill cover. Composting activities which had been the source of some prior
odor issues have recently ceased at the landfill site.
Under an emergency authorization, the landfill accepted debris resulting from Hurricane Sandy
in late 2012 and early 2013. The waste was placed in a relatively new area of the landfill which
was not required to have an active landfill gas collection system in place yet. Due to the nature
of the material (i.e., high moisture and high proportion of waste drywall) unexpectedly rapid
degradation began soon after placement and the resulting landfill gas was particularly odorous.
This resulted in off-site odors being identified in August 2013. Landfill gas collectors were
installed in this area and connected to the landfill gas collection system in September 2013.
The response was immediately effective in controlling odors from the Hurricane Sandy debris.
Maintenance of the active landfill gas collection system (including those added to respond to
the odors related to the Hurricane Sandy debris) to collect and treat landfill gas has proven to
be an effective odor control measure. In 2014 (through September) there have been five odor
November 3, 2014
10
complaints received. One was related to the leachate lagoons and was corrected within two
hours. The other four odor complaints were not detected upon investigation and were
therefore considered unconfirmed, transient conditions.
Potential Impact: The DEIS will present a summary of the landfills recent odor complaint
statistics and will review recent odor-related operational issues and responses (i.e., Hurricane
Sandy debris, compost odors, and leachate lagoon odors). Existing odor measures will be
continued throughout the operational period of the Proposed Area 7 Development and odors
are not expected to increase beyond those of current permitted activities. The Proposed Area
7 Development will include the replacement of the current open-air leachate lagoons with
covered tanks to prevent odors from leachate storage and the need for odor neutralizers in the
vicinity of the lagoons. The Project would result in working face operations (and potential odors
associated with them) occurring to the north and west of current operations at times putting
them approximately 1,000 feet closer to receptors to the north and approximately 500 feet
closer to receptors to the west (a minimum distance of 100 feet from waste placement
operations to the property line will be maintained).
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: The DEIS will present a summary of
the landfills recent odor complaint statistics and will review recent odor-related operational
issues and responses (e.g., Hurricane Sandy debris, compost odors, leachate lagoon odors, etc.).
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: The landfill will continue to operate in compliance
with its air permit. The landfill will continue active landfill gas collection and control as well as
operational measures to control odor (e.g., active collection and combustion of landfill gas, and
focused placement of landfill cover.
K.
Noise
Existing Conditions: In the vicinity of the landfill, the noise environment is characterized by
traffic related noise along U.S. Route 9 and from within the industrial park south of the landfill
(e.g., trucking, warehousing and cement plant operations). The majority of noise produced at
the landfill comes from truck traffic traveling to and from the landfill and from engine, exhaust
and back-up alarms sounds associated with the heavy equipment (waste delivery vehicles,
dump trucks, loaders, dozers and compactors) used on the landfills working face.
Potential Impact: Noise sources will be consistent with current conditions. Trucks traveling to
the relocated entrance will travel on the same roads as existing truck traffic within the
industrial park. Projected operational sound levels associated with the Proposed Area 7
Development will be assessed for the nearest residential receptors, and these will be compared
November 3, 2014
11
to the existing noise levels. Noise impacts associated with the proposed new truck route will
also be assessed and evaluated for impacts to receptors along the route.
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: Projected sound levels associated
with the Proposed Area 7 Development will be assessed for the nearest residential receptors,
and these will be compared to the existing noise levels in accordance with the Part 360
Regulations and the NYSDEC Program Policy Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts.
Ambient noise levels will be determined at locations surrounding the landfill, including one
location east of the Mohawk River from the landfill. Projected noise levels resulting from
ambient levels in conjunction with operations of the Proposed Area 7 Development during its
various development stages will be evaluated.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: The landfill will continue to employ reasonable
measures (smart backup alarms, properly maintained mufflers, working within the perimeter
berms) to reduce noise impacts.
L.
Cultural Resources
Existing Conditions: Much of the project development will occur on areas that are already
impacted by waste placement or landfill development. A Phase IA Literature Search/Sensitivity
Assessment and Phase IB Archaeological Survey for the area of the Proposed Area 7
Development will be presented in the DEIS. The DEIS will present a summary of any
archaeologically and historically sensitive areas in the vicinity of the development area,
including those identified in the National Register of Historic Places.
Potential Impact: The DEIS will present a summary of any archaeologically and historically
sensitive areas in the vicinity of the development area. The Project will result in grading and
further waste placement in areas overlying the former location of the Erie Canal (which has
been previously filled as part of prior landfill site development activities) and the installation of
a drainage culvert in the vicinity of the former location of the Fonda Cemetery (which was
previously relocated as part of Route 9 construction).
Anticipated Information Necessary to Address the Impact: A Phase IA Literature
Search/Sensitivity Assessment and Phase IB Archaeological Survey for the area of the Proposed
Area 7 Development will be presented in the DEIS.
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures: Any mitigation would be based on the results of
the A Phase IA Literature Search/Sensitivity Assessment and Phase IB Archaeological Survey.
November 3, 2014
12
III.
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives analysis section of the DEIS will discuss a reasonable range of alternatives to
the Proposed Area 7 Development that would achieve the same objective as the proposed
project. This analysis will include different site development alternatives, the use of alternative
waste management technologies, a no action alternative, and the siting of a new landfill
location within the region. A relative cost comparison of the alternatives, will be provided in the
DEIS. This alternatives analysis will include an evaluation of the need for the proposed landfill
development, including an analysis of its economic feasibility in comparison to other potentially
appropriate long-term disposal options. Consideration of both the adverse and beneficial
consequences for each alternative listed below will be discussed in the DEIS. The following
alternatives and their benefits and disadvantages will be considered and discussed.
A.
No-Action
The alternative of not further developing the current landfill will be deemed the no-action
alternative. The discussion of this alternative in the DEIS will include an examination of
potential economic effects that would result from the closure of the Town of Colonie Landfill
once the current designed disposal capacity is exhausted. Potential impacts of this alternative
related to the exportation of waste to other existing disposal locations, include increased fuel
consumption and an increase in air contaminant emissions.
B.
Alternative Technologies
The development of alternative waste management technologies will also be included in the
DEIS as a project alternative. Waste management alternatives such as Refuse Derived Fuel
technologies, pyrolysis, hydrolysis, biogasification, mixed waste composting, and waste-toenergy technologies will be described and their effectiveness and ease of implementation will
be discussed in the DEIS. Alternative waste disposal technologies, such as mass burn waste-toenergy technologies, would not eliminate the need for solid waste disposal capacity. A portion
of the waste stream would remain to be landfilled as bypass wastes or process residues. Many
of these alternative technologies are still in the development stages; regardless, the feasibility
and concerns associated with each technology will be examined in the DEIS.
C.
Alternative Development Scenarios
The current NYSDEC-approved Town of Colonie Solid Waste Management Plan (2007-2008 Solid
Waste Management Plan Update, December 2009) anticipated the design of Area 7 in 2014.
Therefore, alternative on-site development scenarios were developed and evaluated in the
early stages of the planning the Proposed Area 7 Development. Environmental, economic, and
November 3, 2014
13
logistical considerations were analyzed for each alternative to determine the practicability and
feasibility of implementing each option. In addition to the Proposed Area 7 Development, the
other development alternatives that will be discussed in the DEIS include:
IV.
Eastern Development
Southern Development
Northern Development
OTHER DEIS COMPONENTS
A.
Executive Summary
B.
Cumulative Impacts
C.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated
D.
Growth-Inducing Impacts
E.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
F.
References
G.
Appendices
Phase IA Literature Search/Sensitivity Assessment and Phase IB Archaeological Survey,
Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc.
Traffic Impact Study, SIMCO Engineering, P.C.
Visual Impact Assessment, Saratoga Associates, Landscape Architects, Architects,
Engineers, and Planners, P.C.
Wetland Delineation Report, Bagdon Environmental, a Division of Novus Engineering,
P.C.
November 3, 2014
14
Bald Eagle Surveys Summary Report, Bagdon Environmental, a Division of Novus

Engineering, P.C.
November 3, 2014
15
APPENDIX B
FAA DETERMINATION
Mail Processing Center

Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Aeronautical Study No.

2014-AEA-5585-OE
Prior Study No.
2014-AEA-1962-OE
Issued Date: 04/13/2016

Matt McGarry
Town of Colonie
Town of Colonie Public Operations Center Departmen
347 Old Niskayuna Rd.
Latham, NY 12110-2289
** Extension **
A Determination was issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning:
Structure:
Location:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Heights:
Construction Equipment Town of Colonie Landfill

Cohoes, NY
42-48-20.00N NAD 83
73-43-57.00W
332 feet site elevation (SE)
200 feet above ground level (AGL)
532 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
In response to your request for an extension of the effective period of the determination, the FAA has reviewed
the aeronautical study in light of current aeronautical operations in the area of the structure and finds that no
significant aeronautical changes have occurred which would alter the determination issued for this structure.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the effective period of the determination issued under
the above cited aeronautical study number is hereby extended and will expire on 10/13/2017 unless otherwise
extended, revised, or terminated by this office. You must adhere to all conditions identified in the original
determination.
This extension issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerns the effect of the structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable
airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law,
ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-6531. On any future correspondence
concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2014-AEA-5585-OE.
Signature Control No: 229098563-288332138

Darin Clipper
Specialist
Page 1 of 3
( EXT )
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Page 2 of 3
Additional information for ASN 2014-AEA-5585-OE

Current FAA policy is that only one extension, and for a maximum of 18 months, will be granted. If
construction has not begun within the valid period of this extension, it will be necessary to submit a new FAA
Form 7460-1, Notice of Construction or Alteration, a minimum of 45 days before construction is expected to
begin. If aeronautical study then indicates that further study would be necessary, the process could take an
additional 90-120 days to complete.
There is no guarantee that a structure which had a previous favorable determination would continue to receive
subsequent favorable determinations. Determinations are made based on current conditions, future conditions
(plans on file), as well as cumulative impacts.
Page 3 of 3
APPENDIX C
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT & JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION
Wetland Delineation Report

Waters of the United States
Town of Colonie, Albany County, NY
October 2012
Prepared for:
Cornerstone Engineering and Land Surveying, PLLC
90 Crystal Run Road, Suite 201
Middletown, NY 10941
Contact: Curt Taylor
(845) 695-0222
Prepared by:
Bagdon Environmental
A Division of Novus Engineering, P.C.
25 Delaware Ave.
Delmar, New York 12054
Contact: Norbert Quenzer Jr., PWS
(518) 439-8588
www.BagdonEnvironmental.com
Wetland Delineation Report

Waters of the United States
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
2.0 Summary of Findings ...............................................................................................2
3.0 Delineation Methodology .........................................................................................3
4.0 Site Description ........................................................................................................4
4.1 Vegetation.......................................................................................................4
4.2 Hydrology........................................................................................................4
4.3 Soils .................................................................................................................4
5.0 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................5
6.0 References .................................................................................................................7
Table
Table 1 Wetland Acreages and Cover types
List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 Wetland Delineation Survey Map on 2007 Color Aerial Photo
Figure 3 New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands Map
Figure 4 National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 5 NRCS Web Soil Survey Map
Figure 6 Photograph and Plot Locations
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Site Photographs
Appendix B Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix C Drawing C-2 Monitoring Plan (Clough Harbour and Associates)
Drawing Phase 1 Northern Side Drainage Improvements Plan and Profile
(Fraser Consulting and Engineering)
1.0 Introduction
This report presents the findings of a delineation of "Waters of the United States" on the Town
of Colonie Landfill project site located at 1319 New Loudon Road in the Town of Cohoes,
Albany County, New York. Cornerstone Engineering and Land Surveying, PLLC (Cornerstone)
has requested this delineation to support on-going evaluations of long term development
alternatives.
A site location map is included as Figure 1. The center of the 195+ acre site is located at the
following coordinates N41 45.41.81'; W7355.01.62'.
Bagdon Environmental, a division of Novus Engineering, P.C., conducted a delineation of
wetlands and Waters of the U.S. on a portion of the site in July 2012. Figure 2 shows the
boundaries of the 195+ acre site, the 145 acre area of investigation, and surveyed limits of
waters of the U.S on a 2007 true color aerial photograph. Wetland acreages are presented in
Table 1 and are shown on Figure 2.
As shown in Figure 3, there is a NYSDEC mapped wetland that extends onto the site along the
eastern border. Currently, facility development alternatives being considered do not intend to
impact any regulated wetlands or buffers and was therefore these areas were excluded from
the delineated area. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands on the site are displayed in
Figure 4 and are also excluded from the area delineated. Additionally, the freshwater ponds
shown on the NWI map are man-made, lined, leachate lagoons.
Bagdon Environmental assessed the presence of isolated wetlands (not subject to Section 404
jurisdiction) pursuant to the recent supreme court ruling (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook
County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001). There
are no isolated wetlands onsite. All wetlands waters are connected via a series of pipe systems
constructed in 2001 as part of mitigation efforts as seen in Appendix C drawings C-2
Monitoring Plan and Phase 1 Northern Side Drainage Improvements Plan and Profile.
However, the wetland area along the west property boundary was formed as a result of landfill
construction and appears to be created in upland. Similarly, the drainage from the constructed
retention pond flows between the man-made berms in the southwest corner. Based on these
modes of formation, they would not likely be considered jurisdictional.
Waters of the United States were identified and delineated using the criteria established under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States, as defined in Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, include wetlands, intermittent streams, natural drainage courses, lakes
and ponds. A site photograph and transect locations map is included as Figure 6. Site
photographs are included as Appendix A.
Town of Colonie Landfill Wetland Delineation Report

BAGDON Environmental
Page 1
October 2012
2.0 Summary of Findings

Based upon the delineation, wetland and other Waters of the U.S. are found on approximately
3.85 acres of the 145 acres investigated by Bagdon Environmental. The wetlands are
generally topography driven and are the result of landfill construction and activity and appear
non-jurisdictional. There are no streams on site.
The site consists largely of the existing landfill and associated roads, storage facilities, compost
and debris areas, water treatment areas and offices. The undeveloped portions of the site
consist of mowed field, old field, and successional upland woodland or forested/emergent
wetlands. Most of these areas have been disturbed by the landfill construction and operation. It
is bordered on the north and east by the Mohawk River and to the west and south by
commercial and residential development.
Both surface and ground water exert an influence on site wetland formation. Surface water
from the site drains through a system of collection swales and piping, eventually discharging to
the Mohawk River. Some of the swales are reinforced with rip-rap and concrete lining. Refer to
figures in Appendix C for interpretation of drainage flow patterns.
Soils are predominantly very deep, moderately well drained Hudson silt loam soils in the
uplands and bordering streams and gullies. Bedrock occurs from 60+ inches below the
surface. Slopes range from 3 to 45%.
The following table presents information on the acreage of wetland relevant to the site and area
of investigation and refers to Figure 2:
Table 1
Summary of Site and Wetland Acreages
WATERS OF THE U.S.

Wetland
A
B
C
D
Type
emergent
emergent/forested
disturbed drainage
disturbed drainage
Size (ac)
0.13
2.80
0.91
0.01
TOTAL
Linear Ft of Stream
Area of Investigation
Property Size
3.85
0.00
145 acres
195 acres

Page 2
October 2012
3.0 Delineation Methodology

Wetland boundaries were delineated using the routine on-site delineation method. This method
utilizes the three-parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland
hydrology) outlined in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Wetlands Delineation
Manual. In accordance with the 1987 ACOE manual, under normal circumstances, hydrophytic
(wetland) vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology must all be present for an area to be
considered wetland.
Three transects were established across the site in an east-west direction between wetland and
adjacent upland to help determine the wetland boundary and to provide supporting
documentation. Vegetation, soils and hydrological data were collected at upland and wetland
plots. Wetland determination data forms are included as Appendix B.
Vegetation was sampled using the quadrat transect sampling procedure. Dominant plant
species were determined for each vegetation stratum by visually estimating aerial coverage.
Dominant plant species are defined as the most abundant plant species that, cumulatively
totaled, exceed 50 percent of the total dominance measured for each stratum, plus any
additional species comprising 20 percent or more of the total dominance measured.
Wetland indicator categories include: obligate wetland plants (OBL) which almost always occur
in wetlands (~99% probability); facultative wetland plants (FACW) which usually occur in
wetlands (~67% to 99% probability), but occasionally are found in non-wetlands; facultative
plants (FAC) which are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (~34% to 66%
probability); facultative upland plants (FACU) which usually occur in non-wetlands, but may be
found in wetlands (~1% to 33% probability); and obligate upland plants (UPL) which almost
always occur in upland (~99% probability). An area meets the vegetative criterion for Section
404 wetland when more than 50 percent of the dominant species in the plot are obligate
wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC).
The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey for Albany County was
reviewed prior to conducting field sampling to determine if hydric soils were mapped on the site.
Soils were sampled in the field to a depth of at least 10 inches using a Dutch auger. Samples
were examined for hydric soil characteristics such as gleying, mottling and low-chroma matrix
color (Munsell color, 1988). Numerous soil samples, in addition to those examined in the
transects, were analyzed during the delineation to refine the wetland boundaries.
Field indicators of wetland hydrology were assessed during soil and vegetation sampling.
Wetland hydrology indicators observed on the site included standing water; soil saturation and
inundation; water stained leaves; and wetland drainage patterns.

Page 3
October 2012
4.0 Site Description

4.1 Vegetation
The dominant vegetation cover types within the study area are upland old-field and
successional woodlands and forested/emergent wetlands occupying a small area. Common
woody species found in the upland fields and successional woodlands include buckthorn
(Rhamnus cathartica), ash (Fraxinus pennslvanica), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) and poplar
(Populus tremula and P. deltoides).
Herbaceous species include goldenrods (Solidago canadensis, S. rugosa), smooth brome
(Bromus inermis), Queen Annes lace (Daucus carota), timothy (Phleum pretense), chickory
(Cichorium intybus), birds foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), bedstraw (Galium sp.), selfheal
(Prunella vulgaris), clover (Trifolium sp.) and ragweed (Ambrosia artimisifolia).
Common species found in the wetlands include boxelder (Acer negundo), red ash, red maple
(Acer rubrum), soft rush (Juncus effusus), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), barnyard grass
(Echinochloa sp.), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), purple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). In addition, the
sites wetlands, as well as much of the disturbed uplands, are dominated by invasive common
reed (Phragmites australis).
4.2 Hydrology
The project site is located in the Mohawk River Watershed (USGS Cataloguing Unit:
02020004). This watershed has an area of 1,619,279 acres. The entire site is located within
the Lisha Kill to mouth subwatershed (USGS Cataloguing Unit: 02020004400), which has an
area of 17,673 acres. Surface water from the site drains to the adjacent Mohawk River, a
traditional navigable water.
Both surface water and ground water contribute to wetland formation on the site; however, due
to the nature of a landfill much of the water onsite is directed via extensive subsurface pipe
systems, culverts and riprap drainages, manmade berms and water treatment ponds. Almost no
natural or previously existing water features can be found within the area of investigation.
4.3 Soils
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) mapping shows the site containing the
following soil types: primarily Dump (Du) and Hudson silt loam (HuB/C/D/E), with smaller areas
of Nassau channery silt loam (NaB/C), and Nunda silt loam (NuB/C).

Page 4
October 2012
See Figure 5 for additional detail. Official soil series descriptions as supplied by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, NRCS, follow:
Dump (Du) unit consists of sanitary landfills, industrial dumps and other sites that have
been used for the disposal of trash and rubble.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: N/A
Hudson silt loam (HuB/C/D/E) is a gently sloping, very deep and moderately well drained
soil. It is found on plains and slightly convex hills. Slopes range from 3 to 25%.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine, illitic, mesic Glossaquic Hapludalfs
Nassau channery silt loam (NaB/C) unit consists of undulating soils that is shallow and
somewhat excessively drained. It is on bedrock- controlled ridges and plains. Slopes
range from 3 to 15%.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic Lithic Dystrochrepts
Nunda silt loam (NuB/C) is a gently sloping, very deep and moderately well drained soil.
It is on the tops of ridges and hills in the rolling plains.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed mesic Glossaquic Hapludalfs
According to the Soil Conservation Service Technical Guide New York Hydric Soils and Soils
with Potential Hydric Inclusions (USDA-SCS, 1989), none of the soils in the area of
investigation are listed as hydric or soils with potential hydric inclusions.
5.0 Conclusions
Based upon the delineation, 3.85 acres of wetlands are found on the 145 acre area
investigated by Bagdon Environmental. These wetlands are generally topography driven and
are the result of landfill construction and activity. Much of the water onsite is directed via
extensive subsurface pipe systems, culverts and riprap drainages, manmade berms and water
treatment ponds. Almost no natural or previously existing water features can be found within the
area of investigation. The wetland drainage along the west property boundary was likely
constructed in upland and should not be considered jurisdictional (Wetland B). Similarly, the
drainage from the retention pond flows along the man-made berms in the southwest corner
(Wetland C). Based on these modes of formation, they would not likely be considered
jurisdictional.
Bagdon Environmental assessed the presence of isolated wetlands (not subject to Section 404
jurisdiction) pursuant to the recent supreme court ruling (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook
County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001). No
isolated wetlands were found onsite.

Page 5
October 2012
As noted, areas of the site that include NWI wetlands and the onsite NYSDEC mapped wetland
and its buffer was excluded from the area that was delineated.

Page 6
October 2012
6.0 References
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1, US Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. 100 pp. plus
Appendices.
Munsell Color, 1988. Munsell soil color charts. Munsell Color, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen
Instruments Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland.
Reed, Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northeast Region
(Region 1). Biological Report 88 (26.1), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 111
pp.
U.S.D.A. - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSD).
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html
U.S.D.A. - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)
Database for Albany County, New York (Arc Export, 2005). http://cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu
U.S.D.A. - Soil Conservation Service. 1989. New York Hydric Soils and Soils With Potential
Hydric Inclusions, March 1989. U.S. Soil Conservation Technical Guide Section II. Syracuse,
N.Y.

Page 7
October 2012
Legend
Property_Line
25 Delaware Avenue
Delmar, NY 12054
518.439.8588
0.2
0.1
0.2
FIG 1. Site Location Map

Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying
6.7
5.75.8 5.9 5.11
5.12
6.56.9
5.10
5.1 5.2
6.10
6.3 6.11
4.34 4.355.3 5.4
4.43 6.2
4.36
4.39
4.324.33
6.1
4.37
4.40 4.446.13
4.38 4.41
3.25
5.6
3.24
3.23
4.28
3.214.27
3.194.26
3.174.25
4.24
3.154.23
4.22
4.21
3.11
4.20
3.9
3.10 3.8
3.6 3.7
3.13.3 3.43.5
4.16
2.333.2
4.15
2.32 2.28
2.27
4.13
2.18
2.22
2.214.12
4.11
2.15
4.10
2.13
4.8
2.11
4.7
2.9 4.6
2.8
4.5
2.7
2.6 4.4
2.5 4.3
2.44.2
2.34.1
2.1
1.31.4
1.21.6
1.1
8.1
8.2
7.18
8.3
7.17
8.4
7.16
8.5
7.15
8.6
7.14
8.7
7.13
8.8
7.12
8.9
7.11
8.10
7.10
8.11 7.9
8.127.8
7.7
8.137.6
7.4 8.177.1 12.6 11.4 12.5 12.4
12.3
7.5
7.3
11.1 11.211.3 11.5 11.7 12.2
12.1
9.3
11.8
10.28 9.2 9.4
10.22
9.1
10.2410.26 10.5 10.4
10.21 10.6
10.20
10.8
10.9
10.17
10.16
10.14 10.15
10.13 10.12
Legend
wetland_flags_7-19-12
Wetland Delineation 7-20-12
Survey Area
Property_Line
25 Delaware Avenue
Delmar, NY 12054
518.439.8588
240 120
240 Feet
Wetland
A
B
C
D
WATERS OF THE U.S.

Type
emergent
emergent/ forested
disturbed drainage
disturbed drainage
TOTAL
Linear Ft of Stream
Area of Investigation
Property Size
Size (ac)
0.13
2.80
0.91
0.01
3.85
0.00
145 acres
195 acres
FIG 2. Wetland Delineation and Survey Map

Figure 3
[print page]
[close window]
Please set your printer orientation to "Landscape".
Colonie Landfill
Visible Layers
MinX: 601767, MaxX: 606069, MinY: 4741462, MaxY: 4739521
Disclaimer:This map was prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation using the most
current data available. It is deemed accurate but is not guaranteed. NYS DEC is not responsible for any inaccuracies
in the data and does not necessarily endorse any interpretations or products derived from the data.
FIGURE 4
Jul 23, 2012
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not
responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All
wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on
the Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks:
73 44' 7''
73 43' 15''
Soil MapAlbany County, New York

(FIGURE 5)
603400
603500
603600
603700
603800
603900
604000
604100
604200
604300
604400
604500
4740900
4740800
4740700
Te
r
R hB
nt
ce
Cr
es
Hu
C
NuC
4740500
4740400
4740300
4740200
Ug
4740200
Uk
4740300
N uD
4740400
4740500
Du
4740600
4740600
4740700
4740800
N aB
4740900
4741000
42 48' 54''
4741000
42 48' 54''
4740100
NrC
4740000
NuC
4740100
4740000
HuD
Cohoe s Crescent Rd
HuD
NuB
HuD
5
4739900
HuE
N aB
4739800
n
ad L
4739500
w he
4739500
603500
603600
603700
603800
603900
604000
604100
Map Scale: 1:7,550 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.
0
0
50
100
250
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
200
500
Meters
300
1,000
Feet
1,500
Web Soil Survey

National Cooperative Soil Survey
604200
604300
604400
604500
73 43' 16''
603400
73 44' 8''
42 48' 3''
Arr o
Ug
4739600
4739600
Uh
4739700
4739700
H uD
4739800
HuC
HuC
Te
4739900
New Loudon Rd
HuB
7/23/2012
Page 1 of 3
42 48' 2''

(FIGURE 5)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Units
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
MAP INFORMATION
Very Stony Spot
Map Scale: 1:7,550 if printed on A size (8.5" 11") sheet.
Wet Spot
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,840.
Other
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Special Line Features

Gully
Short Steep Slope
Other
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause

misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Political Features
Cities
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 18N NAD83
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Soil Survey Area: Albany County, New York

Survey Area Data: Version 10, Dec 19, 2011
Major Roads
Date(s) aerial images were photographed:
Local Roads
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
7/31/2006; 9/12/2006
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Natural Resources
Web Soil Survey

7/23/2012
Page 2 of 3
FIGURE 5
Map Unit Legend

Albany County, New York (NY001)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Du
Dumps
81.5
44.2%
HuB
Hudson silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
10.5
5.7%
HuC
12.8
6.9%
HuD
Hudson silt loam, hilly
23.2
12.5%
HuE
13.3
7.2%
NaB
Nassau channery silt loam, undulating
3.6
2.0%
NrC
Nassau very channery silt loam, rolling, very

rocky
2.6
1.4%
NuB
Nunda silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
9.7
5.3%
NuC
9.7
5.3%
NuD
2.7
1.5%
RhB
Rhinebeck silty clay loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
2.7
1.4%
Te
Teel silt loam
0.9
0.5%
Ug
Udorthents, loamy
4.0
2.2%
Uh
Udorthents, clayey-Urban land complex
1.7
0.9%
Uk
Udorthents, loamy-Urban land complex
3.7
2.0%
Water
1.9
1.1%
184.5
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
Natural Resources
Web Soil Survey

7/23/2012
Page 3 of 3
22-24
^
_
20-21
_
^
_ Transect 1
^
14-15
18-19
11-13
16-17
6-8
9-10
_^
^
_
Transect 2
4-5
3
1-2
25-26
C
35-36
27-28
31-32
38
Transect 3
^
_
_
^
33-34
29-30
37
Legend
Photo_Locations
_
^
Transect Locations
wetland_delineation_7_20_12
Property_Line
25 Delaware Avenue
Delmar, NY 12054
518.439.8588
390
195
390 Feet
FIG 6. Photograph and Plot Locations

Appendix A
Site Photographs
6-8-12 001
6-8-12 002
6-8-12 003
6-8-12 004
6-8-12 005
6-8-12 006
6-8-12 007
6-8-12 008
6-8-12 009
6-8-12 010
6-8-12 011
6-8-12 012
6-8-12 013
6-8-12 014
6-8-12 015
6-8-12 016
6-8-12 017
6-8-12 018
6-8-12 019
6-8-12 020
6-8-12 021
6-8-12 022
6-8-12 023
6-8-12 024
6-8-12 025
6-8-12 026
6-8-12 027
6-8-12 028
6-8-12 029
6-8-12 030
6-8-12 031
6-8-12 032
6-8-12 033
6-8-12 034
6-8-12 035
6-8-12 036
6-8-12 037
6-8-12 038
Appendix B
Wetland Determination Data Forms
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Northcentral and Northeast Region

Applicant/Owner: Cornerstone Engineering
Investigator(s): Norbert Quenzer, Willow Eyres
City/County:
Project/Site:
Section, Township, Range:
Slope (%):
Lat:
W73.49''24.95"
Long:
Albany County Soils- Elmridge fine sandy loam
Soil Map Unit Name:
NY
Cohoes
convex
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
N42.23'03.94"
7-31-12
Sampling Point: T1U1
Sampling Date:
State:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
0-8%
Albany County
NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
No
18N
Datum:
none
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
significantly disturbed?
Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes
No
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
If yes, optional Wetland Site ID:
Yes
No
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
High Water Table (A2)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):

Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Yes
No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version
VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1.
Sampling Point:
Absolute
% Cover
Populus tremula
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
UPL
2.
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
4.
6.
(A)
Percent of Dominant Species

5.
33%
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of:

= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:

1.
Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:
3.
T1U1
Rhamnus cathartica
UPL
2.
3.
Multiply by:
OBL species
x1=
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
Dominance Test is >50%
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
2.
Solidago canadensis
Bromus inermis
3.
Daucus carota
4.
Celastris orbiculatus
Phleum pratense
Thaspium sp.
1.
5.
6.
1
1
Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
FAC
UPL
UPL
UPL
UPL
UPL
7.
8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

1
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH
and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
9.
10.
Herb All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless

of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Prevalence Index is 3.0
Woody vines All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in

height.
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
4.
Yes
No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
SOIL
Sampling Point:
T1U1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
0-10+
Matrix
Color (moist)
10YR 3/4
Redox Features
1
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc
Texture
Remarks
100
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.

Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
3
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,

MLRA 149B)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B)

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

City/County:
Project/Site:
Slope (%):
Lat:
W73.49''24.95"
Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
NY
Cohoes
N42.23'03.94"
7-31-12
Sampling Point: T1W1
Sampling Date:
State:
0-8%
Albany County
concave
18N
Datum:
NWI classification:
No
none
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?
Yes
No
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Water Marks (B1)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Field Observations:
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
2
Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

Sampling Point:
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
1.
2.

4.
6.
(A)

5.
100%
(B)
(A/B)
7.
Total % Cover of:

= Total Cover

1.

3.
T1W1
FAC
Acer negundo
2.
3.
Multiply by:
OBL species
x1=
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
4.
5.
6.

7.
= Total Cover
1.
Phragmites australis
2.
Lythrum salicaria
Solidago gigantea
Phalaris arundinacea
3.
4.
1
1

FACW
FACW
FACW
FACW
5.

1

6.

7.
8.

9.
10.

11.
12.
= Total Cover

height.
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
4.
Yes
No
= Total Cover
SOIL
Sampling Point:
T1W1
Depth
(inches)
0-12
Matrix
Color (moist)
10YR 3/2
80
Redox Features
1
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc
4/6
20
Texture
Remarks
loam

3
Histosol (A1)
Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)

MLRA 149B)

Type:
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

City/County:
Project/Site:
Slope (%):
Lat:
W73.49''24.95"
Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
NY
Cohoes
convex
N42.23'03.94"
7-31-12
Sampling Date:
State:
0-8%
Albany County
NWI classification:
No
18N
Datum:
none
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?
Yes
No
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Water Marks (B1)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Field Observations:
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Depth (inches):

Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

Sampling Point:
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
1.
2.

4.
6.
0%
(B)
(A/B)
7.
Total % Cover of:

= Total Cover
2.
(A)

5.
1.

3.
T1U2
Rhamnus cathartica
UPL
Rubus allegheniensis
FACU
3.
Multiply by:
OBL species
x1=
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
4.
5.
6.

7.
= Total Cover
2.
Fragaria virginiana
Bromus inermis
3.
Daucus carota
4.
Phleum pratense
Cichorium intybus
Lotus corniculatus
Prunella vulgaris
1.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1
1

FACU
UPL
UPL
UPL
UPL
UPL
FACU
FACU
9.
10.

1

11.
12.
= Total Cover

height.
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
4.
Yes
No
= Total Cover
SOIL
Sampling Point:
T1U2
Depth
(inches)
0-10+
Matrix
Color (moist)
10YR 4/4
Redox Features
1
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc
Texture
Remarks
100

3
Histosol (A1)
Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)

MLRA 149B)

Type:
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

City/County:
Project/Site:
Slope (%):
Lat:
W73.49''24.95"
Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
NY
Cohoes
convex
N42.23'03.94"
7-31-12
Sampling Date:
State:
0-8%
Albany County
NWI classification:
No
18N
Datum:
none
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?
Yes
No
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Water Marks (B1)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Field Observations:
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Depth (inches):

Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

Sampling Point:
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
1.
2.

4.
6.
(A)

5.
0%
(B)
(A/B)
7.
Total % Cover of:

= Total Cover

1.

3.
T2U1
Rhamnus cathartica
UPL
2.
3.
Multiply by:
OBL species
x1=
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
4.
5.
6.

7.
= Total Cover
2.
FACU
FACU
3.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
4.
Phleum pratense
Trifolium pratense
Ambrosia artemisifolia
UPL
UPL
UPL
5.
6.
7.
FACU
FACU
8.

1

1

9.
10.

11.
12.
= Total Cover
1
1
Asclepias syriaca
Prunella vulgaris
1.

height.
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
4.
Yes
No
= Total Cover
SOIL
Sampling Point:
T2U1
Depth
(inches)
0-10+
Matrix
Color (moist)
10YR 4/5
Redox Features
1
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc
Texture
Remarks
100

3
Histosol (A1)
Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)

MLRA 149B)

Type:
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

City/County:
Project/Site:
Slope (%):
Lat:
NY
W73.49''24.95"
Long:
Sampling Point:
No
T2W1
concave
18N
Datum:
NWI classification:
7-31-12
Cohoes
N42.23'03.94"
Soil Map Unit Name:
Sampling Date:
State:
0-8%
Albany County
none
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?
Yes
No
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Water Marks (B1)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Field Observations:
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
4
Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

Sampling Point:
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
1.
2.


3.
4.
6.
(A)

5.
T2W1
100%
(B)
(A/B)
7.
Total % Cover of:

= Total Cover
1.
2.
3.
Multiply by:
OBL species
x1=
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
4.
5.
6.

7.
= Total Cover
Agrostis stolinifera
2.
4.
Lythrum salicaria
Sciprus cyperinus
Glyceria melicaria
5.
Carex vulpinoidea
FACW
6.
Scirpus atrovirens
OBL
OBL
FACW
7.
8.

1

9.
10.

11.
12.
= Total Cover

FACW
FACW
1.
3.

height.
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
4.
Yes
No
= Total Cover
SOIL
Sampling Point:
T2W1
Depth
(inches)
0-12
Matrix
Color (moist)
10YR 3/3
90
Redox Features
1
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc
10YR 5/4
10
Texture
Remarks
loam

3
Histosol (A1)
Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)

MLRA 149B)

Type:
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

City/County:
Project/Site:
Slope (%):
Lat:
W73.49''24.95"
Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
NY
Cohoes
convex
N42.23'03.94"
7-31-12
Sampling Date:
State:
0-8%
Albany County
NWI classification:
No
18N
Datum:
none
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?
Yes
No
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Water Marks (B1)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Field Observations:
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Depth (inches):

Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

Sampling Point:
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
1.
2.


3.
4.
6.
(A)

5.
T3U1
0%
(B)
(A/B)
7.
Total % Cover of:

= Total Cover
1.
2.
3.
Multiply by:
OBL species
x1=
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
4.
5.
6.

7.
= Total Cover
2.
Solidago canadensis
Daucus carota
3.
Centaurea micranthos
4.
Asclepias syriaca
Melilotus officinalis
Trifolium pratense
Ambrosia artemisifolia
1.
5.
6.
7.
1
1

FACU
FACU
UPL
UPL
FACU
FACU
FACU
8.

1

9.
10.

11.
12.
= Total Cover

height.
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
4.
Yes
No
= Total Cover
SOIL
Sampling Point:
T3U1
Depth
(inches)
0-10+
Matrix
Color (moist)
10YR 4/4
Redox Features
1
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc
Texture
Remarks
100

3
Histosol (A1)
Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)

MLRA 149B)

Type:
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

City/County:
Project/Site:
Slope (%):
Lat:
W73.49''24.95"
Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
NY
Cohoes
N42.23'03.94"
7-31-12
Sampling Date:
State:
0-8%
Albany County
concave
18N
Datum:
NWI classification:
No
none
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?
Yes
No
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Water Marks (B1)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Field Observations:
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
6
Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

Sampling Point:
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
1.
2.

4.
6.
100%
(B)
(A/B)
7.
Total % Cover of:
x1=
FACW species
x2=
FACW
FAC species
x3=
FAC
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Acer negundo
Multiply by:
OBL species
= Total Cover
2.
(A)

5.
1.

3.
T3W1
3.
(B)
4.
5.
6.

7.
= Total Cover
1.
2.
Lythrum salicaria
Solidago gigantea
3.
1
1

FACW
FACW
FACW

1
4.

5.
6.

7.
8.

9.
10.

11.
12.
= Total Cover

height.
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
4.
Yes
No
= Total Cover
SOIL
Sampling Point:
T3W1
Depth
(inches)
0-12
Matrix
Color (moist)
10YR 3/3
80
Redox Features
1
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc
10YR 4/5
20
Texture
Remarks
loam

3
Histosol (A1)
Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)

MLRA 149B)

Type:
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

City/County:
Project/Site:
bottom of hill, along road

N41.45"41.81'
Lat:
NY
Colonie
concave
18N
Datum:
none
NWI classification:
W73.55''01.62"
Long:
Albany County Soils- Udorthents, loamy-Urban land complex
Soil Map Unit Name:
10-16-12
Sampling Date:
State:

Slope (%):
Albany County
No
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?
Yes
No
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Water Marks (B1)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Field Observations:
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
8"
0"

Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

1.
Sampling Point:
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
FACW
Ulmus americana
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

(A)

(B)

66%
(A/B)
7.
Total % Cover of:

= Total Cover

1.
T4W1
UPL
Rhamnus cathartica
2.
3.
Multiply by:
OBL species
x1=
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
4.
5.
6.

7.
= Total Cover
3.
FACW
FACU
FACU
4.
FACW
2.
1
1
Impatiense capensis
Geum canadense
Solidago canadensis
1.

1

1
5.
6.

7.
8.

9.
10.

11.
12.
= Total Cover


height.
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
4.
Yes
No
= Total Cover
SOIL
Sampling Point:
T4W1
Depth
(inches)
Matrix
Color (moist)
0-10+
10YR 3/2
75
Redox Features
1
Color (moist)
%
Type
10YR 4/6
25
Loc
Texture
clay loam
Remarks
coarse, prominent, common

3
Histosol (A1)
Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)

MLRA 149B)

Type:
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

City/County:
Project/Site:
hillside
N41.45"41.81'
Slope (%):
Lat:
convex
Albany County Soils- Hudson silt loam- hilly
Soil Map Unit Name:
NY
Colonie
W73.55''01.62"
Long:
10-16-12
Sampling Date:
State:
0-8%
Albany County
Datum:
NWI classification:
No
18N
none
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?
Yes
No
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Water Marks (B1)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Field Observations:
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Depth (inches):

Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:

1.
Sampling Point:
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
FACW
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

(A)

(B)

33%
(A/B)
7.
Total % Cover of:

= Total Cover

1.
2.
3.
T4U1
FACW
Rhamnus cathartica
Cornus foemina
UPL
FAC
Multiply by:
OBL species
x1=
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
4.
5.
6.

7.
= Total Cover
1.
2.
1
1
Alliaria petiolata
Geum canadense

FACU
FACU
3.

1
4.

5.
6.

7.
8.

9.
10.

11.
12.
= Total Cover
1.
2.

height.
Celastrus orbiculatus
Vitus sp.
UPL
3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
4.
Yes
No
= Total Cover
SOIL
Sampling Point:
T4U1
Depth
(inches)
Matrix
Color (moist)
0-10+
10YR 4/4
Redox Features
1
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc
Texture
100
Remarks
clay loam

3
Histosol (A1)
Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)

MLRA 149B)

Type:
Depth (inches):
Yes
No
Remarks:
Appendix C
Drawings
APPENDIX D
DRAFT INDIVIDUAL SECTION 404 PERMIT
APPLICATION
APPENDIX D
DRAFT INDIVIDUAL SECTION 404 PERMIT
APPLICATION
Permit Application Submittal 2/26/2015

ACOE Comment Letter 8/13/2015
Response Letter 10/26/2015
Updated Figures 3/11/2016
Photo Attachment to DEC Response Letter 6/24/2015
Appendix H
Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations of the Onderdonk

Road Proposed Wetland Mitigation Project
ACOECommentLetter8/13/2015
ResponseLetter10/26/2015
Attachment 1
Response to NYSDEC Comment Letter Dated 5/5/2015
1200 Scottsville Road, Building C, Suite 320, Rochester, NY 14624

T 877.294.9070 | F 585.563.6582 | W www.cornerstoneeg.com
June 24, 2015

Mr. Andy Marcuccio
Deputy Regional Permit Administrator, Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306
Re:
DEC Application #4-0126-00033/00001

Response to Town of Colonie Landfill Permit Modification Comments
Pertaining to DEIS and submitted Applications
Solid Waste Management Permit - Modification (Area 7)
Town of Colonie Landfill Loudon Road
Town of Colonie, Albany County
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:

On behalf of the Town of Colonie and Capital Region Landfills, Inc. (CRL),
Cornerstone has developed responses to the comments in the Departments letter
dated May 5, 2015 regarding documents submitted in connection with the Area 7
Development at the Town of Colonie Landfill at 1319 Loudon Road in the Town of
Colonie, New York. The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) comments are listed below with responses in italics
immediately following.
The attachments to this letter include revised report text for the DEIS and the
Engineering Report, and revised or new attachments, figures, or appendices. Based
on conversations with NYSDEC, it is our understanding that upon approval, the
information provided herein will be incorporated into an overall submittal that
includes all of the documentation that was part of the original submittal.
DEIS Comments
Executive Summary and Section 1 - Project Description
1.
Sections 1.1 -1.3 (pages 1, 8 and 9) of the DEIS state that landfill is located in
Cohoes. The landfill is located in the Town of Colonie. These, and any other
references to the landfill being located in Cohoes, need to be corrected.
Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 2
Response: The text of the DEIS has been revised to reflect that the landfill is
located in the Town of Colonie as opposed to having a mailing address in the City of
Cohoes.
2.
In Section 1.3, the discussion of Areas 5 and 6 should state that both
areas are double composite lined.
Response: Section 1.3 of the DEIS has been revised to reflect that Area 5 and
Area 6 are lined with Part 360 liners with double composite lined areas where
required.
Section 2 - Environmental Setting, Significant Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
1.
Section 2.4.1.2 Flood Plain - This section needs to be updated to reflect the
new flood map that became effective on March 16, 2015.
Response: Section 2.4.1.2 of the DEIS has been updated to reflect the flood
mapping changes that became effective on March 16, 2015 (after our initial
submittal).
2.
Section 2.4.2 Potential Impacts (page 26) states that the Mohawk
Impoundment at the Crescent Dam is not a known water source. However,
the DEIS needs to state that this location is upstream of a public water intake
on the Mohawk River for the City of Cohoes.
Response: The text of the DEIS has been revised to reflect that the Mohawk
Impoundment at the Crescent Dam is upstream of a public water intake for the City
of Cohoes.
3.
Section 2.4.2 Potential Impacts - The flood plain discussion on page 27

needs to be revised to reflect the flood maps effective March 16, 2015.
Response: The text of the DEIS has been updated to reflect the flood mapping
regulatory changes that became effective on March 16, 2015 (after our initial
submittal).
4.
Section 2.8.1.1.3 Canal Corporation Property - The report states that DEC
will review the Area 7 permit application regardless of the status of the
ownership of the 1.46 acre parcel currently owned by the Canal Corporation.
This is correct, however, the DEC wont be able to give final approval of the
application and plans until it is known for certain that this parcel has been
https://projects.cornerstoneeg.com/sites/COLONIELANDFILL/150027 Area 7 Development 2015/_Project Design/Reports/Response to Comments/DEC Response

to Comments Submittal_06.24.15/ltr 062415 DEC response to comments FINAL.docx
Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 3
transferred to the Town. If the transfer does not occur, then a revised
engineering report and drawings for the development without the parcel will
have to be presented to DEC for review and approval.
Response: Understood
5.
Section 2.9.3.3 Camouflage/Disguise &

Appendix F Visual Resource Assessment - 4.0 Mitigation Program
These sections need to provide more specific details regarding the types of
vegetation, and the location and density of the plantings that will be utilized
to help visually camouflage the landfill after closure so that it blends into the
surrounding treed terrain. The DEIS needs to include an actual mitigation
planting plan, and a project visualization which shows how the landfill is
expected to look once the planting mitigation plan is completed.
Response: A planting plan has been prepared which uses a blend of native seed types
to create a subtle camouflage effect to help blend the final landform into the
surrounding landscape as viewed from key vantage points. The selected seed mixtures
include grasses, wildflowers and other herbaceous plants that will visually present a
variety of heights, colors and textures. Four different seed blends would be planted in
horizontally and vertically sinuously formed planting zones across the landfill to for
visual interest and to imply a more naturalistic and undulating landform. The seed
mixes are suitable for use on slopes of 3:1 or greater and are specifically designed for
slope stabilization and erosion control. Individual plant species are also selected to
encourage habitat diversity.
The DEIS has been updated to include this information as well as more detail on the
seed mixes. A detailed planting plan (Attachment A) will be added to the Visual
Resource Assessment Report. Additionally, illustrations of the general appearance of
the seed mitigation concept are provided in additional photo simulations for the
perspectives with significant views of the completed landfill (Rt 9 south of the
Crescent Bridge, and East of the Mohawk River at Canal Park).
6.
Section 2.12.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures (Odor control) - This

section needs to provide more details regarding the operation, maintenance
and continuing expansion of the active gas collection system.
Response: Section 2.12.3 of the DEIS has been revised in consultation with the
NYSDEC to include additional detail on the operation, maintenance, and expansion
of the gas collection system.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 4
Air Title V Permit Application
1.
Application was reviewed and no additional information is required at this

time.
Article 24 Freshwater Wetland and Section 401 Water Quality Certification Applications
1.
The project will impact 1.32 acres of regulated adjacent area of state wetland
TN-10. Figure 3B presents a map of the areas intended to be impacted, but it
is not very detailed. Please provide a more detailed map of the proposed
buffer disturbance that also shows the wetland boundary and impact areas,
etc.
Response: While construction will occur within the area adjacent to TN-10, the
construction is consistent with the existing conditions in that area (constructed
berms, leachate lagoons). A detailed figure (Figure 3C) will be added to the Article
24 Freshwater Wetland and Section 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
2.
The Wetland Mitigation Plan (Figure 6) needs to be redesigned to create a

more intricate, natural wetland configuration. For example, the aquatic
bed/emergent wetland contours could be reshaped to provide more edge
between covertypes or microtopography could be incorporated into entire
replacement wetland. It is recommended that further consultation with
NYSDEC biologist Karl Parker be undertaken for guidance in developing a
more diverse plan.
Response: Upon consultation with Mr. Karl Parker of the NYSDEC, we are
providing a revised wetland configuration to include a more sinuous, natural wetland
configuration including both the larger area proposed for woody wetland plant species
(Planting Zone 2) and smaller areas that incorporate the emergent/aquatic bed
plantings (Planting zone 1). We have also added notes in the construction and
grading section to incorporate micro-topography features such as logs, rocks and pitmound grading to enhance the spacial and temporal habitat features of the created
wetland. Figure 6 has been revised with these details.
3.
The deed restricted area needs to include a minimum of a 100-foot buffer

area. As currently proposed, the 2 longest sides have less than a 50-foot
buffer.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 5
Response: Based upon consultation with Mr. Parker, we are providing revised buffer
areas as seen on revised Figures 6 and 9 to incorporate a portion of the Latham Water
District land on the west side. This increases the deed restricted area and allows for
100 foot buffers over most of the wetland mitigation area (including the east side).
Additionally, Mr. Parker indicates that it is acceptable to have less than a 100 foot
buffer on the north side since this area consists of a small sliver of land owned by the
NYS Canal Corporation between the mitigation area and the river. There is limited/no
opportunity for development in this area. A similar situation exists on the south side
of the mitigation area between it and Onderdonk Avenue. There is over 100 feet
between the edge of wetland and the edge of the road; however, this area is occupied by
either sewer or water line easement. The sewer district will not allow the Town to
include its easement as part of the deed restricted area; as mitigation, additional
plantings have been added within the deed restricted area to provide a more significant
separation. This area is maintained as a mowed pasture and has limited-to-no
development potential. In summary, there has been an increase in buffer to 100 or
more where feasible with additional deed restricted area. These conditions will provide
the protection and screening desirable to maintain the wetland integrity.
4.
The application needs to include a planting plan for the buffer as well as for
the wetland, with a focus on enhancing the wildlife habitat benefits.
Response: Updated planting information for the buffer area is presented in Figure 6.
Buffer plantings include approximately 400 shrubs and saplings to provide screening
(habitat security for some species), erosion control (to protect the wetland), and
food/nest resources for various wildlife species. In addition, the entire buffer area will
be seeded with an Upland Wildlife Habitat Diversity Mix to enhance favorable
herbaceous species for wildlife in the buffer area.
5.
We have a concern about the lack of natural hydrology in the mitigation

area. The current plan requires that a clay liner be installed in order for the
system to work as planned. This seems to indicate that you will not be able
to do any pre-construction hydrological testing to make sure appropriate
hydrology is present. What can be done to assure that the planned
mitigation area will develop as proper wetland area?
Response: Pre-construction analysis entailing test pits and soil analysis were
conducted in the mitigation area. The results indicate that the substrate is limited for
creating and maintaining wetland conditions due to its well-drained porous soils,
hence the need for a liner. Water levels, including peak flow periods and average flow
periods, were analyzed to determine a target elevation for capturing river water.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 6
The proposed pond liner is anticipated to contain water from rainfall and from surface
runoff from the buffer area and areas to the south of the buffer area. Additionally,
water from the river will be allowed into the system as necessary to maintain
appropriate hydrology. This approach is described in Section 8.0 of the Sectionj 404
Permit Application Report.
6.
There is a concern about the plan for the water control structure. There
needs to be a plan for continued inspections of this structure after the
monitoring period concludes in order to assure that it receives any required
maintenance so that it would continue to operate and function as designed.
Response: The Town of Colonie will remain owner of the property and will maintain
the outlet structure or will contract those services as necessary. This has been noted in
in Section 8.1 of the application. As discussed in the Section 404 application, once the
desirable water levels have been determined, the water control structure adjustment
will be fixed in place.
7.
Documentation indicates that there is some occasional use of the landfill

site by eagles. However, most of their activity is focused on the
Mohawk River. The use of a flare to burn-off excess landfill gas can be a
potential hazard to raptors. The application needs to address this
potential impact further and discuss any measures that could be
utilized to discourage raptors, and other birds, from perching on the
flare structure when it is not in operation, and from flying near it when
it is operating. This discussion is needed to assure that all practicable
measures will be taken to reasonably assure that there would be no
impact to eagles from an incidental taking.
Response: The issue of gas flare hazards to raptors was noted in the DEIS (Section
2.7.2.1). While inactive areas of the site have been used by eagles, the visual
observations of eagles were noted at the opposite end of the site from the flare
(approximately 3500 feet north of the flare). These species are not generally observed
near the active landfill area or near the existing gas flare.
However, to discourage perching, the flare will be retrofitted with a serrated top edge
as seen in the attached example photograph. These have been used on flares at other
locations to discourage raptor and other perch birds from perching and potentially
being injured or killed by the flame or hot surface of the flare. The serrated edge can be
easily retrofitted to the existing flare.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 7
8.
It is not clear whether areas of existing forest along the Mohawk will have
to be cleared for the proposed mitigation project. If so, the plan should
show the details of the impacts.
Response: Clearing of existing forest is not anticipated for the proposed mitigation
project.
9.
It has been observed that there are substantial areas of Phragmites near the
mitigation site. The presence of this vegetation can complicate the wetland
mitigation project and therefore, may require a longer monitoring period
than the proposed 5 years. Further consultation and coordination with the
US Army Corps of Engineers is needed in order to ascertain what would be
a reasonable length of time for monitoring.
Response: Understood. Bagdon Environmental checked the mitigation site in June
2015 to determine if any phragmites were present. Phragmites were not observed on
or adjacent to the mitigation site. The remnant dead plants along the periphery of the
mowed field look like phragmites at a distance, however, they are all wormwood, which
had been previously noted as the dominant species in the field prior to and after
mowing. There are some phragmites in the site vicinity (along Onderdonk Road) that
can be monitored during the construction/monitoring period and it can be eradicated if
it invades the mitigation wetland. Invasive species control will be a priority during
the monitoring period of the mitigation wetland.
10. Due to the spread of Emerald Ash Borer and the statewide quarantine, ash
species cannot be included in the wetland mitigation planting plan.
Response: Understood. Red maple (Acer rubrum) is being proposed as alternate
species to replace red ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) in the planting plan. No ash
species will be utilized in any of the wetland or buffer plantings. This substitution
has been incorporated in Appendix D and on Figure 6 of the Article 24 Freshwater
Wetland and Section 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
Part 360 Solid Waste Management Permit Application
Engineering Report
1.
Section 2.2 Property Ownership. This section states that DEC will review the
Area 7 permit application regardless of the status of the ownership of the 1.46
acre parcel currently owned by the Canal Corporation. This is correct,
however, the DEC wont be able to give final approval of the application and

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 8
plans until it is known for certain that this parcel has been transferred to the
Town. If the transfer does not occur, then a revised engineering report and
drawings for the development without the parcel will have to be presented to
DEC for review and approval for compliance with Solid Waste Regulations
subpart 360-2.
2.
Section 2.7- Existing Areas. This section briefly mentions the asbestos disposal
area located between the transfer station and the landfill. The location and
the extent needs to be determined and shown on the site plans. Also, the
report must provide discussion on the potential issues that may be
encountered due to the construction of the Area 7 liner that will be located
over this area.
Response: The location (as can best be determined by available data) has been
identified on the existing conditions plan (Sheet 4) and the liner subgrade plan
(Sheet 7). Additional detail has been added to Section 5.5.2 to describe procedures for
handling the asbestos, depending upon its specific location in relation to subgrade.
3.
Section 4.1 Floodplain. Provide an updated discussion that reflects the

new flood maps effective on March 16, 2015 and include a site plan of the
Area 7 construction that clearly delineates the areas of designated
floodplains. Specific details on provisions that will be made to prevent
encroachment of flood waters upon impacted areas must be included, in
accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.7(a) (2) (ii).
Response: Section 4.1 of the Engineering Report has been updated to reflect the
mapping change that occurred during the NYSDEC review process. Additionally a
new Figure has been added showing the detailed limits of the flood plain and
additional notation added to Sheet 12 of the Engineering Drawings indicating a
permanent turf reinforcement mat is needed in some areas along the northeast corner
of the development.
4.
Section 4.1 Prohibited Siting and Section 4.2 - Primary Water Supply, and Principal
Aquifers. In each of these sections, the language regarding the Mohawk River,
the Mohawk Impoundment at Crescent Dam and the Cohoes Water Intake is
somewhat confusing and needs to be revised. As written, the language seems
to imply that they are three separate water bodies and are not hydraulically
connected. Both sections need to clearly identify the Mohawk River as the
source for the Cohoes Water Intake, and the application must include a

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 9
discussion of how and why the proposed Area 7 development will not impact
this surface water body which is actively used as a source of municipal
water.
Response: The language has been revised to make it clear that the impoundment at
Crescent Dam is within and a part of the Mohawk River and that the Mohawk River
serves as the source of water for the Cohoes Water Intake located approximately 1.5
miles downstream. In addition, the text was further expanded to discuss the
hydraulic relationship of the proposed Area 7 development to the river, existing
water quality within the proposed Area 7 parcel near the river and the potential for
impacts to the river water quality.
5.
Section 4.2 - Monitorability/Remediability. The application must include a

discussion of the ability to conduct remedial actions at the site per 6
NYCRR Part 360-2.12(c) (5).
Response: This section has been expanded to describe that the site hydrogeology
and groundwater flow conditions are well characterized such that applicable
remedial action technologies may be evaluated, selected, and implemented in the
event that remedial actions are required. In addition, the expanded text discusses the
physical layout of the facility and that sufficient work area is available for remedy
implementation as needed.
6.
Section 5.2 - Site Life. According to this section, cover materials will comprise
up to 30% of the waste volume. However, the accompanying calculations
for projected site life uses a maximum 20% cover volume. The narrative
needs to be revised to reflect the maximum 20% figure. In addition, a
separate calculation is needed calculating cover material at no more than
25% by weight of the waste material to be placed within the landfill.
Response: Section 5.2 has been updated to indicate that cover materials, by
volume, will vary and a range of 20 to 30% by volume is typical. Based on that
range, and an average use of cover material of 25% by volume, the site life was
calculated at 21.8 years. Calculation of cover by weight has not been provided at this
time, because the type of material that could potentially be available and the
associated ratios and densities are not yet known.
7.
Section 5.5.2 Natural Subgrade. This section needs to be more definitive

regarding areas where native soils will be removed and the methods that
will be used to provide a stable subgrade. Also, this section states that
acceptable methods will be determined at the time of construction
submittals. Please note that these methods need to be addressed and

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 10
discussed in the engineering report at this time.

Response: Section 5.5.2 already included detailed procedures on how the subgrade
will be prepared and soft soils will be identified and remediated (e.g., proof-rolling,
removal and replacement with compacted fill). Additionally an area of soil near the
northwest corner of the site and identified on Sheet 7, is to be removed as described
in detail in Section 5.10.2.4. Additional measures are identified only as potential
alternative methods for providing a stable subgrade. Other than the area at the
northwest corner of the site, there are no specific areas where soft subgrade was
specifically identified (as it is a function of many things - including conditions at the
time of construction and construction equipment). However, as is standard practice,
the subgrade will be proof rolled and isolated soft areas stabilized as necessary.
8.
Section 5.5.4 Soil Liner. The report states that soil will be applied in lifts
having a compacted thickness of 6 to 12 inches depending on the results of
the test pad program. Part 360-2.13 (j) (2) (ii) requires a maximum lift
thickness of 6 inches, unless otherwise approved by the Department. This
section needs to state that the maximum thickness of the lift will be 6 inches,
unless otherwise approved by the Department
Response: Understood. Section 5.5.4 has been updated as directed.
9.
Section 5.5.2.1 - Overfill Liner Subgrade.

a.
The evaluation of the bearing capacity of the overliner subgrade, i.e., the
existing waste mass, is not sufficient. The evaluation needs to address
the potential variability of the conditions throughout Areas 1- 4. The
application must provide additional evaluation and documentation that
supports the assumptions that the overfill liner subgrade will be
adequately compacted due to previous loading. Also, the report needs to
provide contingencies that will be employed in the event that the
assumptions are found to be not valid.
Response: The overfill subgrades will be proof rolled to assess whether pockets of
unsuitable material remain. Unsuitable materials that weave significantly under
proof-rolling will be removed and replaced with compacted common fill. Before
placing liner materials over the subgrade, the exposed surface will be observed to
confirm suitability. The overfill subgrade materials, because they consist of
previously placed waste, will be variable across the proposed overfill areas.
Deformations that may occur in the overfill areas would be the result of
settlement and not a loss of strength leading to bearing failure. Settlement of the
existing waste will be a function of the thickness of the existing waste mass and

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 11
the anticipated overfill thickness. The computed post-settlement configuration of

the overfill lining as described in the geotechnical analyses, will continue to
provide appropriate leachate drainage.
b.
The detail for the subgrade gas venting system shown on Sheet 20 does
not depict an overlying gas venting layer in addition to individual gas
collection trenches as stated in this section. The report needs to include
a discussion of measures to be taken should gas generation/uplift
cause damage to the liner system during construction.
Response: Detail 4 on Sheet 36 has been edited to call-out the drainage
composite landfill gas venting layer. Additional discussion has been included in
Section 5.5.2.1 regarding management of landfill gas uplift pressures.
10. Section 5.5.10 - Primary Leachate Collection System. This section states that
the primary leachate collection layer will consist of 12 of No. 1 rounded
stone. Pursuant to the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13(f) (4), the
primary leachate collection layer must consist of a 24 granular soil layer
with a leachate collection pipe network.
Response: Section 5.5.10 of the report has been revised to indicated 24 inches of
granular drainage material is required (as already shown on Detail 1/24).
11. Section 5.8.1.1- Active Waste Placement Conditions. Please provide more
explanation/ information to support the assumptions used for this
scenario.
Response: Section 5.8.1.1 has been revised to provide additional information on
the assumptions used for the Active Waste Placement Conditions in the leachate
generation analyses.
12. Section 5.8.2.6 - Leachate Conveyance System.
a.
This section does not discuss the flow capacity/sizing of both the
pumps and conveyance lines. The report must clearly demonstrate that
the system can discharge the projected volume of leachate in the allotted
time frame as mandated by the Town of Colonie (i.e., convey 46,700
gallons to the WWTP in a 12 hour period and maintain less than 1 foot
of head on the primary liners). Also, the report needs to include a
discussion of what contingencies are available should the leachate

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 12
generation quantities exceed 46,500 gallons over an extended period of

time.
Response: Based on discussion during our May 15, 2015 meeting, it was
agreed that capacity ranges of appropriate equipment/pipe systems would be
adequate. A new calculation set has been provided and the text of the
Engineering Report has been updated to summarize the information showing
that the appropriate capacities are available. As for contingencies, the O&M
Plan, which is an attachment to the Engineering Report, discusses appropriate
contingencies.
b.
There is a discrepancy in the text of this section and Detail 8/25. The
text states that flow from Sumps # 2 through # 5 will discharge into
Wet Well # 1. Detail 8/25 indicates that the force main passes through
Wet Well # 1. Please clarify.
Response: The text of the Engineering Report has been updated to describe
how the flow from the various sumps will remain within the forcemain and not
discharge into the wetwell.
c.
A discussion must be included on methods and equipment that will be

used to prevent overflow of Wet Wells # 1 and # 2.
Response: The text of the Engineering Report has been updated to describe
precautionary measures that will be put in place for potential overflow of the
wetwells. Wet well #2 has been eliminated.
d.
The text states pump stations for Area 5 and 6 will be retrofitted to
discharge into the new force main. Details of this discharge must be
included in the Engineering Drawings.
Response: Sheet 22 of the Engineering Drawings has been updated to
provide additional clarification. Additionally, Section 5.8.2.6 has been updated
to reflect that the Area 5 flow will continue via gravity in the existing
collection line that will discharge into proposed Wet Well #1. Area 6 will
continue to be conveyed via force main along the east side of the landfill.
However, near the existing location (MH-1A) where the Area 6 flow joins the
existing gravity conveyance line, a new structure (Detail 1/22) will be
installed that will facilitate the connection of the Area 6 force main to the
proposed forcemain going to the tanks.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 13
13. Section 5.8.3 - Leachate Characteristics. Due to the addition of odor reducing
chemicals, atmospheric conditions and physical mixing, the lagoons are
not a good representation of site leachate. This was changed in 2014 to
sample each cells primary and secondary leachate for comparison. This
section needs to be revised accordingly.
Response: The characterization of the leachate has been updated using 2014 data which includes continued sampling from the lagoons as reported in the Annual
Report for the site. The Annual Report indicated that the lagoon samples were still
representative of Area 6 leachate quality and this was confirmed based on
comparison of several samples of leachate taken directly from the Area 6 primary
leachate collection system in 2014. Section 5.8.3 of the Engineering Report has been
updated accordingly.
14. Section 5.10.3.3 - (Settlement) Analysis Procedure. While the text in this section
states The unit weight for waste was multiplied by 2.0 to achieve the
required factor of safety, the sample calculations in Attachment # 7 do not
reflect this change (Factor of Safety adjusted waste density should be 160
pounds per cubic foot (pcf), not 140 pcf). Please clarify.
Response: The calculations were updated to include waste density of 160 pcf. The
resulting settlements did not materially change and the summary of the results has
been updated in the text of the report.
15. Section 5.10.3.6 - Baseliner Strain. The greatest value of baseliner strain as
calculated in Attachment # 7 is 1.35%. It is incorrectly defined as 0.21% in
this section. Please update.
Response: Section 5.10.3.6 of the Engineering Report has been updated to reflect
that the greatest value for baseliner strain is 1.35%.
16. Section 6.2 - Landfill Construction. More detail is needed on the lagoon
removal. What is the procedure to determine whether the subsoils are
contaminated or not. Also, the report does not address potential odors issues
that may result from the construction of the Area 7 overfill liner system.
Response: Section 6.2 of the Engineering Report has been updated to include a
description of the leachate pond removal. The lagoons are constructed with dual liner
systems with leak detection and contamination is not anticipated. Should
contamination be visually observed during removal of the ponds, impacted soil will
be removed. Odor management (if needed) is also described in this section.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 14
17. Section 6.5 Incinerator Ash. This section states that the use of ash could represent
as much as 50 percent or more of the airspace normally consumed by daily
cover. Is this an accurate representation of the quantity of ash currently used
as alternative daily cover?
Response: The current statement in Section 6.5 of the Engineering Report is
correct. However, the actual volumes of alternative daily cover will vary depending
upon the type of material that is available at the time of waste placement.
18. The Engineering Report needs to provide a comprehensive
discussion/evaluation of the impacts the Area 7 construction and operation
will have on the existing landfill infrastructure. The report should also
include written documentation verifying that the Town of Colonie has
reviewed and concurs with the evaluation and potential impacts. At a
minimum, the report shall include an evaluation and discussion of the
impact Area 7 will have on the following:
a.
any leachate collection system pipes or components located within Areas

2, 3 and 4;
b.
the toe drain located between areas 4 and 5; and
c.
the Pore Pressure Relief System (PPRS) under Areas 5 and 6 including a
discussion of future plans for the operation or discontinuance of the
PPRS.
Response: The Town of Colonie has been involved through the design process, has
reviewed the documentation submitted as part of this application, and has signed the
permit application. The leachate collection system pipes that were originally part of
Area 2 through 4 (inclusive of the toe drain) are no longer maintained as part of the
regular post-closure maintenance of those cells, and therefore, their functionality
was not addressed. It is anticipated that the connections for the pipes will be
maintained and leachate that does flow from the pipe will continue to be collected.
The PPRS system under Area 5 and 6 does not need to continue functioning as the
weight of waste in the cell exceeds porewater pressures (the cell was constructed
above the groundwater elevation).

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 15
Attachment 1 - Engineering Permit Drawings
1.
Sheet 9 indicates the inclusion of a Primary Soil Liner Structural Layer

between the secondary leachate collection layer and the primary liner
GCL, although no such layer is included in detail 2/24. Please clarify.
Response: The notation on Sheet 9 has been updated and the reference to "Primary
Soil Liner Structural Layer" has been removed.
2.
Sheet 19 depicts a layer of select waste only on the bottom portion of the
liner system. In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.17(b)(3), a minimum
five feet of compacted select waste must be placed directly above the
primary leachate collection and removal system on all parts of the liner
system, including side slopes.
Response: The profiles on Sheet 19 have been updated to reflect that select waste
will be placed on the side slopes as well as the floor areas.
3.
There appears to be an error in the scale on Sheet 20. The stated scale does
not appear to match the graphic depiction. Please correct.
Response: The scale notation has been updated on Sheet 20.
4.
Sheet 24 depicts three liner connection profiles in details 5/24, 6/24, 7/24.
The connection details show existing double and single composite liner
designs in Areas 5 and 6 tied into the new Area 7 liner system. All three
details indicate Area 5 and Area 6 will be connected to a double liner (detail
1/24). In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13(f), a GCL (or lowpermeability soil layer) must be included directly under the primary
geomembrane where the liner slope is 25 percent or less. All portions of
Area 7 liner that have a slope of less than 25 percent are required to be
double composite systems. Details must be added that show the connection
of Area 5 and Area 6 base liners with a double composite liner system if these
areas are connecting to any portions of Area 7 that are less than 25 percent.
Also, a notation needs to be included on this sheet that states the requirement
for a double composite liner on all slopes of 25 percent or less.
Response: Details 4, 5, 6, and 7 have been updated to indicate that a GCL is
required in areas where the slope is less than 25 percent. Although the connection
between the various areas is already shown in these details, they have been enhanced
to provide clarity and a secondary soil layer has been added. A note has been added

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 16
to each detail indicating that a double composite liner is required on all slopes less
than 25 percent.
5.
The exact boundary of the inactive hazardous waste site (401004)

unnamed landfill must be delineated on the all the site plans showing
new construction.
Response: The boundary of the Unnamed Area shown on Sheet 4 is based on the area
indicated as Area Filled Early-1970s in prior investigations (URS Consultants,
1991) north of the drainage culvert which has been previously used to demarcate the
Unnamed Area. The boundary line has been added to Sheets 7 through 17, and sheet
33 (depicting the stormwater ponds). Figure 2-1 of the Engineering Report and 1-2 of
the DEIS have also been updated.
6.
Provide an additional drawing that outlines where all areas of double liner (>
25% slope) and double composite liner (< 25% slope) will be located.
Response: The grades and labels on Sheet 7 indicate slopes that are greater than
25%. For clarity a figure has been added to the Engineering Report (Figure 5-1)
outlining these areas and the text of the Engineering Report updated accordingly.
7.
Provide an expanded detail of the Area 7 liner tie-in to the Area 5 single
composite liner, as shown in Section 7/24.
Response: Detail 8 has been added to Sheet 24 to provide clarity to the existing
detail.
8.
Details 1/25 and 2/25 must be drawn more clearly, or provide additional
expanded views of these details, in order to show all individual soil and
geosynthetic layers.
Response: The intent of Details 1 and 2 is to show the configuration of the pipe
and pipe bedding rather than the various geosynthetic layers. Appropriate references
have been added to this detail to direct viewers to the appropriate details within the
drawing set.
9.
Detail 2/25 refers to a PVC/HDPE mechanical connection joint which is

further described in Note 5. Please clarify in detail 2/25 how these joints are
to be constructed.
Response: The detail has been updated to remove the callout for the mechanical
joint as the cleanout will be PVC up the sideslopes. Note 5 has been removed.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 17
10. Details 6/25, 7/25, 8/25 and 9/25 show 7-foot I.D. HDPE wetwells will be
used as part of the leachate collection system. As required by 6 NYCRR Part
360-2.13(h), all leachate conveyance lines and appurtenances including
manholes, sumps, and metering pits located outside the double composite
liner system of the landfill must be designed to have double containment
and must be constructed to provide for effective leak detection and
collection.
Response: Wetwell #2 has been be removed and Wetwell #1 has been updated to
include the requested features. Sheets 22 and 25 have been updated as appropriate
and the resulting features are described in Section 5.8.2.6 of the Engineering Report.
11. Detail 9/25 for Wet Well #2 indicates that it receives flow from a force main,
however, sheet 22 depicts a gravity flow from Area 4. Also, why are there
two force mains and pumps in this Wet Well?
Response: Wetwell #2 has been removed and flow from Areas 6 will be pumped
directly into the forcemain that discharges to the proposed storage tanks.
Appropriate revisions have been made to Sheets 22 and 25 and Section 5.8.2.6 of the
Engineering Report.
12. Sections A/27 and B/27 must be drawn more clearly, or provide additional
expanded views of these sections, in order to show all individual soil and
geosynthetic layers in the leachate collection system sump area.
Response: The intent of Section A and B is to show the configuration of the pipe
and pipe bedding rather than the various geosynthetic layers. Appropriate references
have been added to this section to direct viewers to the appropriate details within the
drawing set.
13. Section B/27 does not show a 60 mil primary geosynthetic liner as a
component of the primary composite liner system. In addition, a portion of
the primary composite liner is labeled as 6-inch solid wall SCH80 PVC pipe.
Please correct or clarify.
Response: The notations have been updated as appropriate to remove the
discrepancies.
14. Section B/27 shows geocomposite drainage layer terminating at the bottom of
the secondary leachate collection system sumps side slope. This geosynthetic
layer needs to be extended, or some other type of cushion layer should be
Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 18
placed, directly on top of the 60 mil liner at the bottom of the sump.
Response: Section B has been edited to show the geocomposite drainage layer
extending across the sump.
Attachment 2 - Site Investigation Report
1.
Section 4.3 - Hydrogeologic Conditions. The Mohawk River is mentioned as the

discharge for site groundwater. Please include river elevations and a
discussion of existing and potential impacts from the site.
Response: This section has been expanded to include river elevations and to
integrate language from subsequent sections of the report that discuss existing water
quality and the anticipated improvement in water quality following development of
the site.
Attachment 3 - Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP)
1.
The EMP must include a discussion of replacing the existing upgradient

monitoring wells when future cell development requires their
abandonment.
Response: New wells to replace wells within the footprint were addressed in
Section 2.2.1 of the EMP; however, additional language noting which wells are
anticipated to be replaced has been added to the section to provide clarity.
2.
Section 2.2.3 - Linear Rock Trenches. These trenches were never

constructed. The text needs to be updated.
Response: Text regarding linear rock trenches not being constructed has been
revised to include installation of the MPI-11 cluster in place of the trenches.
3.
Section 3.3.1.3 - Linear Rock Trenches. The monitoring well MPI-11S is not
shown on Figure 1-1. In addition, Table 2.1 includes a monitoring well MPI11 which is not shown on the site map. Please clarify whether it is MPI-11S or
CHA-11S.
Response: Figure 1-1 of the EMP has been revised to show MPI-11 cluster which
is currently mislabeled as CHA-11

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 19
4.
Section 4.2.1.2 - Laboratory SOPs. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.11(d) (4)

(g), the text should be amended to state: The standard operating
procedures shall identify that each corrective action must be documented
in the sampling event report submitted to the Department. instead of
submitted to the Town. Please clarify if the Town is receiving the
sampling event reports or the operator. If the operator is getting the
reports, a copy should be forwarded to NYSDEC along with the quarterly
and annual reports.
Response: Understood. Appropriate revisions have been made to Section 4.2.1.2 of
the EMP.
5.
Appendix C: SSOP - 3: Groundwater Sample Collection - Sampling Procedures.

To reduce sample variability, a statement that during every sampling
event, each well will be sampled consistent with the previous event needs
to be included, i.e., if Well MPI-4D was sampled with a bailer then during
the next event a bailer must be used.
Response: Understood. A statement has been added to the Sampling Procedures to
indicate consistency of sampling method.
Attachment 4 - CQA/CQC Plan
1.
Section 2 - Management Organization. The technical specifications refer to

ENGINEER, which engineer in the management structure would hold
this responsibility?
Response: Titles and responsibilities have been reviewed and updated to be sure
they are consistent and suitable. Project and Design have been removed throughout
the document so that just Engineer is used for consistency with technical
specifications.
2.
Section 2.1 and Section 3 CQA/CQC Personnel These sections need to more
clearly define the direct role that the Project Engineer will have in the
execution of the CQA/CQC Plan. The Project Engineer must be licensed to
practice engineering in the State of New York, not registered. The
qualifications for all CQA/CQC Personnel must be more definitive, i.e.,
specify the minimum number of years of experience and a more thorough
description of experience and qualifications required.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 20
Response: See above response related to the Engineer. Section 3 of the CQA/CQC
plan already includes specifics on the required experience. In our opinion, adding the
Years of Experience is unnecessarily restrictive, would not necessarily result in
more qualified personnel on-site, and is not required by regulation.
3.
Section 2.1 Construction Observers and Sections 3.4 and 3.5 - Geotechnical and
Geosynthetic Construction Observers. These positions must all be independent
of the owner or operator of the landfill.
Response: Understood. References to personnel in these roles being retained by the
Operator have been removed from the referenced sections of the CQA/CQC plan.
4.
Section 3.6 - Earthwork Contractor. The Contractor may not obtain

field samples for geotechnical testing.
Response: Understood. Section 3.6 of the CQA/CQC plan has been revised to
indicate that the Earthwork Contractor role is only to identify sources for samples
and to assist CQA Manager in obtaining those materials.
5.
Section 5.2.1.1 - Quality Control Testing. Only personnel in the direct chain of
command to the Project Engineer may obtain samples for geotechnical
testing.
Response: Section 5.2.1.1 has been revised to indicate the Engineer is responsible
for obtaining samples used in geotechnical testing.
6.
Section 5.2.1.2 - Quality Assurance Testing. The CQA Manager must direct the
Earthwork Contractor to insure that the correct moisture content,
minimization of desiccation and stability of placed low permeability soil layers
is maintained.
Response: Agreed. It is our opinion that this is adequately addressed in Section
3.2.2. As outlined in Section 3.2.2, the responsibilities of the CQA Manager include
notifying the Project Manager of areas that do not meet the requirements of the
drawings or technical specifications. Moisture content, desiccation and stability are
addressed in the technical specifications.
7.
Section 12.1 Daily Construction Documentation. The daily construction field

notes need to also include the quantity and type of material placed, the
equipment used and the CQA/CQC personnel present at the site.
Response: The requested functions have been added as a bullet to the existing list.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 21
8.
Appendix A -Technical Specifications. The Technical Specifications need to

include a Table of Contents. Specifications for Clean up, Corrective Action
and Conflict Resolution should be clearly identified and also added where
appropriate.
Response: A Table of Contents has been prepared and incorporated into the
document. The requirements for Clean-up and Conflict Resolution are to be included
in the Division 0 technical specifications that are part of the Construction Contract
between the Owner and Contractor. Corrective actions for each material (i.e. soils,
geosynthetics, etc.) are addressed in the technical specifications for those materials in
sections that address failing test results. The corrective actions are variable
depending on the materials, and actions for geosynthetics and connections would
include removal and replacement of failed materials and in the case of soils, reworking
to achieve suitable and acceptable test results.
9.
Appendix A -Technical Specifications - Section 02276 Soil Liner. Part 1.3.

Needs to clarify that 6 is the minimum thickness of the low permeability
soil layer of the 18 soil component of the primary composite liner. Is it
necessary to specify the thickness tolerance of +3 inches?
Response: A note has been added to Section 02276 of the technical specification to
address this comment. It is our opinion that a thickness tolerance is needed as
earthwork lift thickness may be somewhat variable during construction. The
tolerance is provided to maintain lift thickness so that compaction will be acceptable.
The stated tolerance is in accordance with accepted practice for earthwork
construction.
10. Appendix A -Technical Specifications - Section 02276 Soil Liner. Part 3.1 - Soil
Placement refers to desiccation cracks in excess of 1 inch. Please clarify
whether this dimension refers to width or depth.
Response: Section 02276 has been updated to reflect that the specification is
referring to crack depth.
11. Appendix A -Technical Specifications - Section 02277 Test Pad. Should include
more details on developing the moisture-density curve including the range of
compactive efforts and range of moisture contents.
Response: Language has been added to Section 02277 about development of a data
set for varying compactive effort and moisture content for each soil. An appropriate
range of compactive effort or moisture content is a function of the soil type and
Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 22
equipment being used neither of which are known at this time. It is our opinion
that the test pad requriements in the revised Section 02277 will allow the Engineer
to develop an appropriate compaction window.
12. Appendix A -Technical Specifications Section 02440 Leachate Drainage LayerNeed to include specification for acid solubility.
Response: A 15% carbonate content limitation and ASTM test identification for
all collection materials has been added to Section 02440.
Attachment 5 - Operations and Maintenance Plan
1.
Section 8.3 - Waste Placement. Provide a discussion about prevention and

control of windblown litter. In addition, Section 11.3 needs to include a
statement that windblown debris must be picked up daily.
Response: Section 8.3 of the O&M plan has been updated to include detail on the
prevention of wind-blown litter. Section 11.3 of the O&M plan has been updated to
include language indicating that accessible windblown debris will be picked up, if
present, on normal working days.
2.
Section 10 - Landfill Gas Management. Details of the current gas monitoring

program (implemented by SCS Engineers) needs to be incorporated into the
O & M Plan.
Response: The information presented in Sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the O&M plan
already includes the detail of the current gas monitoring program being implemented
by SCS. Upon consultation with the NYSDEC, additional detail has been added to
these sections to enhance the existing language.
3.
Section 10.1 - Existing Gas System. Incorporate more details or refer to the SCS
program as an attached appendix.
Response: The information presented in Sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the O&M plan
already includes the detail of the current gas collection system. Upon consultation
with the NYSDEC, additional detail has been added to these sections to enhance the
existing language.
4.
Section 10.2 - Landfill Gas Monitoring. More detailed discussion must be

provided on what site wide methods will be used for monitoring
decomposition gases in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.9(k) and 2.17(f).

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 23
In addition, 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.17(f) (2) requires that an on-going gas

monitoring program must be initiated with a minimum frequency of quarterly
monitoring (as opposed to the semi-annual monitoring proposed in this
Section).
Response: Upon consultation with the NYSDEC, updates have been made to
Section 10, to adequately address this comment. The monitoring period has been
changed in Section 10.2 to quarterly.
5.
Section 10.2 - Landfill Gas Monitoring. Figure 3 referred to in the text is not
provided. This section also needs to provide more detail regarding the four
gas probes referred to in the text.
Response: The referenced figure has been added, but it should be noted that the figure
designation is actually Figure 5. Additional detail on the probe construction has been
added to this section.
6.
Section 10.2 - Landfill Gas Monitoring. Landfill staff must monitor all pump
houses and leachate structures on a daily basis for oxygen, methane, carbon
dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.
Response: The sideriser structures for Area 6, Phase I and II have equipment that
can perform monitoring of the oxygen, methane, CO2 and H2S along with visual and
audible alarms outside both structures. The other structures listed are permit required
confined spaces and are not regularly accessed. When accessed (on an as needed basis,
only) the presence of landfill gas is monitored. The proposed sideriser structures for
Area 7 will be outfitted with equipment that can monitor oxygen, methane, CO2 and
H2S with visual and audible alarms. The presence of this monitoring equipment on
the Area 6 sideriser structures and proposed Area 7 sideriser structures is noted in
Section 10.2 of the O&M plan.
7.
Section 13 - Landfill Inspection and Recordkeeping. A discussion of off-site odor

monitoring must be included.
Response: Appropriate revisions have been made to Section 13.2 and 13.3 of the
O&M plan detailing how on-site and off-site odor monitoring is implemented and
recorded.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 24
8.
Appendix B - Contingency Plan - Section 2.6 - Leachate Lagoons. The reference to

leachate lagoons needs to be deleted.
Response: Based on discussion during our May 15, 2015 meeting, it was agreed that
the references to the leachate ponds being in place were appropriate as they will still be
operational during initial operations under a new permit.
9.
Appendix B - Contingency Plan - Section 2.8 - Unavailability of Approved Leachate

Treatment Facility. The agreement with the Albany County Sewer District
(ACSD) as an alternative leachate disposal location is not attached.
Response: The signed agreement has been added to the Contingency Plan as a new
attachment.
10. Appendix B - Contingency Plan - Section 11 - Odor Control. More detail must be
provided on the actions to be taken during gas plant disruptions and or
blocked/damaged collection components.
Response: Potential actions that would be undertaken have been added to Section 11
of the Contingency Plan.
11. Appendix C - Inspection Form. The daily inspection form needs to be revised to
remove leachate levels observed in lagoons. In addition, this form does not
reflect the cells being inspected during each phase of construction.
Response: Based on discussion during our May 15, 2015 meeting, it was agreed that
the references to the leachate ponds being in place were appropriate as they will still be
operational during initial operations under a new permit. A daily inspection form
that is inclusive of all appropriate landfill features that could exist over a 20-year
landfill life (for a landfill that will see various construction phases) could result in
confusion. It is our opinion that this form should be updated as appropriate during the
life of the landfill. Updating of the forms is currently noted in Section 13.4 of the
O&M plan.
Attachment 6 - Closure and Post-Closure Plan
1.
Section 3.3 - Landfill Gas Collection System Monitoring. Monitoring must be

conducted at least quarterly as per the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 3602.15(k) (4). This section needs to include a discussion of compliance with this
requirement.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 25
Response: Section 3.3 of the Conceptual Closure/Post-Closure Plan has been

updated to include the appropriate monitoring frequency.
Attachment 7 - Supporting Calculations
1.
The supporting calculations included in Attachment 7 should have tabs or

dividers for each set of calculations.
Response: Colored dividers have been added between the various calculation
sections that are provided in this submittal and upon resubmittal of the entire
document, we will include colored dividers.
2.
Baseliner Strain: Please provide more details in the baseliner-strain analysis

such as sections and grades used.
Response: The sections and grades used are detailed in an updated settlement
calculation.
3.
Settlement Calculations:
a.
A generalized primary consolidation time of 2 years is used in the

calculations. However, another set of calculations show that a 70%
consolidation is reached in 384 days. Please provide an explanation for
using 2 years.
Response: 70% consolidation was selected to estimate the strength gain for
cohesive soils in the bearing capacity and slope stability analyses. Time to reach
70% consolidation is estimated to be one (1) year based on soil properties. As
this time period is less than the time the existing fill has been in place, or that
the new fill will be in place after construction, the 70% is representative.
A 2-year time period (t=2) is used in settlement calculations for secondary
compression/consolidation of cohesive soils. At t=2, consolidation is estimated
as approximately 90% based on the soil properties. As the consolidation at this
time is less than 95 to 100%, the secondary consolidation will be overestimated
using t=2 because primary consolidation is not yet complete. Note that t=1
(70% consolidation used to estimate strength gain) is not appropriate nor
applicable for the settlement calculations as it is not representative.
b.
Please note that the sample calculations for settlement analysis for post
settlement slopes have some mathematical errors. Please clarify if this
impacts the spreadsheet results. As an example, in the sample

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 26
calculations for Fill, the Sc formula plugs in the wrong log values.
Furthermore, a value of 0.031 is computed for Ss. However, it appears
to be miscalculated and should be 0.31. The total settlement value, St
would then be (0.131+0.31) = 0.441. However, the spreadsheet shows St
as 0.162. There are similar discrepancies in examples 2 and 5 also.
Please revise.
Response: The sample calculations have been changed to match the
spreadsheet. A discrepancy in the calculation of elastic settlement for till and
sand has been resolved which reduced the amount of settlement. An updated
settlement calculation has been provided.
4.
Global Stability Calculations: Please provide references for various parameters

such as cohesion, shear strength, and unit weight of existing waste used in
the global stability modeling.
Response: Appropriate references have been added to added to Section 5.10 of the
Engineering Report.
Attachment 8 - Supporting Documents
1.
Attachment 8 should include a Table of Contents and tabs or dividers

for each set of documents.
Response: A listing of documents within Attachment 8 has been provided and
dividers have been added.
2.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Structures

a.
Report Certification. The MSE Design Report was prepared by a third

party designer. This report, including all associated engineering plans,
must be separately certified by an individual licensed to practice
engineering in the State of New York, as required by 6 NYCRR Part 3601.9(e).
Response: A design report and drawings certified by an individual licensed to
practice engineering in the State of New York have been provided in Attachment 8.
b.
Engineering Report. A discussion on the use of MSE structures as a major

component of the overall landfill design must be included in the
Engineering Report. The discussion must address all MSE design

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 27
elements including but not limited to stability of the wall and wall
subbase materials, storm water management and or underdrain design,
maintenance and inspection of wall features, and projected lifespan.
Response: The design life of the MSE perimeter berm will be 75 years which
is consistent with the state of practice for MSE wall design. This design life
which is somewhat arbitray since the useful life of the materials will extend
beyond 75 years will extend beyond the operations life and 30-year post-closure
period. During both operational and post-closure phases, regular inspections and
maintenance of the site (including the MSE berm) are required and will be
performed. Relative to the MSE berms, inpsections will look for evidence of
movement, erosion, and seepage, and will document the general condition of the
facing and function of adjacent stormwater features. Global stability of the berm
and waste is disussed in Section 5.10.2.5 of the Engineerign Report and
associated calculation and internal stability is addressed in the Tensar Design
Report. The Tensar Design Report also includes an assessment of the foundation
materials at the site. The Tensar Design Report has been provided to
demonstrate how the MSE berm feature will be capable of meeting the applicable
requirements of the Part 360 regulations. Additional construction detailing is
antipcated to be submitted as part of construction submittals for each stage of the
development.
Section 3 Existing Landfill Systems
Section 3.6. Stormwater

Management Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
1.
The final Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is included in the

engineered drawings submitted. The current SWPPP needs to be included as
part of the overall permit application documents.
Response: The current SWPPP will be included as a new attachment to the
Engineering Report
2.
Construction activities will be significantly altering the contours and drainage

patterns. There are 5 Phase drawings that should have an estimated project
schedule for construction activity to allow for updates to the SWPPP. An

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 28
Erosion and Sediment control plan for each phase of construction needs to be
included. Dust control and dewatering measures should be included in
Section 5.12.
Response: Erosion and Sediment Control practices have been added to the 5 phase
drawings. It is understood that updates to the SWPPP will be required; however,
tying updates to the landfill phasing shown in the permit documentation may not be
an appropriate approach as the MSGP requirements dictate updates to the SWPPP.
These updates could be triggered by operational and construction conditions not
necessarily shown on the phasing plans. Furthermore, MSGP coverage already
dictates when updates are required to the SWPPP. A note has been added to Section
5.12.1 indicating that the SWPPP must be updated in accordance with the MSGP
requirements and as appropriate for the changing landfill construction and operational
conditions. Discussions on dust control and dewatering measures have been added to
Section 5.12. Dewatering, if required is covered by pumping to sediment traps, filter
bags, or sediment basins as described in multiple locations within the report.
Multi-Sector General permit (MSGP)
1.
The SWPPP needs to be updated accordingly as required by Part III. E of the

SPDES Multi- Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity GP-0-12-001.
Response: Understood.
2.
Notice of Modifications pursuant to the Multi-Sector General permit (MSGP)

NYR00D652 need to be submitted if appropriate if drainage patterns are
changed.
Part 360 Permit Application Engineering Drawings
1.
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Details Sheet No. 34 indicates under Silt
Fence Specifications (7) Silt Fences shall be installed so that the watershed of
each 100 feet of fence is less than acre. However, from the NYS Standards
and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control Blue Book for Silt
Fence Page 5A.19 the specifications are as follows: Maximum drainage area
for overland flow to a silt fence shall not exceed acre per 10 feet of fence,
with maximum ponding depth of 1.5 feet behind the fence.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 29
Response: The detail has been updated to reflect the current blue book
requirements.
2.
Construction specifications are not indicated on the drawing for Culvert

Outlet Protection and the Rip-Rap Outlet Sediment Trap.
Response: Construction specifications have been added to the Culvert Outlet
Protection and Rip-Rap Outlet Sediment Trap details.
General Stormwater Concerns/Comments
1.
Is there under drain planned behind the proposed perimeter berm?

Response: The reinforced perimeter berm will be constructed primarily with a free
draining sand, and the backfill zone is being constructed above the groundwater
tables and will essentially be protected from infiltration from water from the
overlying sideslope liner systems. While a drain is not anticipated, one will be added
if determined necessary during construction detailing for the perimeter berm.
2.
Will stormwater within a constructed cell be sent to the leachate

system prior to the placement of waste being in it or will it be
diverted elsewhere?
Response: Section 5.8.2.7 reads "CRL's leachate management plan outlines
procedures for minimizing leachate generation. As illustrated by the design,
stormwater runoff that has not contacted waste will be diverted away from the
leachate collection facilities to the maximum extent possible. Notation has been
added to Sheets 12 through 16 indicating diversion channels or pump points will be
installed based on field conditions to divert non-contact stormwater to an
appropriate location and contact stormwater to the leachate collection system.
3.
How will stormwater be conveyed across the road in the Southeast corner of
the landfill after final closure (sheet 11)?
Response: The inlet structure currently shown will be located on the inside edge of
the perimeter road. The outlet from that structure to the South Pond will be located
below grade.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 30
4.
Page 100 of Volume 1 states that stormwater from the construction of cell 1
will be pumped to the former compost area and will be treated by the
necessary stormwater management practices. The method and means for
stormwater management should be written out.
Response: It is anticipated that either a small sediment trap will be constructed,
filter bags, or other appropriate measures will be employed. Additional text has been
added to Section 6.3 of the report and additional detail has been added to the
operational erosion and sediment control plans (Sheets 12 through 16).
5.
What are the stormwater controls for the Eastern half of the landfill until the
drainage system for the final closure is installed.
Response: The stormwater controls will be consistent with the existing controls on
the east side of the landfill. Additional detail has been added to the operational
erosion and sediment control plans.
6.
It appears that the middle portion of the Eastern face of the landfill will be
directly discharged and not directed to the stormwater management areas
after final closure.
Response: Significant portions of the site currently discharge without passing
through a stormwater management feature and the proposed development will result
in a significant reduction in those areas. Stormwater quality and quantity goals will
be achieved on a site-wide basis and all discharge points will continue to be tested
under the facilitys Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Stormwater
Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity.
7.
It is unclear how the added impervious area along Arrowhead Lane will
be collected and directed to the stormwater management area.
Response: The queuing area will be graded to drain north to the drainage swale
shown on Sheet 33. Flow arrows have been added to Sheets 11 and 33 to provide
clarity.
Operations and Maintenance
1.
The Operations and Maintenance Plan (attachment 5) needs to include

the long-term maintenance of the stormwater management practices.
Response: A section has been added to the O&M plan describing the maintenance
practices that will be employed for the stormwater management system.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 31
2.
Provide direct access for maintenance equipment to any structures

requiring routine maintenance, including the forebays.
Response: Each pond has a safety bench around the top of the pond which is wide
enough for maintenance equipment access and 3H:1V sideslopes which is traversable
by standard construction equipment that would be used for maintenance
3.
Designate who will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of

the stormwater management practices after final closure.
Response: The Town of Colonie will remain owner of the property and will
maintain the stormwater management practices or will contract those services as
part of the landfill operational agreement. This has been noted in in Section 5.12.1 of
the Engineering Report.
Pond Design
1.
State which pond design is being used from the NYS Stormwater Design
Manual.
Response: The ponds will be wet ponds (P-2). Appropriate text has been added to
section 5.12.4 of the Engineering Report.
2.
Provide landscaping plans for the aquatic benches and pond buffer.
Response: Appropriate landscaping information (tables) has been added to Sheet
34 as appropriate.
3.
Provide a profile for each pond clearly showing the required storage volume
elevations.
Response: New cross section schematics for the north and south ponds have been
added to Sheet 32 to show the appropriate water levels.
4.
Show the required pond buffer on the plans.

Response: The 25-foot pond buffer has been shown on Sheet 33.
5.
On sheet 33 label pipe material, invert and top of frame elevations.

Response: The information has been added to the details on Sheet 33.

Mr. Andy Marcuccio

June 24, 2015
Page 32
6.
Provide a pond drain capable of draining the pond in 24 hours for the South
Pond.
Response: The South Pond discharges into an existing storm sewer the invert of
which is several feet higher than the bottom of the pond, where the pond drain could
potentially be located. Essentially the pond is in an existing natural depression and
is not formed by placement of fill above existing grades. In the event that the South
Pond needs to be drained for maintenance, significant appropriate resources are
available at the landfill.
7.
Provide the routing and hydrocad summary for the North and South ponds
in Attachment 7 for the 100-year rain event.
Response: The 100-yr storm pond routing has been added to the calculations for
both the North and South ponds.
8.
Provide a spot elevation for the spillway between the forebay and the
permanent pool for both ponds. Show details on the plans.
Response: Spillway spot elevations have been added to both ponds on Sheets 32
and 33.
Section 5 Proposed Facility Design
Section 5.8.2.6 Leachate Conveyance System

1.
The documentation submitted shows that no increase in flow or pollutants is

expected from the proposed landfill expansion. Based on the information
provided, Division of Water staff do not consider the discharge from the
proposed landfill expansion to be a new discharge. Thus a detailed review of the
flow and pollutants is not required.
A State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit modification

to reflect the new discharge will not be required. However, the Town of
Colonie will need to review and approve the connection of the leachate
discharge line to the Towns sanitary sewer system and require hydraulic
analyses as needed.

Attachment 2
Figures
Attachment 3
Phase 1A Literature Search/Sensitivity Assessment and Phase 1B Archeology Survey,

Proposed Site Modifications, Colonie Landfill, Town of Colonie, Albany County New York
Phase1ALiteratureSearch/SensitivityAssessmentand
Phase1BArcheologySurveyomittedforclarity.
SeeAppendixIofthisReport.
Attachment 4
Table of Adjacent Property Owner Information
NameandAddressofPropertyOwnersAdjacenttoProjectSite
Owner
SchuylerHillsInc
OneAquaticCenterLLC
TownofColonie
TrojanElectronicsSupplyCo
SafetyKleenCorp
Szesnat,LauraM
ABFFreightSystemInc.
CapitalRegionLandfillsInc.
TownofColonie
TownofColonie
Denney,DerrickD
Denney,KirkE
GraceBibleChurch
Denney,KirkE
Reepmeyer,PaulH
Address
1309LoudonRd
13GreenMountainDr
4ArrowheadLn
15GreenMountainDr
17GreenMountainDr
1305LoudonRd
21GreenMountainDr
2ArrowheadLn
12ArrowheadLn
16ArrowheadLn
1297LoudonRd
1281LoudonRd
1279LoudonRd
1283LoudonRd
101CrescentRd
Attachment 5
Credit Availability Letter
Susquehanna Busin Headwaters and Adjacent Basins In-Lieu Fee Program: Availability of Credils
Service Area#6, Credit Availability Letter #1
Sponsor: The Wetland Trust, 4729 StateRoute 414, Burdett, NY 14818, phone/fax 607-546-2528
Submitted to: Town of Colonie and Capital Regions Landfills, Inc., Town of Colonie Landfill, 1319
Loudon Road, Cohoes, NY 12047
TWT Service Area: 6

Impacted 8-digit HU: Mohawk River, 02020004
Cost per Credit: $91,580
This Letter confirms that as of 6 October 2015 The Wetland Trust has 20.0 wetland mitigation credits
available in this Service Area. We will reserve 3.2 credits for Town of Colonie for their Town of
Colonie Landfill project. We will reserve these credits until 30 June 2A17. Should you need a further
extension beyond this time please contact The Wetland Trust to extend the timeline.
Please note that this is a preliminary credit availability letter subject to final signatures on this
Instrument by the USCAE.

Date: 6 October 2015
By:
Title:
lo, The Wetland Trust
www.thewet
UpdatedFigures3/11/2016
Hammerer, Laura
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Holmes, Rob
Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:57 AM
Dangler, Andrew C NAN02
FW: REVISED COLONIE FIGURES
150027-3C-FACILIT_PROJECT LIMITS_rev03.10.16.pdf; 150027-3A-existing
conditions_rev03.10.16.pdf; 150027-3B-FACILIT_PROJECT LIMITS_rev03.10.16.pdf
Andy,
Justfollowinguponmyemailfromlastweek.ItseemedthatwewereprettycloseonthePNandIwantedtoconfirm
yougotthismessageandthefigureswerewhatyouwerelookingfor.Thanks.
From:Holmes,Rob
Sent:Friday,March11,201610:29AM
To:'Dangler,AndrewCNAN02'<Andrew.C.Dangler@usace.army.mil>
Cc:'CurtTaylor'<CurtT@WasteConnections.com>
Subject:FW:REVISEDCOLONIEFIGURES
Andy,
TofollowuponouremaildiscussionsIthinkwehavethefiguresworkedoutandtheyshowwhatyouwerelooking
for.ThedeedrestrictionlineaswellasthelimitsofthewetlandareaswereaddedtoFigure3A.Figure3Bshowsthe
overallprojectlimitsandlimitsofdisturbance.Figure3CshowsdetailattheNEcornerofthesite.
Pleaseconfirmwearegoodwiththesefigures.
Thanks.
From:Stenshorn,David
Sent:Thursday,March10,20168:55AM
To:Holmes,Rob<Rob.Holmes@Cornerstoneeg.com>
Subject:REVISEDCOLONIEFIGURES
Rob,
Herearetherevisedfigures3a,3b,and3cthatwehavebeenworkingon.
David Stenshorn
Senior CAD Designer
1200 Scottsville Rd., Bldg. C, Suite 120, Rochester, NY 14624

P: 845.695.0272 | F: 585.563.6582 | Follow us on LinkedIn!
David.Stenshorn@CornerstoneEG.com
www.CornerstoneEG.com
PhotoAttachmenttoDECResponseLetter
6/24/2015
APPENDIX E
NYNHP CORRESPONDENCE & BALD EAGLE SURVEYS
SUMMARY REPORT
25 Delaware Avenue, Delmar, New York 12054-1308

Ph 518-439-8588
Fax 518-439-8592
May 16, 2014
Curt Taylor, Project Manager
Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC
1200 Scottsville Road Building C Suite 120
Rochester, NY 14624
Re:
Bald Eagle Surveys Summary Report

Town of Colonie, Albany Co., NY
Dear Mr. Taylor:

This report presents the findings of Bagdon Environmental s bald eagle surveys in the landfill
vicinity during March of 2014.
The surveys were conducted consistent with our discussion and correspondence with Karl
Parker (Wildlife Biologist) of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) regarding the scope of survey activities required to document the presence and
behavior of bald eagles in the vicinity of the landfill. These surveys were conducted pursuant to
evaluating potential impacts from the proposed expansion of the landfill.
Methodology
Bagdon Environmental conducted five (5) field surveys of bald eagle activity in the site vicinity
during March 2014. Survey dates were March 14th, 18th, 21st, 25th and 28th.
The surveys were conducted under appropriate weather conditions and variable time periods to
document presence/absence and movement by bald eagles. Survey time periods were
approximately two hours in duration.
Surveys consisted of observations of bald eagles along the Mohawk River while traversing
Crescent Road from the Cohoes Fall to NYS Rt. 9. Observations were also made while
traversing Rt. 9 from Crescent Road to Arrowhead Lane, as well as within the landfill site itself.
Additional observations were made on the north side of the Mohawk River in Crescent along
Old Canal Road.
Documentation of eagle sightings included the following:
Location of initial siting point
Travel route
Terminus of siting
Observed activities such as flight; roosting; mating/courtship; pairing; nesting; and
hunting/foraging
Age determination (juvenile/adult)
Curt Taylor
2 | Page
May 16, 2014
Survey Results
The attached aerial shows the various locations and dates where eagles were observed during
the surveys.
The sightings include the following:
March 14 3 mature and 4 immature 7 total

March 18 2 mature at nest site 2 total
March 21 2 mature (at nest site) and 5 immature 7 total
March 25 - 1 mature (at nest site) and 3 immature 4 total
March 28 1 mature (at nest site) 1 total
All of the bald eagle sightings were in close proximity to the Mohawk River which serves as a
primary hunting/scavenging resource. This area of the Mohawk River has become a known
concentration area for bald eagles in recent years as bald eagle populations have flourished in
the state. The power station and falls areas are especially attractive sites in the winter for bald
eagles, as well as many gulls, due to the open water which is often present throughout the
winter. The open water and turbulence of the hydro station and falls presents a readily
available source of fish for hunting/scavenging. Crows and fish eating ducks such as the
common merganser are also commonly found in these stretches of the river during winter.
In addition to winter use of the area around the falls and hydro-station, bald eagles have
recently nested in a small island on the Mohawk River approximately 1,700 feet northwest of
the landfill site (refer to attached map for approximate nest location). The March 2014 surveys
confirm that the nest is still active with no apparent impact from the landfill; adjacent
residences/businesses; traffic and construction along Rte. 9; or activities along the Mohawk
River during boating season.
Only one observation of a bald eagle was made on the landfill property during the surveys.
This occurrence was an opportunistic attempt by a mature bald eagle to capture a woodchuck
near its den in the northwest portion of the property (closed portion of landfill inactive). This is
the only sighting of a bald eagle on or near the landfill, except for fly-overs from the nest site to
other portions of the Mohawk River. It appears that the bald eagles main attraction to this area
is the Mohawk River with its abundant fish and bird population as prey items.
Some landfills in other areas of the country have been known to attract bald eagles due to the
presence of discarded animal carcasses. In most cases, this is not an issue for the eagles in
those areas. However, cases have occurred outside of New York State where eagles have
been killed from barbiturate poisoning as a result of feeding on euthanized (via phenobarbital
injection) animal carcasses in landfills. The Colonie landfill does not accept such euthanized
carcasses, therefore there is no significant potential for this impact at the Colonie Landfill.
Generally, these carcasses are cremated in New York State.
The other potential hazard for eagles associated with landfills is the presence of gas flares
utilized to eliminate methane build-up. Instances have been documented where eagles have
been injured or killed while perching on the burners or flying over them while the flare was
operating. The only flare on the site is immediately adjacent to the existing gas-to-energy plant.
Curt Taylor
3 | Page
May 16, 2014
This has been in operation for a number of years and is a very unlikely location for eagle to
perch. Another flare is being considered by the operator of the gas-to-energy plant (in the
same general area) to improve operational flexibility and gas control, but this is unrelated to the
proposed expansion. Since there are no additional burners proposed as part of the expansion,
there is no anticipated impact.
Conclusions
The results of the surveys indicate that the Mohawk River is the main attractant for bald eagles
in the landfill vicinity.
The availability of fish and other food sources, as well as
perching/roosting and nesting habitat likely attracts eagles throughout most of the year. The
landfill appears to be incidental to the presence of the bald eagles and does not appear to
negatively impact their presence or activities.
Landfill personnel have not reported seeing bald eagles directly on the site, other than fly-overs.
The results of the Bagdon Environmental surveys are consistent with those reports, with only
one observation of a bald eagle landing in an opportunistic attempt to capture prey unrelated to
landfill activities.
Based on the surveys and other reported observations, it is unlikely that any impacts will occur
to bald eagles as a result of continued operation and expansion of the landfill.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Norbert Quenzer Jr., Certified Wildlife Biologist

Vice President
Senior Ecologist
Eagle Observations
Date
!
.
!
.
!
.
3/14/2014
3/21/2014
3/25/2014
Approx Eagle Nest Site

25 Delaware Avenue
Delmar, New York 12054
(518) 439-8588
Note: Eagles observed at nest site on March 18, 21, 25, and 28th, 2014
0
625 1,250
2,500 Feet
Bald Eagle Monitoring- March 2014

Colonie Landfill
2011 Color Aerial Imagery
APPENDIX F
VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT

COLONIE, NY
VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:
Capital Region Landfills, Inc.

1319 Loudon Road
Cohoes, New York 12047
Revised June 3, 2016
Landscape Architects, Architects,

Engineers and Planners, P.C.
Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates

#12-008.18
Proposed Area 7 Development Visual Resource Assessment

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Project Location and Description ................................................................................. 5
1.2.1 Location ........................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................... 6
2.0 Landscape Character/Visual Setting ............................................................................... 7
2.1 Site Character ............................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Regional Landscape .................................................................................................... 7
3.0 Visual Impact Assessment ..............................................................................................11
3.1 Viewshed Mapping (Zone of Visual Influence) ............................................................11
3.1.1 Viewshed Methodology ...................................................................................11
3.1.2 Viewshed Interpretation ..................................................................................13
3.2 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources ..................................................................16
3.2.1 Inventory Criteria.............................................................................................16
3.2.2 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources .................................................17
3.2.3 Summary of Potentially Impacted Resources ..................................................20
3.3 Photo Simulations.......................................................................................................24
3.3.1 Field Photography ...........................................................................................25
3.3.2 Photo Simulations ...........................................................................................25
3.4 Character of Project Visibility ......................................................................................27
3.4.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns .............................................27
3.4.2 Qualitative Impact Summary ...........................................................................28
4.0 MITIGATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................................30
5.0 Summary and Discussion of Potential Visual Impact....................................................32

#12-008.18
Visual Resource Assessment June 3, 2016

Page 2
List of Figures
Figure 1 3Mile Viewshed Existing Facility and Proposed. Area 7 Development Excluding Forest
Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2 3Mile Viewshed Existing Facility and Proposed Area 7 Development Including Forest Vegetation
..................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A - Photo Simulations
Figure A1 Photo Simulation Location Map .............................................................................................. A-1
Figure A2 Project Visualization West Side of Rte. 9 South of Crescent Bridge ........................................ A-2
Figure A3 Project Visualization Rte. 9 North of Crescent Bridge ............................................................. A-6
Figure A4 Project Visualization Rte. 9 Near Arrowhead Lane ................................................................ A-10
Figure A5 Project Visualization East of Mohawk River on Towpath Lane ............................................... A-14
Figure A6 Photo Project Visualization East of Mohawk River at Lock 6 State Canal Park ....................... A-18
Figure A7 Photo Project Visualization Harmony Mill Historic District/Falls View Park ............................. A-22
Appendix B - Seeding Mitigation Plan

#12-008.18

Page 3
List of Tables
Table 1 Viewshed Summary .................................................................................................................. 13
Table 2 Visual Resources Visibility Summary ........................................................................................... 13
Table 3 Impacted Visual Resource Summary........................................................................................... 23

#12-008.18

Page 4
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Capital Region Landfills, Inc. (CRL) is proposing construction of a new development area of the existing
Town of Colonie Solid Waste Management Facility (NYSDEC Facility 01-S-26) (Colonie Landfill or
Existing Facility). As part of the Part 360 Permit Application and associated Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), Saratoga Associates, Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and
Planners, P.C. has been retained to conduct a Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) of the Proposed Area 7
Development. The purpose of this VRA is to identify potential visual and aesthetic impacts and to provide
an objective assessment of the visual character of the project, using standard accepted methodologies of
visual assessment, from which agency decision-makers can render a supportable determination of visual
significance.
1.1 METHODOLOGY
Consistent with VRA practice, this report evaluates the potential visibility of the proposed project and
objectively determines the difference between the visual characteristics of the landscape setting with and
without the project in place. The process follows basic NYSDEC Program Policy Assessing and
Mitigating Visual Impacts (DEP-00-2) (DEC Visual Policy) and State Environmental Quality Review
(SEQRA) criteria to minimize impacts on visual resources.
The visual impact assessment includes the following steps:
>
Define the existing landscape character/visual setting to establish the baseline visual
condition from which visual change is evaluated;
>
Conduct a visibility analysis (viewshed mapping and field investigations) to define the
geographic area from which portions of the project might be seen;
>
Identify sensitive aesthetic resources;
>
Depict the appearance of the facility upon completion of construction;
>
Evaluate the aesthetic effects of the visual change (qualitative analysis) resulting from project
construction, completion and operation; and
>
Identify opportunities for effective mitigation.
This VRA extends to a 3-mile radius from the high point of the Proposed Area 7 Development (hereafter
referred to as the three-mile study area or study area. The study area was selected based on viewshed
analysis which indicates potential project views would be substantially screened by intervening
topography and vegetation beyond this distance (refer to Section 3.1).
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

1.2.1 Location
The Colonie Landfill is located along U.S. Route 9 in the Town of Colonie, NY, approximately 10 miles
north of the City of Albany. The project site is near the Mohawk River which forms the boundary
between Albany and Saratoga Counties. The existing facility is bordered by U.S. Route 9 to the west,
Crescent Road to the North and Arrowhead lane to the south.

#12-008.18

Page 5
1.2.2 Project Description

The 211-acre Colonie Landfill includes the 158.2 acre landfill area south of the Mohawk River and east of
US Rte 9. The Existing Facility is permitted to an elevation of 430 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and
is currently under construction.
The currently permitted elevation is approximately 247 feet above the elevation of the Mohawk River (at
the Crescent Dam). The proposed project involves a 113 acre portion of the permitted landfill known as
Area 7. The Proposed Area 7 Development (the Project) would increase the elevation of the landfill by
approximately 87 feet to 517 feet above MSL. The Proposed Area 7 Development will be roughly within
the same footprint as the currently permitted landfill area. Additional details about the Project can be
found in the Part 360 Permit Application.
Primary access to the Project site will be relocated from US Rte 9 to Arrowhead Lane. This includes truck
access, vehicle queuing, scales, residential drop-off, tie down areas, maintenance buildings and offices.
Two 30 foot diameter, 25 foot tall leachate tanks are also proposed adjacent to the existing landfill gas to
energy facility off of Arrowhead Lane at the southeast corner of the site.

#12-008.18

Page 6
2.0
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER/VISUAL SETTING
Landscape character is defined by the basic pattern of landform, land use, vegetation, water features, and
human development. This descriptive section offers an overview of the intrinsic visual condition of the
study region and establishes the baseline condition from which to evaluate visual change.
2.1 SITE CHARACTER

The Colonie Landfill is located along U.S. Route 9 in the Town of Colonie, NY. Existing Landfill
operations (active, inactive and closed areas) occupy approximately 153.2 acres of the 211- acre landfill
site. The majority of the site has been heavily disturbed by landfill construction and active filling
operations, including removal of vegetation and overburden soil. Consequently, much of the site is
characterized by an irregular ground surface (including ditches, excavated areas, and steep sloped landfill.
The Existing Landfill is approaching its permitted elevation of 430 feet above MSL and is generally
covered and seeded. Active filling is ongoing with uncovered waste material found only within areas of
daily operations. Areas of active waste material filling are covered on a daily basis with mined soils, or
alternate daily cover materials. Waste operations are conducted behind berms and embankments to screen
the operations to the extent possible.
Vegetation immediately surrounding the project site is a mix of meadow, scrub brush, and mature
woodland. A portion of the existing landfill has been re-vegetated with grasses.
Trucks currently access the landfill site from U.S. Route 9. The property contains a number of buildings
related to the landfill operation including material recovery, recycling building, transfer station, scale
house and office located near the site entrance. The leachate gas to energy facility is located off of
Arrowhead Lane at the southeast corner of the site. To the extent practicable, solid waste landfill
operations are conducted behind berms and embankments to screen the operations.
The Colonie Landfill is currently within an IND (Industrial) zoning district.
2.2 REGIONAL LANDSCAPE

The Colonie Landfill is located on the bank of the Mohawk River at the northeast corner of Albany
County in the Capital District Region of New York State. The project site is within the Town of Colonie
(pop. 81,000) and directly across the river from the townships of Halfmoon (pop. 21,535) and Waterford
(pop. 8,515) in southern Saratoga County. The Study Area is a moderately populated suburban to urban
landscape. The area is an important residential, retail, commercial and industrial center of the Albany
metropolitan area.
The Mohawk River is the dominant natural feature of the Study Area. Near the Project site the Mohawk
takes a unique 150 degree oxbow type bend, changing general direction from north-northeast to southsoutheast. The elevation of the river is approximately 184 feet above MSL near the project site (above the
Crescent Dam). Downstream of the Crescent Dam the natural course of the Mohawk drops 170 feet in
approximately three (3) miles with areas of steep rapids and falls. Much of the natural waterway is
dammed for hydro-electric power generation as well as providing sufficient water depth for river

#12-008.18

Page 7
navigation. Two dams and hydro-electric stations are downstream of the Crescent Bridge (US Rte 9).
Upstream of the Crescent Dam the river serves as a canalized portion of the Erie Barge Canal.
Downstream of the Crescent Dam the river is generally shallow with areas of rapids and falls. Water
levels are typically low with water diverted for power generation. The river shoreline is generally wooded
with areas of steep wooded and exposed shale embankments. Small uninhabited islands and shallow
coves with marshland and dense aquatic plant growth exist near the Project site.
The 90 foot high and 1,000 foot wide Cohoes Falls is a well-known scenic resource near the confluence
of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers. Although frequently dry, water flow can reach 90,000 cubic feet per
second during spring runoff and seasonal storms providing a dramatic scene comparable to the American
Falls at Niagara.1 Steep bluffs rise from the riverbanks to an elevation of 250 feet above MSL or more.
The contemporary Erie Canal begins at the eastern end of the Study Area in the Village of Waterford. The
dug portion of the Erie Canal parallels the natural course of the Mohawk River with a series of five (5)
locks stepping the waterway up 169 feet from Lock 2 (elevation 15 ft) at the Hudson River to the
Crescent Dam at Lock 6 (elevation 184 feet). The Waterford flight of locks is believed to be the largest
canal lift in the shortest distance, only 1.5 miles, of any system in the world.2
Beyond the banks of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers, elevation rises quickly from roughly 184 feet
above MSL at the Mohawk River to over 300 feet above MSL in upland plateaus. Terrain throughout the
study area consists largely of undulating hills, ridges and areas of smaller rounded hillocks, often bisected
by ravines. At 430 feet, the currently permitted Colonie Landfill is the highest point with the three-mile
Study Area.
Undeveloped portions of the region are generally vegetated with mature deciduous species, although
pockets of evergreen species are found in isolated habitats. With the exception of extended views along
the river, the combination of vegetation and landform generally restrict or screen views to an observers
immediate surroundings.
Industrial development is common along the Mohawk River shoreline. The New York Power Authority
Crescent Plant is directly adjacent to the Project site and the Brookfield Power School Street
Hydroelectric Generating Facility is approximately two (2) miles downriver. Dams, power houses,
transmission towers and overhead conductors are directly visible along this portion of the waterfront. The
Project site is bordered to the north by industrial land uses north of Fonda Road along Arrowhead Lane
and Green Mountain Drive which include approximately 10 light manufacturing and industrial service
businesses.
The contemporary Erie Barge Canal was constructed in 1918 for transport of commercial goods between
the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Lakes. The canal is now used almost exclusively for shoreline recreation
and pleasure boating. At the Crescent Dam the navigable canal diverts into the Waterford flight of locks.
Numerous locks, gates, and bulkheads and other early 20th century canal infrastructure dominate the
visual character of this corridor.
1
2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohoes_Falls
http://www.nycanals.com/Waterford
#12-008.18

Page 8
The Thaddeus Kosciuszko Bridge (aka Twin Bridges) (I-87), approximately two (2) miles west of the
Existing Landfill is a locally recognizable and visually prominent structure along the Mohawk River. This
span is a pair of identical through arch bridges approximately 150 feet tall (top of arch) above the river
elevation. The Crescent Bridge (US Rte 9) crosses the Mohawk about -mile north of the Project site.
The bridge connects the suburban areas of northern Albany and southern Saratoga Counties.
Several small marinas are found up and downstream of the Crescent Bridge.
The City of Cohoes (population 16,153) and the Village of Waterford (population 2,245) are
approximately two miles southeast of the Colonie Landfill along the Mohawk River. These communities
are characterized by a mix of manufacturing, commercial, institutional uses and residential districts.
Structures include residential houses, churches, and an assortment of commercial establishments (service
facilities and offices).
In the city and village, areas of built structures and streets dominate the visual landscape. Trees line many
residential and commercial streets. Most buildings are 2 to 3 stories tall, including stone, masonry and
wood frame structures. Several 8-10 story high-rise residential buildings are found in the City of Cohoes.
Building styles are a mix of older architectural styles interspersed with conventional mid-to late-20th
century residences and commercial architecture. Some of the older buildings are well maintained or
restored while others are in various states of disrepair or alteration. Views are generally short distance and
focused along the streetscape. Structures and trees generally block distant views.
Medium-density residential development typically fronts main streets, with an assortment of singlefamily and multi-family neighborhoods along side streets. Residential dwellings within these
communities tend to be older and well maintained with mature vegetation lining the roadways.
The Towns of Colonie, Halfmoon and Waterford are important regional residential and commercial
centers, consisting of residential neighborhoods, as well as a mix of commercial, institutional and
manufacturing land uses typical of moderate to heavily populated suburban areas. A wide variety of
architectural periods and styles can be found within the study area. Convenient highway, collector and
urban streets, other infrastructure and parks make northern Albany County and Southern Saratoga County
a logical location for a variety of urban and suburban activities and developments. Extensive residential
uses consisting of multifamily and single family units throughout the Towns are obvious and important
elements within the visual context of the project area.
In suburban areas low to moderate density residential development is located in planned subdivisions.
Buildings generally consist of single-family homes of more recent vintage than in the city and village
areas. These homes are typically in good condition and well cared for. The homes are also setback
relatively far from the road and have well defined front and side yards. Trees and landscaping are
typically present in the yards, but tree size, species, and age are highly variable. Occasional long distance
views are available along road axes or across open yards, but the presence of adjacent structures and trees
limit most views.
The Study Area also contains interspersed areas of undeveloped woodlots or meadow. Vegetation is
predominantly mature second growth deciduous woodland with occasional stands of evergreen cover. In
#12-008.18

Page 9
these areas scrub growth and deciduous vegetation commonly prevents distant views. Views may occur in
limited locations where woodland openings or maintained meadows allow views beyond the immediate
foreground. Filtered views through woodland vegetation may also be available in close proximity to the
Project and during leaf-off seasons.
Development density diminishes with distance away from the community centers into the surrounding
Towns of Halfmoon and Waterford. Typically, these areas are characterized by low to medium density
residential roadside housing and subdivisions, automobile oriented roadside commercial properties and
retail plazas along roadways, and large parcels of undeveloped lands.
Highways and commercial roads within the Study Area include US Rte 9 (Loudon Road/Halfmoon
Turnpike), Crescent Road/Mohawk Street, Boght Road (NY Rte 9R), Columbia Street (County Rte 470)
and Vischer Ferry Road (County Rte 92). Land uses along primary transportation routes are characterizes
as a mix of roadside single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial and institutional uses.
The type and arrangement of land use in this zone is highly influenced by the automobile. Cars and
pavement typically dominate foreground views. There is little consistency in building size, style, or
layout, and many of the smaller businesses are not well maintained. Views in these areas are primarily
directed along the road corridor itself, with medium and distant views blocked by vegetation and frontage
development. The presence of diverse signage systems, poorly maintained structures, traffic congestion,
and/or the lack of consistent architectural style creates visual clutter that detracts from the character of the
surrounding landscape.
US Rte 9, which provides the primary access to the Existing Facility, is a major north-south arterial
roadway between Albany and Saratoga Counties. The average daily traffic volume in the vicinity of the
Existing Landfill is 18,125 vehicles south of the Crescent Bridge and 14,745 vehicles north of the
Crescent Bridge.

#12-008.18

Page 10
3.0
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.1 VIEWSHED MAPPING (ZONE OF VISUAL INFLUENCE)
3.1.1 Viewshed Methodology
The first step in identifying potentially affected visual resources is to determine the potential visual
impact of the proposed Project on the surrounding environment. Viewshed maps are prepared to
determine whether or not the proposed project would likely be visible from a given location. Also known
as defining the zone of visual influence, viewshed mapping identifies the geographic area within which
there is a relatively high probability that some portion of the proposed project would be visible.
For comparative purposes, individual viewshed overlays were prepared illustrating the potential viewshed
areas of the Existing Facility (at completion) and the proposed Project (at completion).
To calculate the maximum range of potential landfill visibility, control points were established at the high
points of the Existing Facility (430 ft above MSL) and the proposed Project (517 ft above MSL). The
resulting composite viewshed maps identify the geographic area within the 3-mile study radius where
some portion of the Existing Facility and proposed Project are theoretically visible.
One viewshed map was prepared defining the area within which there would be no visibility of both the
Existing Landfill and the Proposed Area 7 Development because of the screening effect caused by
intervening topography (see Figure 1). This treeless condition analysis is used to identify the maximum
potential geographic area within which further investigation is appropriate. Similarly, for both the
Existing Facility and proposed Project, a second map was prepared illustrating the probable screening
effect of existing mature vegetation. This treed (leaf-on) condition viewshed, although not absolutely
definitive, acceptably identifies the geographic area within which one would expect to be substantially
screened by intervening forest vegetation (see Figure 2).
By themselves, the viewshed maps do not determine how much of the landfill is visible above intervening
landform or vegetation (e.g., 100%, 50%, 10% etc. of total landfill height), but rather identify the
geographic area within which there is a relatively high probability (theoretical visibility) that some
portion of the Existing Landfill (at completion) and proposed Project (at completion) would be visible.
Their primary purpose is to assist in determining the potential visibility of the proposed project from the
identified visual resources.
To develop each individual viewshed map, Global Mapper v13.00 was used to generate viewshed
overlays based on publicly available digital topographic and vegetation data sets. Viewshed overlays
were created by first importing a digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area. This DEM, obtained
through the United State Geologic Survey from its National Elevation Dataset, is based on 1:24,000-scale
USGS topographic maps (10-foot contour intervals) and is accurate to a 10-meter grid cell resolution.
The computer then scanned 360 degrees across this DEM from each control point, distinguishing between
grid cells that would be hidden from view and those that would be visible based solely on topography.
Areas of the surrounding landscape were identified where each control point would be visible; areas in
shadow would not be visible.

#12-008.18

Page 11
Vegetation data was extracted from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLDC), also obtained through the
USGS. The NLCD data set, produced by the USGS EROS Data Center, was developed from Thematic
Mapper (TM) LandSat imagery (2006) and is accurate to a 30-meter grid cell resolution.3 The screening
effect of vegetation was then incorporated by adding 50 feet in height to DEM grid cells that are
completely forested (according to NLDC data set) and repeating the calculation procedure. Based on field
observation, most trees in forested portions of the study area are taller than 50 feet. This height thus
represents a conservative estimate of the effect of vegetative screening.
It is important to note that the NLDC dataset is based on interpretation of forest areas that are clearly
distinguishable from infrared satellite imagery. As such, the potential screening value of site-specific
vegetative cover such as small hedgerows and individual trees and other areas of non-forest tree cover
may not be represented in the viewshed analysis. Furthermore, the NLDC dataset does not include the
screening value of existing structures. This is a particularly important distinction in the populated areas
including the City of Cohoes and other commercial and residential neighborhoods where existing
structures are likely to provide significant screening of distant views. With these conditions, the viewshed
maps conservatively overestimate potential project visibility in areas where the project may be
substantially screened from view.
It is noteworthy that untrained reviewers often misinterpret the treeless condition viewshed map to
represent wintertime, or leafless condition visibility (i.e., Figure 1). In fact, deciduous woodlands provide
a substantial visual barrier in all seasons. Since the NLDC dataset generally identifies only larger stands
of woodland vegetation that is clearly distinguishable from infrared satellite imagery, the viewshed map
that includes the screening value of existing vegetation is equally representative of both leaf-on and leafoff seasons (i.e., Figure 2). Treeless condition analysis is provided only to assist experienced visual
analysts identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further investigation is
appropriate. Such topography-only viewshed maps are not generally intended or appropriate for public
interpretation of presentation.
Finally, the viewshed maps indicate locations in the surrounding landscape in which the Existing Facility
and proposed Project might be visible. These maps do not imply the magnitude of visibility, the viewers
distance from the proposed Project or the aesthetic character of what may be seen. Such interpretation is
the subject of the next phase of analysis (see sections 3.3 and 3.4 below).
Thirty-meter resolution is the smallest vegetative grid cell increment commonly available for the project region. This resolution provides an
appropriate degree of accuracy for development of three-mile viewshed maps given the fairly broad patterns of existing land use in the area, as
well as the accuracy of mapped topographic data (i.e., 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps with 10-foot contour intervals)
#12-008.18

Page 12
3.1.2 Viewshed Interpretation

Table 1 indicates the degree of theoretical visibility illustrated on the viewshed maps within the 3-mile
radius study area.
Table 1 Viewshed Summary
Topography Only
Viewshed
Topography and
Vegetation Viewshed
(Figure 1)
Acres
Existing Facility
Proposed Project
Newly Impacted Area
(Figure 2)
Percent of
Study Area
Acres
Percent of
Study Area
8,848
48.9%
398
2.2%
10,548
58.3%
796
4.4%
1,700
9.4%
398
2.2%
Note: Calculations include land areas only. Water surface is excluded. The land
area within the boundary of the Project site is also excluded.
As illustrated in Figure 2, some portion of the Existing Facility is already visible, or will be theoretically
visible upon completion of currently permitted operations, from a maximum of 2.2 percent of the threemile radius study area. From these areas the proposed Project represents a continuation of existing
visibility of Colonie Landfill operations.
Visibility of the Existing Facility is most common on properties adjacent to or near the Existing Landfill
and along the northern bank of the Mohawk River. Direct visibility is found along US Rte 9 and Crescent
Road adjacent to the Project site. Direct visibility is also found within in the adjacent Arrowhead
Lane/Green Mountain Drive industrial area. Smaller areas of visibility are scattered throughout the study
area where cleared lands with down slope vistas in the direction of the site exist.
While the viewshed map indicates relatively minor areas of visibility within the City of Cohoes, and
residential subdivisions, field confirmation determined the prevalence of residential and commercial
buildings and/or localized vegetation, mature street trees and site landscaping to block most views in the
direction of the project.
Upon completion of the proposed Project, a maximum of 4.4 percent of the study area will be affected.
This is an increase of 2.2 percent (approximately 400 acres) of the three-mile radius study area. These
areas are generally small geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are already affected by views of the
Existing Facility. In newly affected areas, views will be limited the upper portions of the Area 7
Development appearing above the foreground tree line.
At a minimum, 95.6 percent of the study area will have no visibility of the Existing Landfill or proposed
Project.

#12-008.18

Page 13
Legend
ile
1m
2m
iles
3m
iles
Visual Resource Key
1 Mile
2 Miles
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
NYS Rte. 9 South of Bridge

Public Fishing Access
Terminal Road Fishing Access
Noxon Bank Building
Oakcliff
Crescent Methodist Episcopal Church
NYS Rte. 9 South of North of Bridge
Crescent Trail
Halfmoon Baseball Fields
Godfrey Farmhouse
NYS Rte. 9 Near Arrowhead La.
Colonie Town Park
Mohawk-Hudson Rail Trail
Cohoes Company Head Gatehouse
Crecent Hydro Waterfront Access
Lock 6 State Canal Park
Mallards Landing South Neighborhood
Mallards Landing Park
Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway
CATAWISSA (tugboat)
URGER (canal tugboat)
Waterford Town Park
Waterford Village Historic District
Waterford Harbor Visitor Center
Lock 2 Canal Park
Champlain Canal Park
Ormsby--Laughlin Textile Co. Mill
Ricky Cramer Ball Fields
Peebles Island State Park
Champlain Canal
Sugarloaf Pond Park
Northside Historic District
Peebles (Peobles) Island
Harmony Mill Historic District
Falls View Park
Cohoes Falls Overlook Park
Enlarged Erie Canal Historic District
Lock 18 of Enlarged Erie Canal
Col. Robert Cramer Veterans Park
Sunset Park
Harmony Mill No. 3
Cohoes Riverspark Visitor Center
Music Hall
Silliman Memorial Presb. Church
Delaware and Hudson RR Freight House
Downtown Cohoes Historic District
Olmsted Street Historic District
Lackman, J. Leonard House
Dickey, William J. House
Twilight Park
Lansing Park
Fonda House
Berkley Park
Van Denbergh-Simmons House
North Colonie Sports Complex
Simmons Stone House
Dunsbach, Martin House
Vischer Ferry Historic District
Currently Permitted Landfill Visible

- High point 430 ft above sea level
Currently Permitted and Proposed

Area 7 Development Visible
Bike/Hike Trail
Scenic Byway
Note: Viewshed areas are not definitive. Viewshed

mapping provides a general understanding of
where the proposed project is theoretically visible
based on regional topographic and forest cover
data sources.
3 Miles
FIGURE 2
VIEWSHED MAP - EXCLUDING EXISTING FOREST VEGETATION

PROPOSED AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Town of Colonie, NY
Legend
ile
1m
2m
iles
3m
iles
Visual Resource Key
1 Mile
2 Miles
40
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58

Public Fishing Access
Noxon Bank Building
Oakcliff
Crescent Trail
Godfrey Farmhouse
Colonie Town Park
Mohawk-Hudson Rail Trail
Crecent Hydro Waterfront Access
CATAWISSA (tugboat)
Waterford Town Park
Lock 2 Canal Park
Champlain Canal
Sugarloaf Pond Park
Peebles (Peobles) Island
Falls View Park
Sunset Park
Harmony Mill No. 3
Music Hall
Twilight Park
Lansing Park
Fonda House
Berkley Park
Simmons Stone House
Currently Permitted Landfill Visible

Currently Permitted and Proposed

Area 7 Development Visible
Bike/Hike Trail
Scenic Byway
Note: Viewshed areas are not definitive. Viewshed

mapping provides a general understanding of where
the proposed project is theoretically visible based
on regional topographic and forest cover data
sources.
3 Miles
FIGURE 3
VIEWSHED MAP - INCLUDING EXISTING FOREST VEGETATION


Town of Colonie, NY
3.2 INVENTORY OF VISUALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES

3.2.1 Inventory Criteria
Because it is not practical to evaluate every conceivable location where the proposed project might be
visible it is accepted visual assessment practice to limit detailed evaluation of aesthetic impact to
locations generally considered by society, through regulatory designation or policy, to be of cultural
and/or aesthetic importance. In areas where few resources of statewide significance are likely to be found,
it is common practice to expand inventory criteria to include places of local sensitivity or high intensity of
use.
Resources of Statewide Significance The DEC Visual Policy requires that all aesthetic resources of
statewide significance be identified along with any potential adverse effects on those resources from the
proposed project. Aesthetic resources of statewide significance may be derived from one or more of the
following categories:
> A property on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of Historic Places [16
U.S.C. 470a et seq., Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 14.07];
> State Parks [Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 3.09];
> Urban Cultural Parks [Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 35.15];
> The State Forest Preserve [NYS Constitution Article XIV], Adirondack and Catskill Parks;
> National Wildlife Refuges [16 U.S.C. 668dd], State Game Refuges, and State Wildlife Management
Areas [ECL 11-2105];
> National Natural Landmarks [36 CFR Part 62];
> The National Park System, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and Forests [16 U.S.C. 1c];
> Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic, or Recreational [16 U.S.C. Chapter 28, ECL
15-2701 et seq.];
> A site, area, lake, reservoir, or highway designated or eligible for designation as scenic [ECL
Article 49 or DOT equivalent and APA], designated State Highway Roadside;
> Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance [of Article 42 of Executive Law];
> A State or federally designated trail, or one proposed for designation [16 U.S.C. Chapter 27 or
equivalent];
> Adirondack Park Scenic Vistas [Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Map];
> State Nature and Historic Preserve Areas [Section 4 of Article XIV of the State Constitution];
> Palisades Park [Palisades Interstate Park Commission]; and
> Bond Act Properties purchased under Exceptional Scenic Beauty or Open Space category.

#12-008.18

Page 16
Resources of Local Interest Places of local sensitivity or high intensity of use (based on local
context) were also inventoried, even though they may not meet the broader statewide threshold. Aesthetic
resources of local interest were generally derived from the following general categories:
> Recreation areas including playgrounds, athletic fields, boat launches, fishing access, campgrounds,
picnic areas, ski centers, and other recreational facilities/attractions;
> Areas devoted to the conservation or the preservation of natural environmental features (e.g.,
reforestation areas/forest preserves, wildlife management areas, open space preserves);
> A bicycling, hiking, ski touring, or snowmobiling trail designated as such by a governmental
agency;
> Architectural structures and sites of traditional importance as designated by a governmental agency;
> Parkways, highways, or scenic overlooks and vistas designated as such by a governmental agency;
> Important urban landscape including visual corridors, monuments, sculptures, landscape plantings,
and urban green space;
> Important architectural elements and structures representing community style and neighborhood
character;
> An interstate highway or other high volume (relative to local conditions) road of regional
importance; and
> A passenger railroad or other mass transit route, and
> A residential area greater than 50 contiguous acres and with a density of more than one dwelling
unit per acre.
Resources of statewide significance and local interest were identified though a review of published maps
and other paper documents, online research, and a windshield survey of publicly accessible locations.
3.2.2 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources
Each inventoried visual resource was evaluated to determine whether a visual impact might exist. This
consisted of reviewing viewshed maps and field observation to determine whether or not individual
resources would have a direct line-of-sight in the direction of the proposed Project.
Table 2 lists 67 visual resources located within the three-mile study area and identifies potential project
visibility. The location of these visual resources is referenced by numeric code within Figure 1 and Figure
2.

#12-008.18

Page 17
Table 2 Visual Resources Visibility Summary

Potential Visibility
Visibility Indicated
No Visibility Indicated
Map
ID
Inventory
Type
Receptor Name
Permitted
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
by the
Viewshed Including
Existing
Topography
(Figure 1)
Permitted
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
by Viewshed Including
Existing
Vegetation
(Figure 2)
Proposed
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
by the
Viewshed Including
Existing
Topography
(Figure 1)
Proposed
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(Figure 2)
Actual View
Likely
Based on
Field
Confirmatio
n of Existing
Line-ofSight
NYS Rte. 9 South of Bridge (Mohawk

Towpath Scenic Byway)
Local Imp
Freddies Park
Local Imp
Local Imp
Noxon Bank Building
State Sig
Oakcliff
State Sig
State Sig

(Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway)
Local Imp
Crescent Trail (Mohawk Towpath Scenic

Byway)
State Sig
Local Imp
NA
10
Riverbend Neighborhood
Local Imp
11
Ponderosa Drive Neighborhood
Local Imp
12
Godfrey Farmhouse
State Sig
13
Local Imp
14
Colonie Town Park
Local Imp
15
Mohawk-Hudson Rail Trail at Fonda

Road Access
Local Imp
16
State Sig
NA
17
Crescent Hydro Waterfront Access
Local Imp
18
State Sig
19
Local Imp
20
Local Imp
21
Steamboat landing Neighborhood on

Towpath Lane
Local Imp
22
Steamboat landing Neighborhood on

Packetboat Ct.
Local Imp
23
Copperfield/Birch Glen Neighborhoods
Local Imp
24
Fonda Road (Mohawk Towpath Scenic

Byway)
State Sig
25
CATAWISSA (tugboat)
State Sig
NA
26
State Sig
NA

#12-008.18

Page 18

Map
ID
Permitted
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
by the
Viewshed Including
Existing
Topography
(Figure 1)
Permitted
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(Figure 2)
Proposed
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
by the
Viewshed Including
Existing
Topography
(Figure 1)
Proposed
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(Figure 2)
Actual View
Likely
Based on
Field
Confirmatio
n of Existing
Line-ofSight
Receptor Name
Inventory
Type
27
Waterford Town Park
Local Imp
NA
28
State Sig
29
State Sig
NA
30
Lock 2 Canal Park
State Sig
NA
31
State Sig
NA
32
State Sig
NA
33
Local Imp
NA
34
State Sig
NA
35
Champlain Canal
State Sig
NA
36
Sugarloaf Pond Park
Local Imp
37
State Sig
38
State Sig
39
State Sig
40
Falls View Park
Local Imp
41
Local Imp
NA
42
State Sig
43
State Sig
44
State Sig
45
Sunset Park
Local Imp
46
Harmony Mill No. 3
State Sig
47
State Sig
NA
48
Music Hall
State Sig
NA
49
State Sig
NA
50
State Sig
NA
51
State Sig
NA

#12-008.18

Page 19

Map
ID
Permitted
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
by the
Viewshed Including
Existing
Topography
(Figure 1)
Permitted
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(Figure 2)
Proposed
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
by the
Viewshed Including
Existing
Topography
(Figure 1)
Proposed
Landfill
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(Figure 2)
Actual View
Likely
Based on
Field
Confirmatio
n of Existing
Line-ofSight
Receptor Name
Inventory
Type
52
State Sig
NA
53
State Sig
NA
54
State Sig
NA
55
Twilight Park
Local Imp
NA
56
Lansing Park
Local Imp
57
Fonda House
Local Imp
58
Berkley Park
Local Imp
59
Boght Road Neighborhood
Local Imp
60
State Sig
61
Local Imp
62
Simmons Stone House
Local Imp
63
State Sig
64
State Sig
65
I-87 (Adirondack Northway)
Local Imp
66
State Sig
67
Mohawk Terrace Apartments
Local Imp
3.2.3 Summary of Potentially Impacted Resources

Park, Recreation and Open Space Resources Peebles Island State Park is located at the confluence
of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers. The park includes a variety of recreational opportunities including
fishing, jogging, hiking, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. In addition the park offers views of
waterfalls and dams, and has picnic facilities. The Existing Landfill and proposed Project will not be
visible from Peebles Island State Park.
The Lock 2 State Canal Park/Waterford Harbor Visitor Center in the Village of Waterford is a National
Heritage Area along the Champlain Canal. Facilities for boaters, picnic areas and a visitors center are
located along a popular pedestrian promenade at the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. This
area is popular with for cycling and walking, and jogging. The Existing Landfill and proposed Project
will not be visible from the National Heritage Area.
#12-008.18

Page 20
The Lock 6 State Canal Park in the Town of Waterford is directly across the Mohawk River from the
Existing Landfill. The Canal Park is the eastern terminus of the Waterford flight of locks. The park has
facilities and picnic area for boaters, cyclists, fishing. The Existing Landfill is currently a dominant visual
element from this park. The proposed Project will be similarly visible.
Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway extends 26.2 miles connecting the City of Schenectady with the Village
of Waterford. The byway follows the historic route of the Erie Canal and highlights historical and cultural
resources of the area. The Existing Landfill is currently visible from segments of the Mohawk Towpath
Scenic Byway including Old Canal Road in the Town of Halfmoon, and US Rte. 9 and Crescent Road in
the Town of Colonie. The Existing Landfill is also visible from a short segment of the scenic byway on
Fonda Road at Mallards Landing North in the Town of Waterford. The proposed Project will be similarly
visible from the same places.
The Mohawk Hudson Hike/Bike Trail is an 86-mile trail in New York's Mohawk Valley and Capital
District. It is also the easternmost segment of the New York State Canalway Trail. The trail bisects the
study area south of the Project site. Views of the Existing Landfill and proposed Project are completely
screened by dense foreground vegetation for most of the trail. A brief view of the Existing Landfill (less
than 50 yards of trail) exists at a trailhead parking area east of US Rte. 9 where the trail parallels Fonda
Road. The proposed Project will be similarly visible.
Municipal parks (e.g., Halfmoon Baseball Fields, Colonie Town Park, Waterford Town Park, Sunset and
Park), recreational and open space resources, trails (e.g. Crescent Trail), golf courses, fishing areas, and
other small community playgrounds and athletic fields are scattered throughout the study area. Most
municipal parks are unaffected by the Existing Landfill and Proposed Project. Visibility of the Existing
Landfill and Proposed Project above the foreground trees may occur from portions of the Colonie Town
Park on Schermerhorn Road.
Cultural Resources Within the study area, there are 28 resources listed on the State and National
Register of Historic Places. These include:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oakcliff;
Crescent Methodist Episcopal Church;
Godfrey Farmhouse;
Cohoes Company Head Gatehouse;
CATAWISSA;
URGER;
Waterford Village Historic District;
Ormsby-Laughlin Textile Co. Mill;
Champlain Canal;
Northside Historic District;
Peebles (Peobles) Island;
Harmony Mill Historic District;
Enlarged Erie Canal Historic District;
#12-008.18
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lock 18 of Enlarged Erie Canal;

Harmony Mill No. 3;
Music Hall;
Silliman Memorial Presbyterian Church;
Delaware and Hudson RR Freight House;
Downtown Cohoes Historic District;
Olmsted Street Historic District;
Lackman, J. Leonard House;
Dickey, William J. House;
Fonda House;
Van Denbergh-Simmons House;
Simmons Stone House;
Dunsbach, Martin House; and
Vischer Ferry Historic District.
Page 21
Of these, a view of the proposed Project is possible from the Godfrey House, which is directly across US
Rte 9 from the Existing Facility, and the Noxon Bank Building and Oakcliff , which currently overlook
the Existing Landfill on the north side of the Mohawk River near the Crescent Bridge.
A view of the proposed Project may also occur from portions of the Harmony Mill Historic District in the
City of Cohoes. The Harmony Mill Historic District was placed on the National Register of Historic
Places in 1978. A portion of the district encompassing the industrial buildings and mill worker housing
was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1999. The centerpiece building, Harmony Mill No. 3 was
listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1971. Significant recent investment has been made to
restore and adaptively reuse the historic mill buildings, successfully reversing years of industrial decline
and urban blight in this area4.
Within this historic district the proposed Project will become visible above the tree line from the vicinity
of Falls View Park, a well known and popular overlook point for the Cohoes Falls. The Existing Landfill
(at completion) is not visible from this vantage point.
Residential Neighborhoods The Mallards Landing South, Mallards Landing North and Steamboat
Landing single family residential neighborhoods are along the eastern shoreline of the Mohawk River and
adjacent west facing slope directly opposite the existing Colonie Landfill. These subdivisions include
approximately 330 single family homes on roughly to acre lots. The Existing Landfill is directly
visible from homes which have river views. Several upland homes have views of the Existing Landfill to
a varying degree between or above neighboring structures and foreground vegetation. The majority of
homes in these neighborhoods are fully screened from the Existing Landfill by intervening structures or
vegetation.
It is difficult to estimate the number of homes that are currently affected by views of the Existing Landfill
or will potentially be affected by the proposed Project. Viewshed analysis provides guidance but is not
definitive in identifying affected properties because screening caused by existing residential structures
and localized vegetation is not considered in the viewshed model. However, based on viewshed mapping,
areas of potential visibility, either direct or filtered, may exist at Mallards Landing South in the vicinity of
the Lock 6 State Canal Park and along Towpath Lane in the vicinity of Mallards Landing North where the
residential properties are closest to the Mohawk River. Intermittent visibility may occur between or above
neighborhood structures and intervening vegetation on the west facing slopes of Canvasback Ridge,
Towpath Lane near Pheasant Run and Mallards Landing North near Fonda Road at Strawberry Ridge
Apartments. The Existing Landfill is currently visible from much of these same areas. The proposed
Project may become visible in small geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are already affected by
views of the Existing Facility. Other residential neighborhoods will not be significantly impacted.
Highway Corridors Primary roads within the study area include, but are not limited to: US Rte 9, I-87
(Adirondack Northway), NY Rte 470 (Columbia Street), and NY Rte 32. Of these major roadways only
US Rte. 9 will be visually affected by the project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony_Mills
#12-008.18

Page 22
As listed in Table 3, of the original 67 inventoried visual resources, 45 would likely be screened from
the proposed Project by either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and are thus eliminated
from further study. Table 3 identifies the 22 potentially impacted resources and summarizes potential
impact for each.
Table 3 Impacted Visual Resource Summary
Map
ID
Receptor Name
Municipality
County
Inventory
Type
Distance(
miles)

(Mohawk Towpath Scenic
Byway)
Colonie (T)
Albany
Local Imp
0.7
US Rte 9 between Church Hill Road and Crescent Road is part of the
Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway. The Existing Landfill and proposed Project
are directly visible to southbound motorists for a distance of approximately
1.25 miles between Church Hill Road on the north side of the river and the
current Colonie Landfill entrance. At the posted speed limit of 55mph
southbound views will be experienced for approximately 90 seconds
(excluding wait time at traffic lights). The Existing Landfill is presently visible
for much of this duration.
Freddies Park
Colonie (T)
Albany
Local Imp
0.8
Freddies Park is a Town designated fishing access point on the south shore
of the Mohawk River east of the Crescent Bridge. Potential views will be to
the back of the viewer when facing the water. The existing Landfill is
presently visible from this location.
Terminal Road Fishing

Access
Halfmoon (T)
Saratoga
Local Imp
0.8
The Terminal Road parking area is a popular shoreline fishing access point
on the north shore of the Mohawk River east of the Crescent Bridge. This
location also serves as trailhead parking for the Crescent Trail. The existing
Landfill is directly visible across the River. The proposed Project will be
similarly visible.
Noxon Bank Building
Halfmoon (T)
Saratoga
State Sig
1.1
The Noxon Bank Building is listed on the National Register of Historic

Places. The property is presently a private residence on the north shore of
the Mohawk River east of the Crescent Bridge. The existing Landfill is
directly visible across the River. The proposed Project will be similarly
visible.
Oakcliff
Halfmoon (T)
Saratoga
State Sig
1.1
Oakcliff is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The property is

currently a private residence located on a bluff overlooking the Mohawk
River. The existing Landfill is directly visible across the River. The proposed
Project will be similarly visible.
NYS Rte. 9 South of North

of Bridge (Mohawk
Colonie (T)
Albany
Local Imp
1.1
US Rte 9 between Church Hill Road and Crescent Road is part of the
Mohawk towpath Scenic Byway. The Existing Landfill and proposed Project
are directly visible to southbound motorists for a distance of approximately
1.25 miles between Church Hill Road on the north side of the river and the
current Colonie Landfill Entrance. At the posted speed limit of 55mph
southbound views will be experienced for approximately 90 seconds
(excluding wait time at traffic lights). The Existing Landfill is presently visible
for much of this duration.
Crescent Trail
(Mohawk Towpath Scenic
Byway)
Halfmoon (T)
Saratoga
State Sig
1.0
Crescent Trail is a popular 1.8 mile paved waterfront path between US Rte 9
and Beach Road. The Existing Landfill is directly visible across the River.
The proposed Project will be similarly visible.
12
Godfrey Farmhouse
Colonie (T)
Albany
State Sig
0.2
The Godfrey Farmhouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The property is currently a private residence locate along US Rte 9 directly
opposite the current access road to the Colonie Landfill. From roadside
locations the Existing Landfill, including truck access road, material recovery,
recycling building, transfer station, scale house and office is currently visible.
The proposed Project, including the proposed retaining wall will be directly
visible from the roadside locations at the Godfrey House. Truck access and
support buildings will be relocated and eliminated from this view. The historic
structure itself is setback from the road behind mature roadside vegetation
which provides a partial visual screen.
13
NYS Rte. 9 Near

Arrowhead La.
Colonie (T)
Albany
Local Imp
0.4
From this location the proposed Project will be visible for approximately 500
feet for northbound motorists. At the posted speed limit of 55mph the
proposed Project will be visible for approximately 6 seconds. The Existing
Landfill is not readily visible from this location.
14
Colonie Town Park
Colonie (T)
Albany
Local Imp
1.0
The upper portion of the proposed Project may become visible above
foreground vegetation from the vicinity of the pool area at the Colonie Town
Park. The Existing Landfill may be similarly visible above the tree line.
15
Mohawk-Hudson Rail
Trail
Colonie (T)
Albany
Local Imp
0.8
Views of the Existing Landfill and proposed Project are completely screened
by dense foreground vegetation for most of the trail. A brief view of less than
50 yards may be possible at a trailhead parking area east of US Rte. 9
where the trail parallels Fonda Road.
17
Crescent HydroWaterfront
Access
Colonie (T)
Albany
Local Imp
0.4
The Crescent Hydro Waterfront Access is a fishing access point provided by

the NY Power Authority downstream of the Crescent Dam on the south
shore of the Mohawk. Potential views will be behind the viewer when facing
the water. The existing Landfill is presently visible from this location.

#12-008.18
Impact Description

Page 23
18
Waterford (T)
Saratoga
State Sig
0.8
The Lock 6 State Canal Park in the Town of Waterford is directly across the
Mohawk River from the Colonie Landfill. The Existing Landfill is presently
visible from this location.
19
Mallards Landing South

Neighborhood
Waterford (T)
Saratoga
Local Imp
0.9
The Mallards Landing South neighborhood is directly across the Mohawk

River from the Colonie Landfill. Approximately 10 homes with existing river
views would be affected. Several homes on the west side of Mallards
Landing South Road may have views between neighboring houses. All
potentially impacted homes currently view the Existing Landfill.
21
Steamboat Landing
Neighborhood Towpath
Lane east of Mallards
Landing North
Waterford (T)
Saratoga
Local Imp
0.7
The Steamboat Landing neighborhood is directly is directly across the

Mohawk River from the Colonie Landfill. Approximately 5 homes fronting the
river would be directly affected. Several homes on the west side of Towpath
Lane in this area may have views between neighboring houses. All
potentially impacted homes currently view the Existing Landfill.
22
Steamboat Landing
Neighborhood Towpath
Lane at Packetboat Ct.
Waterford (T)
Saratoga
Local Imp
1.0
Towpath Lane at Packetboat Court is upland from the river. Down slope
views in the direction of the Project site may be affected by views above
intervening homes and trees. The Existing Landfill may become visible as it
reaches its currently permitted elevation. The proposed Project will be visible
at or above the intervening tree line.
24
Fonda Road ( Mohawk

Waterford (T)
Saratoga
State Sig
1.1
The Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway follows Fonda Road in the Town of
Waterford. The Existing landfill is currently visible from a brief segment of
Fonda Road near mallards Landing North. Views are intermittent through
structures of the Strawberry Ridge apartment complex.
39
Harmony Mill Historic

District
Cohoes (C)
Albany
State Sig
2.0
A view of the proposed Project may occur from portions of the Harmony Mill
Historic District. The proposed Project will become visible above the
intervening tree line from areas in the vicinity of Falls View Park. The
Existing Landfill is not (will not become) visible from this vantage point.
40
Falls View Park
Cohoes (C)
Albany
Local Imp
2.0
A view of the proposed Project may occur from Falls View Park, a well
known and popular overlook point for the Cohoes Falls. The Existing Landfill
is not (will not become) visible from this vantage point.
44
Col. Robert Cramer

Veterans Park
Cohoes (C)
Albany
Local Imp
2.1
Cramer Park is a small municipal park with a passive green space and
childrens area. The proposed Project will become visible above the
intervening tree line. The Existing Landfill is not (will not become) visible from
this vantage point.
65
I-87 (Adirondack Northway
Clifton Park
(T)
Saratoga
Local Imp
2.0
A brief glimpse of the proposed Project may be possible for southbound

motorists on I-87 while crossing the Thaddeus Kosciuszko Bridge. This view
would extend approximately 150 feet. At the posted speed limit of 55mph the
duration of this view would be less than 2 seconds.
67
Mohawk Terrace
Apartments
Halfmoon (T)
Saratoga
Local Imp
1.1
Mohawk Terrace Apartments is a multi unit residential complex on a

southeast facing slope overlooking the Mohawk River. The Existing Landfill
is presently visible from this location.
3.3 PHOTO SIMULATIONS

The SEQRA Scoping Document requires photo-enhancements from five perspectives to illustrate the
future view toward the landfill. These locations are:
>
>
>
>
>
Route 9, North of Crescent Bridge;

West of Route 9 South of the Crescent Bridge
West of Route 9 South of Arrowhead Drive
Due to potential new visual impact and visual sensitivity a supplemental photo simulation from Falls
View Park in the City of Cohoes at the Harmony Mill Historic District is also provided.
The locations for photo simulations were selected to illustrate the most exposed vantage point in the
vicinity of the each viewpoint identified for simulation by the Scoping Document. Therefore, photo
simulations represent worst-case views of the Existing Landfill and proposed Project. As illustrated by
viewshed mapping the proposed Project will not be visible from approximately 95.6% of the study area
due to intervening landform and vegetation.

#12-008.18

Page 24
The view from each perspective location has been be enhanced to illustrate the currently permitted
landfill geometry at full development. Additional enhancements have been prepared to illustrate the
Proposed Area 7 Development at a mid-life condition and at full development for comparison.
Mid-life simulations show representative topographic conditions, construction and operations vehicles,
daily cover and other visually relevant conditions associated with active landfill operations and phased
construction. Stage 5 was selected as the condition representing the mid-life operations conditions as it
represents a little over 5 million cubic yards of waste placement approximately 10 years of operations.
Final Cover simulations include a representation of final cover topography and the seed mitigation plan as
described in Section 4 of this report. All photo simulations are presented in Appendix A.
3.3.1 Field Photography
Photographs were taken from each location to be simulated using a 14.2-mega pixel digital camera with a
lens setting of approximately 50mm5 to simulate normal human eyesight relative to scale. The location
selected for each photograph was judged by the field observer to offer the most unobstructed line-of-sight
toward the Colonie Landfill in the immediate vicinity of the subject visual resource. To the degree
possible, photographs were taken at a time of day when the sun was generally to the back of the
photographer to minimize the effect of glare within the cameras field of view and to maximize visible
contrast of the landscape being photographed.
The precise coordinates of each photo location were recorded in the field using a handheld global
positioning system (GPS) unit.
To determine the direction of the Colonie Landfill (where it was not readily visible) precise coordinates
were pre-programmed into the GPS as a waypoint. The GPS waypoint direction indicator (arrow
pointing along calculated bearing) was used to determine the appropriate bearing for the camera, so that
the subsequent simulated view of the Existing Landfill and proposed Project would be generally centered
in the field of view of each photograph.
3.3.2 Photo Simulations
Photo simulations were developed by superimposing a rendering of a three-dimensional computer model
of the proposed Project into the base photograph taken from each corresponding visual resource (see
section 3.3.1). The three-dimensional computer model was developed using Autodesk Civil 3D and 3D
Studio Max Design software (Studio Max).
Simulated perspectives (camera views) were then matched to the corresponding base photograph for each
simulated view by replicating the precise coordinates of the field camera position (as recorded by GPS)
and the focal length of the camera lens used (50mm). Precisely matching these parameters assures scale
accuracy between the base photograph and the subsequent simulated view. The cameras target position
5
A Nikon D3100 digital SLR was used for all project photography. This digital camera, similar to most digital SLR
cameras, has a sensor that is approximately 1.5 times smaller than a comparable full frame 35mm film camera.
Recognizing this differential, the zoom lens used was set to approximately 33mm to achieve a field-of-view
comparable to a 50mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera (33mm x 1.6 = 49.5mm).

#12-008.18

Page 25
was set to match the bearing of the corresponding existing condition photograph as recorded in the field.
With the existing condition photograph displayed as a viewport background, minor camera adjustments
were made (horizontal and vertical positioning, and camera roll) to align the horizon in the background
photograph with the corresponding features of the existing condition 3D model displayed in the scene.
To verify the camera alignment, visible elements (e.g. structures, towers, roads) within the photograph are
identified and digitized from digital orthophotos. Each element is assigned a Z value (elevation) based on
DEM data and then imported to Studio Max. A 3D terrain model is also created (using DEM data) to
replicate the existing site topography. The digitized elements are then aligned with corresponding
elements in the photograph by adjusting the camera target.
Once the camera alignment is established, a to-scale 3D model of the proposed Project is merged into the
model space. The 3D model of the Project is intended to accurately convey the current design intent. To
the extent practicable, and to the extent necessary to reveal impacts, design details of the proposed
structures were built into the 3D model and incorporated into the photo simulation. Consequently, the
scale, alignment, elevations and location of the visible elements of the proposed facilities are true to the
conceptual design.
With the model in place, a daylight system is created based on the date and time of the photograph.
Regional inputs such as time zone and location are also applied to the daylight system.
The rendered view was then opened using Adobe Photoshop software for post-production editing (i.e.,
airbrush out portion of facility that falls below foreground topography and vegetation).
Arms Length Rule The photo simulations contained in Appendix A have been printed using an
11x17 page format. At this image size, the page should be held at approximately arms length6 so that
the scene will appear at the correct scale. Viewing the image closer would make the scene appear too
large and viewing the image from greater distance would make the scene appear too small compared to
what an observer would actually see in the field.
For viewing photo simulations at other page sizes (i.e., computer monitor, projected image or other hard
copy output) the viewing distance/page width ratio is approximately 1.5:1. For example, if the simulation
were viewed on a 42-inch wide poster size enlargement, the correct viewing distance would be
approximately 63 inches, or 5 feet.
Field Viewing The photo simulations present an accurate depiction of the appearance suitable for
general understanding of the degree and character of Project visibility. However, these images are a twodimensional representation of a three-dimensional landscape. The human eye is capable of recognizing a
greater level of detail than can be illustrated in a two-dimensional image. Agency decision-makers and
interested parties may benefit from viewing the photo simulations in the field from any or all of the
simulated vantage points. In this manner, observers can directly compare the level of detail visible in the
base photograph with actual field observed conditions.
Viewing distance is calculated based a 37.5-degree field-of-view for the 53mm camera lens used, and the 15.5 wide image presented in
Appendix A. Arms length is assumed to be approximately 22.5 inches from the eye. Arms length varies for individual viewers.
#12-008.18

Page 26
3.4 CHARACTER OF PROJECT VISIBILITY

3.4.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns
The visual character of a landscape is defined by the patterns, forms and scale relationships created by
lines, colors, and textures. Some patterns dominate while others are subordinate. The qualitative impact of
a project is the effect the development has on these patterns and by corollary on, the visual character of
the regional landscape.
Visual Character of Existing Facility
Given the project is a new development area within existing land filling activities, the visual character of
the proposed Project will be substantially consistent with the visible patterns and composition of the
Existing Landfill. Therefore, in order to evaluate the future visual character of the proposed Project, it is
first necessary to define and understand the visual condition of the Existing Landfill.
Areas of Final Cover The following is a general evaluation of compatibility of the Existing landfill
(under final cover) with the patterns of the regional landscape in which it is viewed.
Form - The regional landscape is an undulating terrain. Scattered rolling hills add a vertical dimension;
however such vertical form is generally subtle and not visually apparent over distance. The steep sided
and highly pronounced mounded form of the Existing Landfill is somewhat distinct from subtle rolling
elevation changes common in the study area.
Line The mounded shape of the Existing Landfill as it extends above the horizontal tree line creates a
distinct break in the linear character of the existing horizon.
Color The light meadow grass color of the re-vegetated areas is consistent with the light earth tone
colors of the surrounding landscape. However, when viewed above the horizon the darker color of the
meadowed landfill contrasts with the muted blues and grays of the background sky. Atmospheric hazing
begins to diminish the degree of color contrast over distance.
Texture The relatively fine texture of the revegetated landform is consistent with the fine texture of the
surrounding landscape.
Contrast of Scale and Spatial Dominance When viewed within the foreground and middleground
distances, the Existing Landfill appears larger in scale than any other visible landform and is a highly
dominant feature when viewed within the context of the surrounding topography. The impact of both
scale and dominance is reduced with distance. From background viewpoints, the dominance of the
Existing Facility is overshadowed by other visible natural and built elements within view.
Operational Areas
The following is a general evaluation of compatibility of the operational portions of the landfill with the
existing patterns of the landscape in which they are viewed.
Form and Line The difference in the geometric form and line noted above gradually increases over the
operational period until the peak elevation is reached.

#12-008.18

Page 27
Color Reflective waste material and landfill vehicles heighten the color difference of active operational
areas within the earth-tone context of the foreground and middleground landscape. Such impact is limited
to the relatively small portions of the landfill that are open to active filling at any point in time. The effect
of color difference diminishes with distance as atmospheric hazing begins to blend the landfill with the
background landscape.
Texture The varying color of visible waste material will be perceived as a semi-course texture when
compared with the smooth texture of non-active or re-vegetated areas of the landfill. Such impact would
be limited to the relatively small portions of the landfill that are open to active filling at any point in time.
The effect of textural difference diminishes with distance as atmospheric hazing begins to blend the
landfill with the background landscape.
Contrast of Scale and Spatial Dominance The impact of scale and spatial dominance on the visible
landscape gradually increases over the operational period until the peak elevation is reached.
The visual character of the proposed Area 7 Development during filling operations will be substantially
consistent with the visible patterns and composition of the operational areas of the Existing Landfill.
Photo simulations were created to illustrate representative topographic conditions, construction and
operations vehicles, daily cover and other visually relevant conditions associated with active landfill
operations during Stage 5 are provided in Appendix A.
Visual Character of the Proposed Project
Of the 22 visual resources for which some portion of the proposed Project would be visible, the Existing
Landfill would be visible from 19 of these locations. From these locations any noted difference in form,
line, color, texture or scale/dominance resulting from the proposed Project would be highly consistent
with the currently experienced visual composition of the Existing Facility. Considering the proposed
Project would result in an increased landfill height, the effect of the proposed project on the studied
receptors would be an increase in the visible profile of the Colonie Landfill facility.
For the three (3) newly affected visual resources, the upper portion of proposed Project will emerge above
the intervening tree line over time (see Figure A7 in Appendix A). In these cases the visual character of
what is seen will be generally consistent in color and texture with the foreground landscape. To the extent
that the proposed Project is discernible it will appear above the tree line as a distant hill.
Upon completion the visual character of the proposed Area 7 Development will be substantially
consistent with the visible patterns and composition of the Existing Landfill. Photo simulations were
created to illustrate representative topographic conditions, final cover and seed mitigation are provided in
Appendix A.
3.4.2 Qualitative Impact Summary
The proposed Project would result in a steep-sided meadowed landform that, although consistent with the
visual and composition of the Existing Landfill, is somewhat distinct from the natural topographic and
vegetative patterns found in the study region. Consistent with the Existing Landfill, the proposed Project

#12-008.18

Page 28
would a dominant visual element; clearly identifiable as a man-made landform within the context of the
surrounding natural landscape.
Consistent with visibility of the Existing Facility during the operational activities, periodically visible
construction vehicles and relatively small areas of active land filling would create a contrast in color and
texture with the vegetative patterns of the surrounding visible landscape. This contrast would be
particularly noticeable from viewpoints located within the foreground distance zone (within mile).
These differences would be substantially diminished with distance and largely unnoticed from
background viewing locations (beyond three miles). Proposed mitigation measures (see Section 4.0),
including progressive lift berming, daily cover of exposed waste material, vegetative screening at grade
and on outside slopes, and use of screening berms would be implemented to limit the visibility of active
operations to the maximum extent practicable.

#12-008.18

Page 29
4.0
MITIGATION PROGRAM
Several mitigation techniques designed to minimize visual impact to the maximum extent practicable are
included in the proposed action. Mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project include:
Screening
>
Construct Progressive Lift Berms to Screen Filling Operations To minimize the duration and
magnitude of operational impacts, landfilling within each successive vertical lift would be phased
in a manner that will screen much of the day-to-day operations from off-site receptors.
Upon initiating each successive vertical lift, a berm constructed of waste material would be
placed along the perimeter of the lift area. All external side-slopes would receive a final cover of
soil and would be planted with grass and herbaceous vegetation. This interim berm will create a
visual barrier that progressively screens views of operation and construction vehicles, as well as
daily operational areas of uncovered waste material. This berm would be maintained at a typical
height of 10-13 feet above the adjacent elevation of the active fill area. Maximum visibility of
operational impacts would occur during the period of berm construction when waste material is
being placed at the perimeter of the lift area. During this period, waste hauling and operation
vehicles as well as uncovered waste would be visible from off-site receptors not screened by
intervening landform or topography. However, such views would be relatively short in duration
compared to the duration of the internal filling operations the interim berm is designed to screen.
Project Siting/Relocation
>
The proposed project is a continuation of Existing Landfill operations. Continued use of the
Colonie Landfill for landfilling operations avoids the need to open new landfill sites that would
likely dversely impact visual resources that are not currently affected by landfill operations. For
this reason, alternative project siting for the purpose of further minimizing aesthetic impact was
not considered.
Camouflage/Disguise
>
As landfilling is completed, closed areas would be revegetated with a mix of native seed types to
create a subtle camouflage effect to help blend the final landform into the surrounding
landscape. The selected seed mixtures included grasses, wildflowers and other herbaceous plants
that will visually present a variety of heights, colors and textures. Four different seed blends will
be planted in horizontally and vertically sinuously formed planting zones across the landfill for
visual interest and to imply a more naturalistic and undulating landform. The intent of this
mitigation is to create the visual appearance of a natural meadow or old-field consistent with the
visual character of the surrounding region. In addition, once vegetation is fully established
mowing of the completed landfill would be limited to maintain this desired visual character (i.e.,
certain areas would be only mowed once per year to control woody plant growth).
The Seeding Mitigation Plan is provided in Appendix B. Photo simulations illustrating the
general appearance of proposed seeding mitigation are provided in Appendix A.
#12-008.18

Page 30
>
Visible landfill infrastructure components such as monitoring wells and standpipes are a telltale
indicator that a meadowed landform is a constructed landfill rather than a natural feature. Use of
neutral or dark color components would substantially reduce the visibility of these elements.
Monitoring wells and standpipes would also be installed as close to ground level as practicable to
minimize visibility.
Low Profile/Downsizing
>
The proposed project is a continuation of Existing Landfill operations. The existing Colonie
Landfill property is insufficient to support horizontal expansion. Therefore the proposed height
increase is the only practicable alternative for continued operation of the facility.
Alternate Technologies
>
No practicable alternative technologies were discovered that would minimize the aesthetic impact
of landfill operations or long-term visibility.
Non-specular Materials
>
To the extent practicable, landfill structures will not include reflective materials.
Lighting
>
The proposed project does not include nighttime operations. As such, site lighting will be limited
to the minimum necessary for site security and would result in little or no site visibility at night.
Maintenance
>
Waste material is the most notable element of visual contrast during the operational period of a
landfill. To minimize this contrast to the maximum extent possible daily placement of refuse will
would be limited to as small an area as functionally practical. Moreover, newly deposited refuse
will be covered with soil cover or alternate daily cover, on a daily basis to minimize visual impact
and blowing litter. The existing litter control program would also be continued.
Decommissioning
>
Upon completion of active landfilling and site closure, all unneeded structures and equipment
should be removed. The site shall be graded and seeded, and be left in a clean and orderly
condition.

#12-008.18

Page 31
5.0
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT
Viewshed Summary
Portions of the Existing Facility are already visible, or will be theoretically visible upon completion of
currently permitted operations, from a maximum of two (2) percent of the three-mile radius study area (see
Figure 2). Visibility of the Existing Facility is most common from adjacent lands, the north bank of the
Mohawk River, and from portions of US Route 9 and Crescent Road. Smaller areas of visibility scattered
is found in isolated areas on cleared lands with down slope vistas in the direction of the Colonie Landfill
site.
Upon completion of the proposed Project, a maximum of approximately four (4) percent of the study area
will be affected (see Figure 2 3Mile Viewshed Existing Facility and Proposed Area 7 Development);
an increase of less approximately two percent (400 acres) of the three-mile radius study area. Areas of new
project visibility are typically limited geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are already affected by
views of the Existing Facility. In newly affected areas, views will be limited the upper portions of the
proposed Project appearing above the foreground tree line.
At a minimum, 96.6 percent of the study area will have no visibility of the Existing Landfill or proposed
Project. Mature street trees and residential and commercial structures largely screen potential visibility
from the City of Cohoes and the Village of Waterford, as well as much of the adjacent Towns.
Impact on Visual Resources
Resources of Statewide Significance Viewshed analysis and field investigation determined that seven (7)
visual resources of Statewide Significance would have visibility of the proposed project. These locations
are:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oakcliff;
Crescent Trail;
Godfrey Farmhouse;
Lock 6 State Canal Park;
Harmony Mill Historic District; and
Six (6) of these resources are currently affected by direct and proximate views of the Existing Landfill.
Only the Harmony Mill Historic District will be newly affected. Within this historic district the proposed
Project will appear low to intervening tree line at a distance of approximately two miles (see Appendix A,
Figure A-7d).
Topography, vegetation and existing structures fully screen the Existing Landfill and proposed Project
from all other visual resources of statewide significance.
The NYSDEC visual Policy states:

#12-008.18

Page 32
Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place or
structure. Significant aesthetic impacts are those that may cause a diminishment of the public
enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or one that impairs the character or
quality of such a place. Proposed large facilities by themselves should not be a trigger for a
declaration of significance. Instead, a project by virtue of its siting in visual proximity to an
inventoried resource may lead staff to conclude that there may be a significant impact.
Based on this definition, the proposed Project will not result in a significant adverse visual impact on
resources of statewide significance.
Resources of Local Interest Because of the scale of the Existing Facility, some portion of the existing
operations and proposed Project will be visible from places of local interest that do not necessarily meet
the broader statewide threshold for visual significance. Most commonly affected are views from riverside
vantage points and upland locations where cleared down slope views allow distant vistas. Direct views of
the project are found along US Rte 9 and Crescent Road in the vicinity of the project site. Views are also
possible from locations with the Mallards Landing and Steamboat Landing residential neighborhoods.
Most local parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities, and residential neighborhoods, located in and
around the City of Cohoes and the Village of Waterford where the prevalence of mature street trees and
site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential and commercial structures substantially
limit distant views.
Visual Impact Conclusion
The proposed Project represents a continuation of existing visibility of Colonie Landfill operations with
limited areas of new visibility. Where the Existing Facility is visible, it is a large and dominant feature on
the foreground landscape. While the proposed Project will increase the elevation of the landfill by 87
vertical feet, the visual patterns and composition of the proposed Project will be consistent with what is
already seen. In most areas, the effect of the proposed action on the surrounding landscape is a change in
the degree of exposure rather than a new or visually different impact. Areas of new visibility are typically
small geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are already affected by views of the Existing Facility. In
such areas, the upper portions of the proposed Project will appear low to intervening tree line and similar
in form, line color and texture with the local landscape.

#12-008.18

Page 33
Appendix A
Photographic Simulations
Legend
Photo Simulation Resource Key

Fig #
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
Location
NYS Rte. 9 North of Bridge
East of Mohaw River near Towpath Lane
Falls View Park
Photo Simulation Location
A-3
A-2
A-5
A-6
A-4
1 Mile
A-7
2 Miles
3 Miles
FIGURE A-1
PHOTO SIMULATION LOCATION MAP


Town of Colonie, NY
The above photograph is intended to be viewed 18 inches from the readers eye when printed on 11x17 paper.
EXISTING CONDITION
West side of Rte 9 South of Crescent Bridge
FIGURE A-2a
PROJECT VISUALIZATIONS
Proposed Area 7 Development Project

Town of Colonie, NY
SIMULATED CONDITION - CURRENTLY PERMITTED LANDFILL
FIGURE A-2b

Town of Colonie, NY
SIMULATED CONDITION - PROPOSED AREA 7 PHASE 5
FIGURE A-2c

Town of Colonie, NY
SIMULATED CONDITION - PROPOSED LANDFILL AREA 7 UPON COMPLETION
FIGURE A-2d

Town of Colonie, NY
EXISTING CONDITION
Rte 9 North of Crescent Bridge
FIGURE A-3a

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-3b

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-3c

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-3d

Town of Colonie, NY
EXISTING CONDITION
Rte 9 near Arrowhead Lane
FIGURE A-4a

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-4b

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-4c

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-4d

Town of Colonie, NY
EXISTING CONDITION
East of the Mohawk Riiver on Towpath Lane
FIGURE A-5a

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-5b

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-5c

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-5d

Town of Colonie, NY
EXISTING CONDITION
East of the Mohawk River at Lock 6 Canal Park
FIGURE A-6a

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-6b

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-6c

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-6d

Town of Colonie, NY
EXISTING CONDITION
Harmony Mill Historic District/Falls View Park
FIGURE A-7a

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-7b

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-7c

Town of Colonie, NY
FIGURE A-7d

Town of Colonie, NY
Appendix B
Seeding Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX G
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
TRAFFICIMPACTSTUDY
TownofColonieLandfill
ProposedArea7Development
1319LoudonRoad,CityofCohoes,TownofColonie
AlbanyCounty,NewYork
PREPAREDFOR:
CornerstoneEnvironmentalGroup,LLC
PREPAREDBY:
SIMCOEngineering,P.C.
80MaidenLane,Suite501
NewYork,NY100384892
December2014
12/19/2014TownofColonieLandfillTrafficImpactStudy
TableofContents
1.
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1
1.1.
PROJECTBACKGROUND..........................................................................................................1
1.2.
PROJECTLOCATION................................................................................................................1
1.3.
ANALYTICALMETHODOLOGY...................................................................................................4
2.
EXISTINGCONDITIONS..................................................................................................5
2.1.
ROADWAYNETWORK.............................................................................................................5
2.2.
CRITICALINTERSECTIONS.........................................................................................................6
2.3.
TRAFFICFIELDSURVEYS..........................................................................................................6
2.4.
CRITICALPEAKHOURS..........................................................................................................10
2.5.
VOLUMEDEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................10
2.6.
ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................10
3.
NOBUILDCONDITIONS...............................................................................................12
3.1.
PROJECTEDBACKGROUNDGROWTH.......................................................................................12
3.2.
3.3.
ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................13
4.
BUILDCONDITIONS.....................................................................................................16
4.1.
PROPOSEDACTION..............................................................................................................16
4.2.
TRIPGENERATION/NETWORKASSIGNMENT.............................................................................16
4.3.
4.4.
ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................19
5.
CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................22
APPENDICES
AppendixA:
IntersectionInventory
AppendixB:
TrafficSignalPlan(Route9andFondaRoad)
AppendixC:
IntersectionTurningMovementCounts
AppendixD:
AutomaticTrafficRecorder(ATR)Counts
AppendixE:
TrafficFlowMap
AppendixF:
IntersectionLosSummaryTables
AppendixG:
HCSAnalysisWorksheets
LISTOFTABLES
Table1:LevelofServiceCriteria.....................................................................................................4
Table2:ExistingConditionsLevelofServiceResults................................................................11
Table3:BackgroundDevelopmentProjects................................................................................12
Table4:2017NoBuildConditionLevelofServiceResults........................................................14
Table7:2017BuildConditionLevelofServiceResults.............................................................19
LISTOFFIGURES
Figure1:ProjectLocation...............................................................................................................3
Figure2:CountsLocations..............................................................................................................7
Figure3:24HourWeekdayATRcount...........................................................................................8
Figure4:24HourSaturdayATRcount............................................................................................9
Figure5:ProposedDrivewayandTrafficPattern.........................................................................18
1. INTRODUCTION
AnapplicationhasbeensubmittedtotheNewYorkDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation
(NYDEC)togainapprovalfortheTownofColonieLandfillPart360PermitModification(Area7
Development). As SEQR lead agency, NYDEC has determined that the proposed action may
haveasignificantimpactontheenvironmentandthataDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement
(DEIS)mustbeprepared.AspartoftheDEIS,aTrafficImpactStudyisrequiredtoprovidean
assessmentofoperatingconditionsonthetransportationinfrastructureservingtheprojectsite
both with and without the proposed modification. The study will identify any potential
significant impacts on the transportation infrastructure associated with the proposed landfill
modificationandwillrecommendmitigationmeasuresasneededtoamelioratetheidentified
impacts.
1.1. ProjectBackground
The Town of Colonie owns and maintains permits for the operation of the Town of Colonie
Landfill Facility (landfill) that is currently operated by Capital Region Landfills, Inc., under
contractwiththeTown.TheTownhasdeterminedthattheexistingareasofthelandfillwould
reachtheircapacityin2018causingalloperationstoceaseatthesiteunlessadditionalareas
are developed. As a result, the Town proposes a horizontal and vertical development to the
north and west of the active landfill operations as identified in the New York Department of
EnvironmentalConservation(NYDEC)approvedTownofColonieSolidWasteManagementPlan
(20072008SolidWasteManagementPlanUpdate,December2009).
Theproposeddevelopmentarea,tobeknownasArea7,willoverlieportionsofAreas1,2,3,4,
5 and 6 of the existing landfill. The new waste footprint will be developed over the current
leachate storage lagoons to the east and west of the existing landfill also including current
locationsofthetransferstation,landfillofficesandsedimentationbasin.BydevelopingArea7,
thelifespanofthelandfillwillbeextendedbyapproximately20years.TheProposedArea 7
Developmentwillbebuiltinphasesstartingwiththeinitialcelldevelopmentin2017.Eachnew
cellwillbeconstructedasadditionaldisposalcapacityisneeded.
Extendingthelifeofthelandfillaffordstheopportunitytomakeotherupgradestothesite.To
increasesafetyforincomingtrucksandresidents,theplanalsoincludesachangetotheentry
pointtothelandfill.ThenewentrancewillbelocatedawayfromthewelltraveledRoute9toa
moremanageableandlesstraffickedlocation.
1.2. ProjectLocation
TheTownofColonieLandfillisgenerallylocatedeastofRoute9,westandsouthofCrescent
Road(Route159),andnorthofArrowheadLaneinnortheasternAlbanyCounty,NewYork.A
location regional map is provided in Figure 1. Vehicular access to the landfill for employees,
trucks, and the general public is provided from Route 9 via separate entrance and exit
driveways.RestrictedvehicularaccessisalsoavailablefromGreenMountainDrivewhichisnot
Page1
open to the public. The Landfill operates daily on weekdays from Monday through Friday
between7:00AMand4:00PMandbetween7:00AMand2:00PMonSaturday.
Page2
Project Site

Cohoes, NY
PROJECT
LOCATION
N
SIMCO Engineering, P.C.

Page 3
Figure 1
1.3. AnalyticalMethodology
Theintersectioncapacityandlevelofservice(LOS)analysiswasperformedinaccordancewith
thestandardanalyticalmethodologyforsignalizedandunsignalizedintersectionsprescribedin
the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The
computer software version, Highway Capacity Software (HCS), developed for the Federal
Highway Administration was used in the intersection analysis. The LOS for signalized
intersections are expressed in terms of average stopped delay experienced per vehicle. For
stopcontrolledintersections,LOSrepresentstheaveragedelayexperiencedbydriversonthe
stopcontrolled approaches. For twoway stopcontrolled intersections, LOS is based on the
averagedelayexperiencedbyvehiclesenteringtheintersectionontheminor(stopcontrolled)
approaches.Forallwaystopcontrolledintersections,LOSisdeterminedbytheaveragedelay
for all movements through the intersection. The LOS criteria for stopcontrolled intersections
have different threshold values than those for signalized intersections, primarily because
driversexpectdifferentlevelsofperformancefromdistincttypesoftransportationfacilities.In
general, stop controlled intersections are expected to carry lower volumes of traffic than
signalizedintersections.ForthesameLOS,alowerlevelofdelayisexpectedatstopcontrolled
intersectionsthanatsignalizedintersections.
Thetrafficserviceandoperatingconditionsarequalitativelyexpressedintermsofsix(6)LOS
categories"A"through"F",whereLOS"A"representsthebesttrafficflowconditionwithlittle
ornodelay,andLOS"F"describestheworstoperatingconditionwithextensivecongestionand
delays. In between, a LOS "C" represents a stable flow of good traffic operation, and is
normally used as the desirable design objective. The LOS "D" is generally considered to be a
minimumacceptabletrafficoperatingconditioninurbanareasforshorttimeperiods.TheLOS
"E"representsthetheoreticalcapacityoftheparticularintersectionapproach,andisdefinedas
themaximumflowvolumethatcanreasonablybeexpectedtopassapointorauniformsection
of a lane or roadway under the prevailing roadway, travel demand, and traffic control
conditions.Table1showstheLOScriteriaforbothsignalizedandstopcontrolledintersections.
Table1:LevelofServiceCriteria
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
ControlDelay(seconds/vehicle)
StopControlled
Signalized
10.0
>10.0and15.0
>15.0and25.0
>25.0and35.0
>35.0and50.0
>50.0
10.0
>10.0and20.0
>20.0and35.0
>35.0and55.0
>55.0and80.0
>80.0
Page4
2. EXISTINGCONDITIONS
Inordertoestablishacurrentdatabaseforevaluatingpotentialtrafficimpactsfortheproposed
action,extensiveanalysisoftheexistingroadwayandtrafficconditionsinthestudyareawas
undertaken. This will serve as the foundation from which future traffic conditions are
forecasted and evaluated. Existing study area transportation data was collected in June 2012
including manual traffic turning movement counts, automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts,
field observations, and intersection geometry. Traffic volumes were developed for the
weekdayAM,midday,andPMpeakhoursandtheSaturdaymiddayandPMpeakhours.Traffic
analyseswereperformedforeachofthekeylocationsinthestudyareaduringthefivepeak
hours.
2.1. RoadwayNetwork
An inventory of the study area roadway network was performed to establish the existing
physicalcharacteristicsincludingtrafficcontroldevices(i.e.trafficsignals,stopsigns,yieldsigns,
etc.),roadwayandlanewidths,numberoftravellanes,laneutilizationandturnprohibitions,
driveway locations, and any other features that would affect traffic flow and intersection
capacity analysis (Appendix A). Traffic signal timing was obtained from the New York State
DepartmentofTransportation(NYSDOT)Region1(seeAppendixB)andwascomparedtothe
prevailingfieldconditions.ThemajorroadwaysproximatetotheTownofColonieLandfillhave
beendescribedbelow.
Route9(LoudonRoad)
Route 9 is a major northsouth arterial in New York as part of the U.S. Highway System and
underthejurisdictionofNYSDOT.WithinNewYorkState,itextendsapproximately325miles
fromjustsouthofCanadaUSbordertotheGeorgeWashingtonBridge.TheportionofRoute9
adjacenttotheColonieLandfillconsistsoffourtravellanesseparatedbyacontinuoustwoway
leftturnlane.Directaccessisavailablefromthishighwaytotheprojectsite.
FondaRoad
FondaRoadisatwolaneeastwestarteriallocatedtothesouthoftheprojectsiteconnecting
Crescent Road (Route 159) and Route 9. The frontage of the corridor is predominantly
residentialwitha30mphspeedlimit.ThewesternsectionbetweenGreenMountainDriveand
Route9isadesignatedtruckrouteandtheeasternsectionbetweenCrescentRoad(Route159)
andGreenMountainDrivehasaweightlimitof4tons.
GreenMountainDrive
Green Mountain Drive is a twolane northsouth local roadway with a 30 mph speed limit
located to the south of the project site connecting Arrowhead Lane and Fonda Road. To the
northofArrowheadLane,GreenMountainDrivecontinuesintotheTownofColonieLandfill.
Page5
ArrowheadLane
Arrowheadlaneisatwolaneeastwestarterialwitha30mphspeedlimitlocatedtothesouth
oftheprojectsiteconnectingGreenMountainDriveandRoute9.Thefrontageofthecorridor
isamixofresidentialpropertiestothewestandcommercialestablishmentstotheeast.
2.2. CriticalIntersections
Selection of the critical intersections was based on the locations that would most likely be
affected by the proposed action. It was determined that detailed traffic analysis would be
conductedatatotal of five(5)intersectionsinthestudyarea(Figure2).Theintersectionof
Route 9 at Fonda Road is controlled by a fullyactuated traffic signal while the other four
intersectionsarestopcontrolled.
Route9(LoudonRoad)atLandfillDrivewayExitUnsignalized
Route9(LoudonRoad)atLandfillDrivewayEntranceUnsignalized
Route9(LoudonRoad)atFondaRoadSignalized
FondaRoadatGreenMountainDriveUnsignalized
GreenMountainDriveatArrowheadLaneUnsignalized
2.3. TrafficFieldSurveys
Manualtrafficturningmovementcountswereperformedatthecriticalstudyareaintersections
(Figure2)onTuesday,June5,2012from7:00to10:00AM,11:00AMto2:00PM,and3:00to
7:00PMandonSaturdayJune9,2012from11:00AMto6:00PM.Thesetimeperiodswere
selectedtocovertheweekdayAM,weekdaymidday,weekdayPM,andSaturdaymiddayand
PM vehicle volume peaks of the roadway network and the project site. The vehicle turning
movementcountswerecollectedforthreevehicleclassifications(cars,buses,andtrucks).The
volumesweresummarizedin15minuteincrementsduringeachpeakperiodandsummariesof
themanualintersectioncountsareprovidedinAppendixC.
Continuous 24hour ATR machine counts were conducted in both directions on Route 9
betweentheFalconAvenueandFondaRoad,FondaRoadbetweenRoute9andMustangDrive,
and Green Mountain Drive between Fonda Road and Arrowhead Lane. Count data was
collectedforan11dayperiodfromTuesday,June5throughFriday,June15.Asummaryofthe
ATRdataisprovidedinAppendixD.AreviewoftheATRweekdaycountdatarevealedthatthe
peakdirectionoftravelonRoute9issouthboundintheAMpeakperiodandnorthboundinthe
PM peak period. Traffic on Route 9 during the Saturday peak period was observed to be
roughly equal in both directions. The traffic patterns on Route 9 during the weekday and
SaturdayareshowninFigures3and4,respectively.
Page6
ATR Locations
TMC Locations
Shelter Cove
Development
Site
Colonie Landfill
6

Cohoes, NY
COUNT/ANALYSIS
LOCATIONS

Page 7
Figure 2
Hour
Page 8
0:00
23:00
22:00
400
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
ATRVolume
Figure3
Route9
24HourWeekdayATRCounts
June2012
500
Northbound
Southbound
300
200
100
Hour
Page 9
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
ATRVolume
300
Figure4
Route9
24HourSaturdayATRCounts
June2012
Northbound
Southbound
200
100
2.4. CriticalPeakHours
Since intersection traffic analysis is measured in terms of hourly volumes, it is essential to
determine the critical peak hours during which the proposed project may have the greatest
traffic impact on the surrounding roadway system. Based on the ATR data and turning
movementcountdata,theweekdayandSaturdaypeakhourswereidentifiedasfollows.
Weekday:
AMPeakHour:
7:158:15AM
MiddayPeakHour:
12:001:00PM
PMPeakHour:
4:455:45PM
Saturday:
MiddayPeakHour:
12:151:15PM
PMPeakHour:
4:005:00PM
2.5. VolumeDevelopment
The existing weekday traffic volumes for the 2012 traffic operating conditions were derived
from the turning movement count and ATR data. Seasonal factors are used by NYSDOT to
assure that counted volumes on state highways are representative of average annual daily
trafficconditions.SincevolumescollectedonthissectionofRoute9inJunearetypically6%
higherthantheyearlyaverage,thecountvolumeswerereducedbythisamount.
TheobserveddailyvolumesenteringandexitingthelandfillinJune2012werecomparedwith
daily volumes collected for a year between October 2011 and October 2012. Since the 95th
percentileweekdaylandfillvolumesovertheyearwerefoundtobe48%higher,theweekday
June2012dailyvolumesenteringandexitingthelandfillwereincreasedby48%.TheJune2012
dailyvolumesenteringandexitingthelandfillonSaturdaywerehigherthanthe95thpercentile
Saturdaylandfillvolumesovertheyearsonoadjustmentwasmade.
The2012existingweekdayAM,middayandPMandSaturdaymiddayandPMpeakhourtraffic
volumesareprovidedinAppendixE.
2.6. Analysis
Detailedintersectioncapacityanalyseswereperformedatthefivecriticalintersectionsinthe
vicinityoftheprojectsitetoassessexistingtrafficconditions.Trafficvolumesandintersection
geometry (lane utilization, lane widths, etc.), were used in the analysis. The results of the
unsignalized and signalized intersection analyses for the weekday AM, midday and PM and
SaturdaymiddayandPMpeakhourintermsofLOSaresummarizedbelowandinTable2.The
detailedanalysisresultstablesintermsofv/cratios,delays,andLOSareprovidedinAppendixF
anddetailedintersectioncapacityanalysisworksheetsareprovidedinAppendixG.
Page10
Table2:ExistingConditionsLevelofServiceResults
Weekday
Saturday
Intersection
AM Midday PM Midday PM
Route9atLandfillDrivewayExit
C
C
E
C
A
Route9atLandfillDrivewayEntrance
A
A
B
A
A
Route9atFondaRoad
B
B
B
B
A
FondaRoadatGreenMountainDrive
A
A
B
A
A
GreenMountainDriveatArrowheadLane
A
A
A
A
A
Route9(LoudonRoad)atLandfillDrivewayExit
AllmovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionoperateatanacceptableLOSCduringthefive
peakhoursanalyzedwiththeexceptionoftheweekdayPMpeakhourwhichoperatesatLOSE.
Route9(LoudonRoad)atLandfillDrivewayEntrance
Based upon the results, all movements at this unsignalized intersection operate at an
acceptableLOSBorbetterduringthefivepeakhoursanalyzed.
Route9(LoudonRoad)atFondaRoad
Duringalltimeperiodsanalyzed,allmovementsandtheoverallsignalizedintersectionoperate
atanacceptableLOSCorbetter.
AllmovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionoperateatanacceptableLOSBduringthefive
peakhoursanalyzed.
AllmovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionoperateatanacceptableLOSAduringthefive
peakhoursanalyzed.
Page11
3. NOBUILDCONDITIONS
TheNoBuildCondition(futurewithouttheproposedaction)builds ontheExistingCondition
analysisbyincorporatingbackgroundgrowth,othernearbyprojectsexpectedtobecompleted,
andanticipatedchangesintheroadwaynetwork.TheNoBuildConditionanalysisfocuseson
three future horizon years including Phase I in 2017 (start of Proposed Area 7 Development
construction),PhaseIIin2021(continuationofProposedArea7Developmentconstructionand
relocation of the site driveway), and Buildout in 2038 (completion of Proposed Area 7
Development construction). The analysis of the No Build Condition serves as the baseline to
whichtheeffectsoftheproposedactiononthetrafficnetworkwillbecompared.
3.1. ProjectedBackgroundGrowth
AccordingtotheNYSDOT,Region1Planning,anexponentialgrowthrateof0.14%peryearis
reasonable for the Route 9 corridor in the vicinity of the project site. Conversely, a Route 9
corridorstudypreparedbyCreightonManninginSeptember2011fortheTownofColonieused
a growth rate of 0% as their review of historical counts revealed stable traffic over the last
several years. In order to be conservative, an exponential annual growth rate of 0.14% was
appliedtothe2012existingtraffictocalculatefuture2017,2021,and2038backgroundtraffic
volumesfortheweekdayAM,midday,andPMandSaturdaymiddayandPMpeakhours.
AccordingtotheTownofColoniePlanningDepartment,therearethreedevelopmentprojects
that are likely to be constructed or substantially constructed by 2017 that would add
appreciable traffic within the study area. Table 3 identifies the total number of new vehicle
trips that will be added to the study area as a result of project construction. The projected
weekday AM, midday and PM and Saturday midday and PM peak hour turning movement
volumesforeachofthesedevelopmentsisprovidedinAppendixE.
Table3:BackgroundDevelopmentProjects
Weekday
Saturday
Development
AM
Midday
PM
Midday
PM
ShelterCoveDevelopment
201
132
258
205
205
NorthernPassPDD
54
41
63
49
49
MohawkRiverfrontEstates
102
315
205
196
196
Total
347
488
526
450
450
ShelterCoveDevelopment
TheShelterCoveDevelopmentislocatedonthewestsideofRoute9acrossfromtheTownof
Colonie Landfill. The project is well under construction and will eventually have 111 single
family units, 200 multifamily units, and 8,000 square feet of general office. Since traffic
volumeswereonlyprojectedforthisproposeddevelopmentfortheAMandPMpeakhours,
the weekday midday and Saturday midday and PM peak hour volumes were estimated using
the ITE Trip Generation Manual. As part of the development, two driveways have been
constructed to access Route 9. The northern project driveway has been aligned with the
Page12
existingTownofColonieLandfillentrancedrivewayandwillremainunsignalized.Thesouthern
projectdrivewayisanewunsignalizedintersection.
NorthernPassPlannedDevelopmentDistrict
The Northern Pass development is located on the west side of Route 9 (1226 Loudon Road)
approximately one mile south of the Town of Colonie Landfill. The project has begun
constructionisplannedtohave72condosand24apartments.Again,trafficvolumeswereonly
projectedfortheAMandPMpeakhoursandtheweekdaymiddayandSaturdaymiddayand
PMpeakhourvolumeswereestimatedusingtheITETripGenerationManual.
MohawkRiverEstates
TheMohawkRiverEstatesdevelopmentislocatedonthewestsideofRoute9(1360Loudon
Road)approximatelyonehalfmilenorthoftheTownofColonieLandfill.Theprojecthasfinal
approvalbutconstructionisbeingdelayedbecauseofenvironmentalissues.Thedevelopment
isproposedtohave92condos,30apartments,and10,000squarefeetofmixedretail.Traffic
volumes were only projected for the AM and PM peak hours and the weekday midday and
Saturday midday and PM peak hour volumes were estimated using the ITE Trip Generation
Manual.
TheprojectedweekdayAM,middayandPMandSaturdaymiddayandPMpeakhourturning
movement volumes for the three proposed development projects were added to the future
2017, 2021, and 2038 background traffic volumes for the weekday AM, midday, and PM and
SaturdaymiddayandPMpeakhours.Asaresult,theNoBuildweekdayAM,middayandPM
and Saturday midday and PM peak hour traffic volumes were calculated and are provided in
AppendixE.
3.3. Analysis
Detailed intersection capacity analyses were performed at the six critical intersections in the
vicinityoftheprojectsitetoassessfuture2017,2021,and2038NoBuildtrafficconditions.The
capacityanalysisresultsforthesignalizedandunsignalizedintersectionsduringthecriticalpeak
hours are summarized below and in Tables 4 through 6 in terms of LOS for 2017, 2021, and
2038NoBuildtrafficconditions,respectively.Thedetailedanalysisresultstablesintermsof
v/c ratios, delays, and LOS are provided in Appendix F and detailed intersection capacity
analysisworksheetsareprovidedinAppendixG.
Page13
Table4:2017NoBuildConditionLevelofServiceResults
Weekday
Saturday
Intersection
C
C
E
C
A
Route9atLandfillDriveway
E
B
C
B
B
Entrance/ShelterCoveDwyNorth
Route9atFondaRoad
C
B
C
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Route9atShelterCoveDwySouth
E
B
B
B
B
Weekday
Saturday
Intersection
C
C
E
C
A
E
B
C
B
B
Route9atFondaRoad
C
B
C
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
B
B
B
B
Weekday
Saturday
Intersection
C
C
E
B
A
E
B
C
B
B
Route9atFondaRoad
C
B
C
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
B
B
B
B
AllmovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionareprojectedtooperateatanacceptableLOSC
duringthefivepeakhoursanalyzedwiththeexceptionoftheweekdayPMpeakhourwhichis
projectedtooperateatLOSE.
Page14
Route 9 (Loudon Road) at Landfill Driveway Entrance/ Shelter Cove Development Northern
Driveway
Based upon the results, all movements at this unsignalized intersection are projected to
operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the five peak hours analyzed with the
exceptionoftheweekdayAMpeakhourwhichisprojectedtooperateatLOSE.
During all time periods analyzed, all movements and the overall signalized intersection are
projectedtooperateatanacceptableLOSCorbetter.
AllmovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionareprojectedtooperateatanacceptableLOSB
duringthefivepeakhoursanalyzed.
AllmovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionareprojectedtooperateatanacceptableLOSA
duringthefivepeakhoursanalyzed.
Route9(LoudonRoad)atShelterCoveDevelopmentSouthernDriveway
Based upon the results, all movements at this unsignalized intersection are projected to
operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during the five peak hours analyzed with the
exception of one. The intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the weekday AM
peakhour.
Page15
4. BUILDCONDITIONS
TheBuildCondition(futurewiththeproposedaction)buildsontheNoBuildConditionanalysis
by incorporating construction traffic generation, operation traffic generation, and anticipated
changes in the roadway network as a result of the proposed action. The results of the Build
Condition analysis for the three future horizon years including Phase I in 2017 (start of
ProposedArea7Developmentconstruction),PhaseIIin2021(continuationofProposedArea7
Development construction and relocation of the site driveway), and Buildout in 2038
(completionofProposedArea7Developmentconstruction)willbecomparedwiththeNoBuild
Condition to determine the effect the proposed action has on the area traffic network. The
appropriatemitigationmeasureswillberecommendedtoameliorateanyidentifiedimpacts.
4.1. ProposedAction
The Town of Colonie has determined that the existing areas of the landfill will reach their
capacity in 2018 causing all operations to cease at the site unless additional areas are
developed.Asaresult,theTownproposesahorizontalandverticaldevelopmenttothenorth
andwestoftheactivelandfilloperationsthatwilladdabout20yearsofdisposalcapacity.The
landfill development will be built in phases starting with the initial cell development in 2017.
Each new cell will be constructed as additional disposal capacity is needed. As a means to
increase safety for incoming employees, trucks, and residents, the access point of the landfill
willbemovedfromRoute9toArrowheadLane.
4.2. TripGeneration/NetworkAssignment
Theproposedactionwillaffectthevolumeandtheroutingoftrafficenteringandexitingthe
landfill through the estimated buildout in 2038. The proposed activities that could affect
landfill traffic include the construction activities related to landfill development, landfill
operations,andtherelocationoflandfillaccess.
ConstructionActivity
Beginningin2017,itisestimatedthatapproximately20constructionworkerswillarrivetothe
landfill during the weekday and Saturday AM peak hour and depart the landfill during the
weekdayandSaturdayPMpeakhouraspartoftheProposedArea7Developmentconstruction.
Itisestimatedthathalfoftheseemployeeswillenterandexitthelandfillduringtheweekday
andSaturdaymiddaypeakhourduringlunch.Itisalsoestimatedthat10trucksrelatedtothe
construction activity will enter and exit the landfill each hour of the day on weekdays and
Saturdays.Itisanticipatedthatconstructionactivitywouldremainconstantfrom2017through
closeoutin2038.TheweekdayAM,middayandPMandSaturdaymiddayandPMpeakhour
trafficvolumeswerecalculatedforconstructionactivityandareprovidedinAppendixE.
OperationalActivity
The number of vehicular trips generated by the existing landfill was obtained from driveway
countsperformedduringtheweekdayAM,midday,andPMandSaturdaymiddayandPMpeak
periods in June 2012. It is estimated that the current landfill activity in terms of employees,
Page16
residents,andtruckswillremainconstantthroughouttheextendedlifeofthelandfillthrough
2038. Therefore, no additional traffic would be added to the area roadway network for
operationalactivityasaresultoftheproposedaction.
RelocatedDriveway
ThepermanentclosureoftheexistingdrivewayonRoute9andtheopeningofthedrivewayon
ArrowheadLanetoalllandfilltrafficisanticipatedby2021.Thisactionwouldshiftallinbound
andoutboundlandfilltraffictoFondaRoadandArrowheadLaneasidentifiedinFigure5.The
weekday AM, midday and PM and Saturday midday and PM peak hour traffic volumes were
reassignedfortherelocateddrivewayandareprovidedinAppendixE.
TrafficvolumesweredevelopedforthreeBuildConditionscenarios(2017,2021,and2038)for
theweekdayAM,middayandPMandSaturdaymiddayandPMpeakhoursasaresultofthe
proposedaction.
2017(PhaseI)
The landfill construction for the initial cell development will begin in 2017. As a result, the
projectedconstructionworkerandtrucktrafficwasaddedtotheareatrafficnetwork.Forthis
scenarioitwasassumedthattheexistingdrivewaywouldremainonRoute9andthatcurrent
landfilloperationalactivityintermsofemployees,residents,andtruckswillremainthesame
withnoadditionaltraffic.TheweekdayAM,middayandPMandSaturdaymiddayandPMpeak
hour traffic volumes were calculated for construction activity in 2017 and are provided in
AppendixE.
2021(PhaseII)
Forthisscenario,itwasassumedthattheexistingdrivewayonRoute9wouldbeclosedandall
landfilltraffic(operationalandconstruction)wouldberelocatedtothedrivewayonArrowhead
Lane.Thecurrentlandfilloperationalactivityintermsofemployees,residents,andtruckswill
remainthesamewithnoadditionaltrafficforthisscenario.Landfill constructionintermsof
cell development would continue in 2021 and the projected construction worker and truck
trafficwasassignedtotheareatrafficnetworkbasedonthenewaccessdrivewaylocation.The
weekday AM, midday and PM and Saturday midday and PM peak hour traffic volumes were
reassignedfortherelocateddrivewayincludingconstructionactivityin2021andareprovided
inAppendixE.
2038(Buildout)
For this scenario, it was assumed that landfill construction would be wrapping up and the
projectedconstructionworkerandtrucktrafficwouldbeassignedtotheareatrafficnetwork
basedonthenewaccessdrivewaylocation.Thecurrentlandfilloperationalactivityintermsof
employees, residents, and trucks will remain the same with no additional traffic for this
scenario. The weekday AM, midday and PM and Saturday midday and PM peak hour traffic
volumesfortheconstructionactivityin2038wouldbeassignedtotherelocateddrivewayas
identifiedinAppendixE.
Page17
Existing Driveway
Colonie Landfill
Proposed Driveway

Cohoes, NY
Proposed Driveway
and Traffic Pattern
N

Page 18
Figure 5
4.4. Analysis
Detailed intersection capacity analyses were performed at the six critical intersections in the
vicinityoftheprojectsitetoassessfuture2017,2021,and2038Buildtrafficconditions.The
capacityanalysisresultsforthesignalizedandunsignalizedintersectionsduringthecriticalpeak
hours are summarized below and in Tables 7 through 9 in terms of LOS for 2017, 2021, and
2038Buildtrafficconditions,respectively.Thedetailedanalysisresultstablesintermsofv/c
ratios, delays, and LOS are provided in Appendix F and detailed intersection capacity analysis
worksheetsareprovidedinAppendixG.
LOS standards are used to evaluate the transportation impacts of the proposed action. An
increaseinthedelayof10ormoresecondsbetweentheNoBuildandBuildConditionswhen
the No Build Condition is already between a midLOS D and LOS F to is generally considered
significant.
Table7:2017BuildConditionLevelofServiceResults
Weekday
Saturday
Intersection
C
C
F
C
B
E
B
C
B
B
Route9atFondaRoad
C
B
C
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
B
B
B
B
Weekday
Saturday
Intersection
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E
B
C
B
B
Route9atFondaRoad
C
B
C
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
E
B
B
B
B
Page19
Weekday
Saturday
Intersection
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E
B
C
B
B
Route9atFondaRoad
B
B
C
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
E
B
B
B
B
In 2017, all movements at this unsignalized intersection are projected to operate at an
acceptableLOSCduringthefivepeakhoursanalyzedwiththeexceptionoftheweekdayPM
peak hour. During this period, the westbound left turn movement exiting the landfill would
worsen from LOS E to LOS F when compared with the No Build Condition. However, the
average delay would lengthen by less than 10 seconds and any residual queues would be on
landfill property. As part of the proposed action, this intersection will be eliminated as all
landfilltrafficwouldberelocatedtothedrivewayonArrowheadLane.
Route 9 (Loudon Road) at Landfill Driveway Entrance/ Shelter Cove Development Northern
Driveway
Basedupontheresults,noneofthemovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionwouldworsen
to an unacceptable LOS D, E, or F in the Build Condition as compared with the No Action
Condition.Inaddition,alllandfilltrafficwouldberelocatedtothedrivewayonArrowheadLane
aspartoftheproposedactionandlandfilltrafficwouldnolongerenterthefacilityafter2021
reducingthenumberofturningvehiclesatthisintersection.
Duringalltimeperiodsanalyzed,noneofthemovementsatthissignalizedintersectionwould
worsentoanunacceptableLOSD,E,orFintheBuildConditionascomparedwiththeNoAction
Condition.
NoneofthemovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionwouldworsentoanunacceptableLOS
D,E,orFintheBuildConditionascomparedwiththeNoActionCondition.
NoneofthemovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionwouldworsentoanunacceptableLOS
D,E,orFintheBuildConditionascomparedwiththeNoActionCondition.
Page20
Route9(LoudonRoad)atShelterCoveDevelopmentSouthernDriveway
Basedupontheresults,noneofthemovementsatthisunsignalizedintersectionwouldworsen
to an unacceptable LOS D, E, or F in the Build Condition as compared with the No Action
Condition.
Page21
5. CONCLUSIONS
Theresultsofthe2017,2021,and2038trafficanalysesindicatethattheproposedactionswill
notcauseanysignificantdeteriorationintrafficservicelevelsatthecriticalintersectionsinthe
studyarea.Therefore,nomitigationmeasureswillberequired.
AdesignatedrouteoftravelwasidentifiedinFigure5forlandfilltraffictoaccesstherelocated
drivewayonArrowheadLane.Inordertoensurethatlandfilltrafficusestheappropriateroads,
signage will be provided along Route 9, Arrowhead Lane, Green Mountain Drive, and Fonda
Roadthatidentifiesthetravelroute.ThegeometryoftheproposeddrivewayonArrowhead
LanewillbedesignedtodirectexitingvehicleseastboundonArrowheadLaneandonlyallow
vehicles to enter from westbound Arrowhead Lane. A Stop sign will be posted for exiting
landfilltrafficatthesouthboundapproachoftheproposeddriveway.
The plan also includes a change to the access point for the landfill that will be located away
from the welltraveled Route 9 to a more manageable and less trafficked location. These
vehicles will now access Route 9 at the Fonda Road intersection which is signalized and has
bettersightdistancethanthecurrentunsignalizedlandfillaccesslocation.Theproposedaccess
will be on Arrowhead Lane which has very low traffic volumes, and coupled with offroad
queuing accommodations, and would provide minimum conflicts for entering and exiting
vehicles.Asaresult,thenewaccesswillincreasesafetyfortrucksandresidentsastheyenter
andexitthelandfillandforthroughtraffictravelingonRoute9.
Page22
Appendix A: APPENDIX
Intersection
A Inventory
Intersection Inventory
Colonie Landfill
Colonie Landfill
Cohoes, NY
N
Arrowhead Ln &
Green Mountain Dr
Figure A-4
Colonie Landfill
Cohoes, NY
N
Fonda Rd &
Green Mountain Dr
Figure A-3
Colonie Landfill
Cohoes, NY
N
State Route 9 (Loudon
Rd) & Fonda Rd
Figure A-2
Colonie Landfill
45
Colonie Landfill
Cohoes, NY
N
State Route 9 (Loudon
Rd) & Landfill Driveway
Figure A-1
APPENDIX B
Appendix
B: Signal Plan
Traffic(Route
Signal Plan
(RouteFonda
9 and Fonda
Road)
Traffic
9 and
Road)
C,
n+
n l>'
^y^_
^r^^^r
rT
Z
T
^
g
>u
^>^N
^ '^,
Mry
[^ yam
i+
+
I m
m ^rAo
t n
n nzz
i"^^mb
m`^n ^n^ h^'1mm NKa^

^^r3i^ it tion il
n î p; :
Ummi ^^ _ ^_rr
31n
P-4
n
^
Nn
tl fn
eF
mn ^^p,^
Ln^^yz^y^s-^râ
am>rnu
x
-c^ ^^
cm
%n r^ Naor^^
Aa
r pn>
fpn^S^n^m ^mf>=Z
No f ^^
nLS'f^xz
z Z
-N
r 4
sr$ C ^( fr
m.
[p r
(r1C
' N
^^
^^ - ^ 1C1 OJ^n-1r^
m
^^
Px
tsN-. -.-, x.nN.mr

r ^ r'3 ^^î, m ^rYmof
r z.I
D. Ch[AG[ (
L
L
L4 r z
>
OI
ii i#
Cpp
y^
^ !j
,y
S1
L
L mv
LL
L
iS (^+npx'i i ô2m aim7m ic^
r' n2 t
m
y ^'^
P^^ n
^ =
I^^
`^ = a ^ "x ^' F -
Y6
o
N
c
N ^^ in
y'
>
m G7
A'
NG
\ rte m ^
rfî o
^r ^
-O
b'^
i^^
mn"^
jy
p
3 !;''tl^!
S^îi
rn^m^
^ ^ ^
r
^ of l i. ^y
r ^
^nmm
^Z':^ 9mô r ^
z n
n
ni ~
-a
LL
n r z
r
^^ o a r
m ^
r f_-
r ^
cî, o^
G ^ L
C fn n
rj
a
x
' i rQ _g ^^'^ F ^ `^ ri ^n
-fr
o_y^ Fi va n m o'LOa ' N^
L
~-^ mir ^.r=o î S
m= 'â.îowam "
c S iri ^z " ^ z
97
,^
f ZS
m
m`" ^`$Z r' N fg C `^

C w^ a^
ZN^Cf^gC^ AN-1S T ^ 3: j'
C NZ
^ u f ^r l m ^ ^SZ Srm1 ]^^ Px ûZr fI S tn fry <
y
m ,,. mr
cm
^ Km m ^
=
o
N 'up'>mnmo g oz z m mv+
`- ^n nL"'^L m^ ~ A5 1, C, -' ^`^'
_ r
z N
K^
S (T
Ny
fmn m y, ^ ^rO
^^ ^^3 ^^
OS
ip ^'o
N ^^ ^t
!N
p...
ô
n L L
!][fk[6 n
f^'yt^1
'C ^ G ^4i!
ryp1
y!ti
, î [ti^ 7
^
3i'
^
r[^fb
4Nîsi
Ep
m
N
om
^Pr
1^1 ^P = x
r.'^ Nl rf -1 o r ^ > 3'SNj. TC RI Tr
T TYY^('v" `
r
of r?m
^m
o^^ r O oh ''fnmM inn Cm^^
vo mn ... x
i 7F+S m^
mL
D[fMivCB h
O[CtiD
o ice: n,^ mG
PT
>:^ ^
In :;
ô^
'
II
^ ^
^ ^'
Sv0
4^ ^,
LO
o m
n'
r
`L^
^ ^ i ]! LD
O ^ N
N_ N =
P
3Hl
m
c
1
I I
H3'rtl
qe
p
^^
'^
^4:.,
>^ ^
Yj
^{
IliflI!.
.,.^ .
drt ^vrf...^
iii i!IIiII
p[br[D Rr
o a;Iaô,
F' Ln
^ ^ u^ n m a. ^ t
i ÎN
DLif TD
APPENDIX
C Movement Counts
Intersection Turning
Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Appendix C:
Colonie Landfill TIS
INTERSECTION FULL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY

AM PEAK PERIOD
Solid Waste Drwy

Intersection:
Day, Date:
(1) Solid Waste Driveway @ Route 9/Loudon Road

Tue, 6/5/2012
Time
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
Auto Truck
Time
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
Auto Truck
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
Peak Hour
7:15
Bus
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
8:15 AM
1. Solid Waste Drwy @ RT 9
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
Auto Truck Bus Total
51
50
1
0
46
44
2
0
61
57
3
1
64
62
2
0
70
66
3
1
55
51
3
1
68
65
2
1
76
71
4
1
58
56
2
0
60
56
4
0
58
54
4
0
69
68
1
0
0
0
0
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
17
0.61
24%
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
3
1
0
6
0
0
6
1
0
3
1
0
4
1
0
11
2
0
7
1
0
5
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
8
0
0
9
1
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
6
0.50
33%
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
4
6
7
4
5
13
8
6
6
7
8
10
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
5
2
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
1
2
0
7
2
0
3
4
0
6
1
0
5
0
0
8
2
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
4
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
241
0.86
5%
22
0.79
14%
LT(5)
6
0.75
17%
SB
TH(6)
1611
0.87
1%
Solid Waste Drwy (WB)

Loudon Rd
Total
0
7
3
4
3
9
7
7
5
10
5
1
0
0
0
0
Total
6
1
1
2
2
5
1
1
2
5
4
1
0
0
0
0
TH
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
286
286
0
0
330
327
3
0
465
462
3
0
456
455
0
1
360
357
3
0
226
222
3
1
220
219
1
0
177
176
1
0
119
117
2
0
90
90
0
0
103
102
1
0
95
92
3
0
0
0
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
3
2
0
1
2
3
4
2
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
Cars Trucks Buses Total
WB
NB
SB
0.74
0.94
0.99
0.26
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Midday PEAK PERIOD
Solid Waste Drwy

Intersection:
Day, Date:

Tue, 6/5/2012
Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Auto Truck
Auto Truck
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Peak Hour
12:00
Bus
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
- 13:00 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
71
71
0
0
78
76
2
0
93
92
1
0
94
89
4
1
129
128
1
0
125
125
0
0
92
87
4
1
110
110
0
0
87
83
4
0
103
101
2
0
96
92
4
0
93
91
2
0
0
0
0
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
27
0.84
30%
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
15
0
0
12
0
0
4
3
0
7
1
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
7
0
0
7
1
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
14
1
0
8
0
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
13
0.81
38%
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
15
12
7
8
4
5
7
8
4
2
15
8
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
7
1
0
6
2
0
7
2
0
9
2
0
5
3
0
4
0
0
6
2
0
4
3
0
6
2
0
5
1
0
4
2
0
7
0
0
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
4
0
0
4
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
6
2
0
3
2
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
4
3
0
2
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
456
0.88
1%
24
0.75
4%
LT(5)
19
0.59
21%
SB
TH(6)
490
0.86
3%

Loudon Rd
Total
8
8
9
11
8
4
8
7
8
6
6
7
0
0
0
0
Total
4
5
3
2
8
5
2
4
1
4
7
2
0
0
0
0
TH
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
95
93
1
1
115
115
0
0
91
91
0
0
122
119
3
0
98
97
1
0
110
108
2
0
139
135
4
0
143
137
6
0
113
110
3
0
109
106
3
0
112
107
4
1
105
105
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
1
1
0
6
1
0
4
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
1
2
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
5
2
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
2
7
4
4
2
4
3
4
1
3
2
7
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
WB
NB
SB
0.68
0.99
0.97
0.33
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

PM PEAK PERIOD
Solid Waste Drwy

Intersection:
Day, Date:

Tue, 6/5/2012
Time
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
Time
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
Auto Truck
Auto Truck
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
Peak Hour
16:45
Bus
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
- 17:45 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
149
144
4
1
155
154
1
0
153
151
2
0
181
178
1
2
201
196
5
0
184
182
1
1
317
314
2
1
378
377
1
0
372
371
1
0
433
432
1
0
413
409
4
0
318
316
2
0
175
174
1
0
127
124
3
0
109
105
4
0
77
76
1
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
8
0.50
0%
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
4
0.50
0%
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
2
2
0
0
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
1596
0.92
0%
LT(5)
1
0.25
0%
SB
TH(6)
463
0.93
0%

Loudon Rd
Total
4
1
4
0
1
1
0
2
4
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
125
124
1
0
96
95
1
0
117
115
2
0
116
113
3
0
134
132
2
0
107
106
1
0
105
102
3
0
116
116
0
0
109
108
1
0
124
124
0
0
114
114
0
0
117
116
1
0
87
85
2
0
84
84
0
0
101
98
3
0
81
80
1
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
WB
NB
SB
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Midday PEAK PERIOD
Solid Waste Drwy

Intersection:
Day, Date:

Sat, 6/9/2012
Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Auto Truck
Auto Truck
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Peak Hour
12:15
Bus
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
- 13:15 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
130
129
1
0
132
131
1
0
125
124
1
0
142
139
3
0
131
131
0
0
149
148
1
0
139
139
0
0
117
116
1
0
121
121
0
0
118
118
0
0
115
115
0
0
139
138
1
0
0
0
0
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
93
0.80
2%
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
16
0
0
24
1
0
15
2
0
25
0
0
20
1
0
20
1
0
20
1
0
21
0
0
17
0
0
19
0
0
17
0
0
13
0
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
12
0.75
17%
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
16
25
17
25
21
21
21
21
17
19
17
13
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
10
3
0
27
0
0
25
0
0
19
0
0
23
0
0
28
1
0
20
1
0
23
0
0
20
0
0
22
0
0
12
0
0
11
0
0
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
0
0
4
1
0
2
0
0
5
3
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
526
0.88
0%
80
0.95
3%
LT(5)
16
0.50
25%
SB
TH(6)
523
0.92
1%

Loudon Rd
Total
13
27
25
19
23
29
21
23
20
22
12
11
0
0
0
0
Total
6
7
7
5
2
8
4
2
2
3
4
5
0
0
0
0
TH
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
111
108
3
0
111
111
0
0
126
125
1
0
121
120
1
0
148
148
0
0
122
120
1
1
123
121
2
0
136
136
0
0
142
142
0
0
148
148
0
0
150
150
0
0
143
141
2
0
0
0
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
2
1
0
4
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
1
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
3
4
4
2
3
1
4
4
3
4
4
5
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
WB
NB
SB
0.96
0.99
0.99
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

PM PEAK PERIOD
Solid Waste Drwy

Intersection:
Day, Date:

Sat, 6/9/2012
Time
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
Time
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
Auto Truck
Auto Truck
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
Peak Hour
16:00
Bus
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
- 17:00 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
117
117
0
0
126
124
2
0
140
140
0
0
111
111
0
0
99
99
0
0
119
118
1
0
108
108
0
0
112
112
0
0
105
105
0
0
102
102
0
0
104
104
0
0
105
105
0
0
117
117
0
0
111
109
2
0
123
123
0
0
92
91
1
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
12
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
416
0.99
0%
LT(5)
SB
TH(6)
406
0.89
1%

Loudon Rd
Total
12
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
128
127
1
0
118
118
0
0
137
137
0
0
142
142
0
0
97
96
1
0
122
120
2
0
112
112
0
0
121
121
0
0
99
97
2
0
94
94
0
0
99
98
1
0
114
113
1
0
112
111
1
0
98
97
1
0
117
115
2
0
108
107
1
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
NB
SB
1.00
0.99
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00

AM PEAK PERIOD
Fonda Rd
Intersection:
Day, Date:
2. Fonda Road @ Route 9/Loudon Road

Tue, 6/5/2012
Loudon Rd
Time
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
Auto Truck
Time
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
Auto Truck
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
Peak Hour
7:15
2. Fonda Rd @ RT 9
Bus
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
8:15 AM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
52
50
2
0
55
50
5
0
72
65
6
1
77
71
6
0
74
67
6
1
64
58
5
1
79
71
7
1
70
62
7
1
76
70
6
0
71
66
5
0
88
84
4
0
79
75
4
0
0
0
0
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
60
0.88
12%
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
11
3
0
10
1
0
9
0
1
17
0
0
12
0
0
10
0
0
8
2
0
9
1
0
8
3
0
6
1
0
11
2
0
7
1
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
9
0.56
0%
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
14
11
10
17
12
10
10
10
11
7
13
8
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
7
1
0
8
3
0
15
2
0
16
0
1
14
1
0
10
0
0
14
3
0
3
4
0
7
2
0
8
3
0
4
1
0
2
2
0
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
5
0
0
13
0
0
6
0
1
10
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
3
2
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
278
0.90
9%
50
0.74
4%
LT(5)
34
0.65
6%
SB
TH(6)
1536
0.87
2%
Total
8
11
17
17
15
10
17
7
9
11
5
4
0
0
0
0
Total
5
13
7
10
4
2
3
4
2
5
5
1
0
0
0
0
TH
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
263
260
3
0
339
332
7
0
439
434
5
0
427
423
2
2
331
320
8
3
272
259
11
2
227
218
9
0
194
186
8
0
123
116
7
0
93
88
5
0
137
129
8
0
101
92
9
0
0
0
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
3
1
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
3
2
2
1
4
4
4
4
3
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
WB
NB
SB
0.90
0.92
0.98
0.09
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Midday PEAK PERIOD
Fonda Rd
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Tue, 6/5/2012
Loudon Rd
Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Auto Truck
Auto Truck
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Peak Hour
12:00
2. Fonda Rd @ RT 9
Bus
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
- 13:00 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
82
74
8
0
108
102
6
0
83
77
6
0
116
107
8
1
119
113
6
0
104
102
2
0
123
116
6
1
102
98
4
0
97
87
10
0
104
101
3
0
109
101
8
0
111
105
6
0
0
0
0
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
50
0.57
18%
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
1
6
1
1
1
1
7
1
0
3
1
0
6
1
0
11
3
0
7
1
0
6
1
0
11
3
0
6
1
0
8
0
0
8
2
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
19
0.68
5%
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
8
3
8
4
7
14
8
7
14
7
8
10
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
1
1
0
8
3
1
10
2
1
5
1
0
22
0
0
5
0
0
7
4
0
7
5
0
6
1
0
1
2
0
3
0
0
7
2
0
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
6
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
3
1
0
5
0
0
14
1
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
448
0.91
4%
36
0.64
17%
LT(5)
26
0.43
8%
SB
TH(6)
489
0.84
4%
Total
2
12
13
6
22
5
11
12
7
3
3
9
0
0
0
0
Total
6
2
1
3
2
4
5
15
4
1
3
3
0
0
0
0
TH
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
112
106
5
1
112
107
5
0
109
104
5
0
143
134
9
0
109
103
6
0
100
96
4
0
145
140
5
0
135
131
4
0
109
102
7
0
111
107
4
0
118
106
11
1
119
116
3
0
0
0
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
2
2
0
4
1
0
4
2
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
7
0
0
4
1
0
5
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
4
5
6
2
5
2
7
5
5
4
2
4
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
WB
NB
SB
0.86
0.95
0.96
0.14
0.05
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

PM PEAK PERIOD
Fonda Rd
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Tue, 6/5/2012
Loudon Rd
Time
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
Time
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
Auto Truck
Auto Truck
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
Peak Hour
16:45
2. Fonda Rd @ RT 9
Bus
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
- 17:45 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
119
117
2
0
121
119
2
0
135
134
1
0
172
169
3
0
196
191
5
0
188
186
2
0
308
305
2
1
343
342
1
0
384
382
2
0
418
416
2
0
395
388
7
0
267
266
1
0
161
159
2
0
154
151
3
0
103
100
3
0
82
79
3
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
73
0.87
3%
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
6
2
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
10
2
0
14
0
0
5
1
0
11
0
0
8
0
0
22
0
0
9
0
0
9
0
0
5
1
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
147
0.85
1%
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
5
0
0
8
0
0
11
0
0
12
0
0
14
0
0
12
0
0
11
1
0
19
1
0
20
1
0
12
0
0
20
0
0
14
0
0
5
1
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
Total
8
5
5
6
7
12
14
6
11
8
22
9
9
6
3
3
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
3
2
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
3
1
0
5
1
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
11
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
7
1
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
10
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
1540
0.92
1%
47
0.53
2%
LT(5)
23
0.52
0%
SB
TH(6)
524
0.94
3%
Total
5
8
11
12
14
12
12
20
21
12
20
14
6
6
2
6
Total
5
4
2
3
4
6
4
3
11
6
3
3
8
5
4
10
TH
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
115
112
3
0
121
116
5
0
126
121
5
0
126
122
4
0
132
128
4
0
135
131
4
0
108
106
2
0
123
121
2
0
140
132
7
1
136
132
4
0
125
125
0
0
110
107
3
0
93
88
5
0
79
78
1
0
94
89
5
0
82
81
1
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
5
1
1
11
0
0
10
0
0
12
1
0
10
2
0
18
1
1
25
0
0
21
1
0
42
0
0
43
0
0
40
0
0
19
0
0
9
0
0
9
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
7
11
10
13
12
20
25
22
42
43
40
19
9
9
4
4
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
WB
NB
SB
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Midday PEAK PERIOD
Fonda Rd
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Sat, 6/9/2012
Loudon Rd
Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Auto Truck
Auto Truck
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Peak Hour
12:15
2. Fonda Rd @ RT 9
Bus
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
- 13:15 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
128
126
1
1
161
161
0
0
151
149
1
1
143
137
3
3
158
156
1
1
161
161
0
0
149
147
1
1
147
147
0
0
151
151
0
0
149
149
0
0
146
146
0
0
151
151
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
20
0.71
0%
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
2
0
0
8
0
0
7
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
8
0
0
10
0
0
2
0
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
15
0.63
0%
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
2
8
7
6
5
7
8
8
9
8
10
2
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
2
0
0
8
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
7
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
7
0
0
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
4
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
9
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
608
0.94
0%
32
0.89
0%
LT(5)
21
0.88
0%
SB
TH(6)
642
0.95
1%
Total
2
8
5
4
7
6
7
4
3
4
4
7
0
0
0
0
Total
4
2
3
1
3
6
6
5
4
4
4
9
0
0
0
0
TH
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
99
99
0
0
129
129
0
0
168
166
1
1
130
130
0
0
157
157
0
0
148
148
0
0
165
159
3
3
160
160
0
0
169
169
0
0
181
181
0
0
197
197
0
0
174
174
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
4
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
4
5
1
5
5
4
6
3
2
4
4
6
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
WB
NB
SB
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

PM PEAK PERIOD
Fonda Rd
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Sat, 6/9/2012
Loudon Rd
Time
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
Time
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
Auto Truck
Auto Truck
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
Peak Hour
16:00
2. Fonda Rd @ RT 9
Bus
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
- 17:00 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (NB)
Thru (1)
125
125
0
0
159
159
0
0
129
129
0
0
111
111
0
0
129
129
0
0
119
117
1
1
121
121
0
0
119
119
0
0
121
121
0
0
122
122
0
0
107
107
0
0
96
96
0
0
114
114
0
0
112
112
0
0
128
128
0
0
105
105
0
0
TH
TH
TH
LT(3)
21
0.75
0%
Auto Truck
Bus
Right (2)
Auto Truck Bus
5
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
8
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
10
0
0
7
0
0
12
0
0
7
0
0
WB
TH
RT(4)
18
0.56
0%
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
3
0
0
5
0
0
9
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
8
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
7
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
Total
5
6
3
3
8
6
5
5
6
5
4
2
10
7
12
7
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
10
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
9
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
NB
TH(1) RT(2)
446
0.91
0%
17
0.71
0%
LT(5)
14
0.39
0%
SB
TH(6)
426
0.95
0%
Total
3
5
9
2
5
8
5
6
6
2
7
6
2
4
2
4
Total
10
5
6
2
6
2
3
1
2
1
2
9
3
2
6
2
TH
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon Rd (SB)
Thru (6)
144
144
0
0
187
185
1
1
113
113
0
0
116
116
0
0
137
137
0
0
109
109
0
0
111
111
0
0
102
102
0
0
105
105
0
0
107
107
0
0
112
112
0
0
102
102
0
0
116
116
0
0
92
92
0
0
109
109
0
0
125
125
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
1
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
1
6
3
3
2
5
3
5
5
3
2
8
5
1
2
3
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
WB
NB
SB
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

AM PEAK PERIOD
Green Mountain Dr
6
Intersection:
Day, Date:
3. Fonda Road @ Green Mountain Drive

Tue, 6/5/2012
Time
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
7:15
8
0
0
7:30
3
0
0
7:45
8
0
0
8:00
7
0
0
8:15
1
0
0
8:30
3
0
0
8:45
3
0
0
9:00
5
0
0
9:15
4
0
0
9:30
0
0
0
9:45
3
1
0
10:00
1
0
0
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
Total
8
3
8
7
1
3
3
5
4
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd
Fonda Rd (EB)
Thru (2)
9
0
0
9
7
0
0
7
5
0
1
6
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
3
4
0
0
4
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Auto Truck
9
0
6
0
15
0
8
0
4
0
4
0
10
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
9
6
15
8
4
4
10
2
2
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
3
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Total
3
4
1
2
6
1
4
4
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Green Mountain Dr (SB)

Time
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
Auto Truck
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
Peak Hour
7:15
8:15 AM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
LT(1)
19
0.59
0%
EB
TH(2)
18
0.64
6%
Bus
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LT(3)
Auto Truck
WB
TH
33
0.55
0%
RT(4)
13
0.54
8%
Bus
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH
LT(5)
2
0.25
0%
SB
TH
Total
2
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RT(6)
7
0.58
0%
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (6)
Auto Truck Bus
2
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
0
Classification
Approach
EB
0.97 0.00 0.03 1.00
WB
0.98 0.02 0.00 1.00
SB
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
Total
2
2
3
2
0
0
3
5
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0

Midday PEAK PERIOD
Green Mountain Dr
6
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Tue, 6/5/2012
Time
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
11:00 - 11:15
0
2
0
11:15 - 11:30
3
0
0
11:30 - 11:45
1
0
0
11:45 - 12:00
1
0
0
12:00 - 12:15
2
0
0
12:15 - 12:30
3
1
0
12:30 - 12:45
4
1
0
12:45 - 13:00
5
0
0
13:00 - 13:15
3
0
0
13:15 - 13:30
6
0
0
13:30 - 13:45
4
1
0
13:45 - 14:00
3
0
0
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Total
2
3
1
1
2
4
5
5
3
6
5
3
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd
Fonda Rd (EB)
Thru (2)
9
7
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
6
6
0
0
4
4
0
0
4
4
0
0
15
14
1
0
6
6
0
0
5
5
0
0
9
9
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Auto Truck
1
0
7
0
3
0
1
0
7
0
5
0
9
0
3
1
10
0
3
0
4
0
4
0
Bus
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
8
3
1
7
5
9
4
10
3
4
4
0
0
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
2
3
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
Total
0
3
1
5
3
1
2
1
5
3
2
1
0
0
0
0

Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Auto Truck
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Peak Hour
12:00
- 13:00 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
LT(1)
16
0.80
13%
EB
TH(2)
29
0.48
3%
Bus
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LT(3)
Auto Truck
WB
TH
25
0.69
4%
RT(4)
7
0.58
0%
Bus
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
2
1
0
TH
LT(5)
10
0.50
0%
SB
TH
Total
0
3
0
2
5
4
1
0
4
1
3
3
0
0
0
0
RT(6)
22
0.55
9%
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (6)
Auto Truck Bus
2
0
0
3
2
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
10
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
5
2
0
4
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
Classification
Approach
EB
0.93 0.07 0.00 1.00
WB
0.97 0.03 0.00 1.00
SB
0.94
0.06
0.00
1.00
Total
2
5
4
1
10
3
2
7
4
4
2
2
0
0
0
0

PM PEAK PERIOD
Green Mountain Dr
6
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Tue, 6/5/2012
Time
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
15:00 - 15:15
1
0
0
15:15 - 15:30
4
0
0
15:30 - 15:45
1
0
0
15:45 - 16:00
1
3
0
16:00 - 16:15
0
0
0
16:15 - 16:30
1
1
0
16:30 - 16:45
0
0
0
16:45 - 17:00
0
0
0
17:00 - 17:15
0
0
0
17:15 - 17:30
0
0
0
17:30 - 17:45
0
0
0
17:45 - 18:00
0
0
0
18:00 - 18:15
1
0
0
18:15 - 18:30
0
0
0
18:30 - 18:45
0
0
0
18:45 - 19:00
1
0
0
Total
1
4
1
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Fonda Rd
Fonda Rd (EB)
Thru (2)
5
4
0
1
7
6
1
0
8
8
0
0
8
8
0
0
9
9
0
0
10
10
0
0
21
21
0
0
7
7
0
0
18
18
0
0
11
11
0
0
28
28
0
0
10
10
0
0
12
12
0
0
6
6
0
0
6
6
0
0
6
6
0
0
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Auto Truck
6
0
6
0
6
1
7
0
11
0
16
0
27
0
17
1
34
0
40
0
50
0
23
0
9
0
13
0
5
0
5
0
Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
6
6
7
7
11
16
27
18
34
40
50
23
9
13
5
5
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
3
2
0
2
3
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
Right (6)
Auto Truck Bus
1
0
0
12
0
0
6
0
0
11
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Total
1
12
6
11
6
2
3
6
6
7
8
2
1
0
0
1

Time
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
Auto Truck
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
Peak Hour
16:45
- 17:45 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
LT(1)
EB
TH(2)
64
0.57
0%
Bus
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LT(3)
Auto Truck
WB
TH
142
0.71
1%
RT(4)
4
0.50
0%
Bus
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
2
0
0
6
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
9
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
TH
LT(5)
20
0.56
0%
SB
TH
Total
2
6
13
0
3
1
6
5
9
5
1
4
4
1
0
1
RT(6)
27
0.84
0%
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
EB
1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
WB
0.99 0.01 0.00 1.00
SB
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00

Midday PEAK PERIOD
Green Mountain Dr
6
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Sat, 6/9/2012
Time
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
11:00 - 11:15
2
0
0
11:15 - 11:30
0
0
0
11:30 - 11:45
1
0
0
11:45 - 12:00
2
0
0
12:00 - 12:15
0
0
0
12:15 - 12:30
0
0
0
12:30 - 12:45
0
0
0
12:45 - 13:00
1
0
0
13:00 - 13:15
1
0
0
13:15 - 13:30
0
0
0
13:30 - 13:45
0
0
0
13:45 - 14:00
1
0
0
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Total
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd
Fonda Rd (EB)
Thru (2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
4
0
10
0
5
0
5
0
8
0
13
0
14
0
12
0
12
0
16
0
10
0
10
0
Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
4
10
5
5
8
13
14
12
12
16
10
10
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Auto Truck
5
0
9
0
6
0
8
0
11
0
9
0
9
0
11
0
5
0
8
0
7
0
11
0
Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
5
9
6
8
11
9
9
11
5
8
7
11
0
0
0
0
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
Total
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Auto Truck
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Peak Hour
12:15
- 13:15 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
LT(1)
2
0.50
0%
EB
TH(2)
Bus
TH
51
0.91
0%
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LT(3)
Auto Truck
WB
TH
34
0.77
0%
RT(4)
1
0.25
0%
Bus
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
TH
LT(5)
2
0.25
0%
SB
TH
Total
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
RT(6)
3
0.75
0%
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (6)
Auto Truck Bus
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
Classification
Approach
EB
1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
WB
1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
SB
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
Total
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

PM PEAK PERIOD
Green Mountain Dr
6
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Sat, 6/9/2012
Time
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
14:00 - 14:15
1
0
0
14:15 - 14:30
0
0
0
14:30 - 14:45
2
0
0
14:45 - 15:00
0
1
0
15:00 - 15:15
0
0
0
15:15 - 15:30
0
0
0
15:30 - 15:45
0
0
0
15:45 - 16:00
3
0
0
16:00 - 16:15
0
0
0
16:15 - 16:30
0
0
0
16:30 - 16:45
0
0
0
16:45 - 17:00
0
0
0
17:00 - 17:15
0
0
0
17:15 - 17:30
0
0
0
17:30 - 17:45
2
0
0
17:45 - 18:00
1
0
0
Total
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
Fonda Rd
Fonda Rd (EB)
Thru (2)
12
12
0
0
9
9
0
0
7
7
0
0
5
5
0
0
11
11
0
0
9
9
0
0
8
8
0
0
3
3
0
0
8
8
0
0
5
5
0
0
6
6
0
0
11
11
0
0
10
10
0
0
10
10
0
0
12
12
0
0
8
8
0
0
Fonda Rd (WB)
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (3)
Auto Truck Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Auto Truck
6
0
8
0
10
0
6
0
5
0
13
0
7
0
10
0
11
0
8
0
11
0
10
2
5
0
4
0
5
0
7
1
Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
6
8
10
6
5
13
7
10
11
8
11
12
5
4
5
8
Right (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
Total
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
Right (6)
Auto Truck Bus
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0

Time
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
Auto Truck
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
Peak Hour
16:00
- 17:00 PM
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
Auto Truck
LT(1)
EB
TH(2)
30
0.68
0%
Bus
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LT(3)
Auto Truck
WB
TH
42
0.88
5%
RT(4)
3
0.38
0%
Bus
TH
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH
Left (5)
Auto Truck Bus
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
TH
LT(5)
1
0.25
0%
SB
TH
Total
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
RT(6)
1
0.25
0%
Auto Truck
Bus
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Classification
Approach
EB
1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
WB
0.96 0.04 0.00 1.00
SB
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
12 11 10

AM PEAK PERIOD
Arrowhead Lane
Intersection:
Day, Date:
4. Arrowhead Rd @ Green Mountain Dr

Tue, 6/5/2012
4 5
Time
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
7:15
0
0
0
7:30
0
0
0
7:45
0
0
0
8:00
0
0
0
8:15
0
0
0
8:30
0
0
0
8:45
0
0
0
9:00
0
0
0
9:15
0
0
0
9:30
0
0
0
9:45
0
0
0
10:00
0
0
0
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
Time
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
Left (7)
Auto Truck Bus
7:15
3
3
0
7:30
2
2
0
7:45
4
4
0
8:00
0
0
0
8:15
2
2
0
8:30
1
1
0
8:45
3
3
0
9:00
3
3
0
9:15
2
2
0
9:30
2
2
0
9:45
0
0
0
10:00
3
3
0
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
Peak Hour
7:15
8:15 AM
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Arrowhead Lane (EB)

Thru (2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
4
2
2
0
2
1
1
0
4
2
2
0
6
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
6
4
8
0
4
2
6
6
4
4
0
6
0
0
0
0
Green Mountain Dr (NB)

Thru (8)
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
LT(1)
EB
TH(2) RT(3)
8
0.50
50%
50
0.78
50%
LT(4)
Right (3)
Auto Truck Bus
5
5
0
6
6
0
6
6
0
8
8
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
1
1
0
4
4
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
Right (9)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
WB
TH(5) RT(6)
2
0.25
50%
LT(7)
16
0.50
50%
Total
10
12
12
16
10
10
2
8
10
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Left (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (10)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NB
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru (11)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SB
Green Mountain Dr
Arrowhead Lane (WB)
Thru (5)
Right (6)
Auto Truck Bus Total Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH(8) RT(9) LT(10) TH(11) RT(12)
Classification
Approach
EB
WB
NB
Right (12)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cars Trucks Buses

0.50 0.50 0.00
0.50 0.50 0.00
0.50 0.50 0.00
Total
1.00
1.00
1.00
12 11 10

Midday PEAK PERIOD
Arrowhead Lane
1
2
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Tue, 6/5/2012
4 5
Time
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
11:00 - 11:15
0
0
0
11:15 - 11:30
0
0
0
11:30 - 11:45
0
0
0
11:45 - 12:00
0
0
0
12:00 - 12:15
0
0
0
12:15 - 12:30
0
0
0
12:30 - 12:45
0
0
0
12:45 - 13:00
0
0
0
13:00 - 13:15
0
0
0
13:15 - 13:30
0
0
0
13:30 - 13:45
0
0
0
13:45 - 14:00
0
0
0
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Time
Left (7)
Auto Truck Bus
11:00 - 11:15
4
4
0
11:15 - 11:30
2
2
0
11:30 - 11:45
0
0
0
11:45 - 12:00
13
13
0
12:00 - 12:15
7
7
0
12:15 - 12:30
2
2
0
12:30 - 12:45
5
5
0
12:45 - 13:00
1
1
0
13:00 - 13:15
1
1
0
13:15 - 13:30
5
5
0
13:30 - 13:45
3
3
0
13:45 - 14:00
2
2
0
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Peak Hour
12:00
- 13:00 PM
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd (EB)
Thru (2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
8
4
0
26
14
4
10
2
2
10
6
4
0
0
0
0

Thru (8)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
LT(1)
EB
TH(2) RT(3)
2
0.25
50%
34
0.71
50%
LT(4)
2
0.25
50%
Right (3)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
4
4
0
2
2
0
6
6
0
5
5
0
4
4
0
5
5
0
2
2
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
Right (9)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
WB
TH(5) RT(6)
2
0.25
50%
LT(7)
30
0.54
50%
Total
0
4
4
8
4
12
10
8
10
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Left (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Left (10)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NB
Total
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru (11)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SB
Green Mountain Dr
Fonda Rd (WB)
Thru (5)
Right (6)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH(8) RT(9) LT(10) TH(11) RT(12)
4
0.50
50%
Classification
Approach
EB
WB
NB
Right (12)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cars Trucks Buses

0.50 0.50 0.00
0.50 0.50 0.00
0.50 0.50 0.00
Total
1.00
1.00
1.00
12 11 10

PM PEAK PERIOD
Arrowhead Lane
Intersection:
Day, Date:
1
2

Tue, 6/5/2012
7
4 5
Time
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
15:00 - 15:15
0
0
0
15:15 - 15:30
0
0
0
15:30 - 15:45
0
0
0
15:45 - 16:00
0
0
0
16:00 - 16:15
0
0
0
16:15 - 16:30
0
0
0
16:30 - 16:45
0
0
0
16:45 - 17:00
0
0
0
17:00 - 17:15
0
0
0
17:15 - 17:30
0
0
0
17:30 - 17:45
0
0
0
17:45 - 18:00
0
0
0
18:00 - 18:15
0
0
0
18:15 - 18:30
0
0
0
18:30 - 18:45
0
0
0
18:45 - 19:00
0
0
0
Time
Left (7)
Auto Truck Bus
15:00 - 15:15
0
0
0
15:15 - 15:30
0
0
0
15:30 - 15:45
0
0
0
15:45 - 16:00
0
0
0
16:00 - 16:15
2
2
0
16:15 - 16:30
6
6
0
16:30 - 16:45
8
8
0
16:45 - 17:00
5
5
0
17:00 - 17:15
9
9
0
17:15 - 17:30
10
10
0
17:30 - 17:45
2
2
0
17:45 - 18:00
1
1
0
18:00 - 18:15
4
4
0
18:15 - 18:30
1
1
0
18:30 - 18:45
0
0
0
18:45 - 19:00
1
1
0
Peak Hour
16:45
- 17:45 PM
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd (EB)
Thru (2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (3)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
4
12
16
10
18
20
4
2
8
2
0
2

Thru (8)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (9)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
LT(1)
EB
TH(2) RT(3)
2
0.25
50%
20
0.42
50%
LT(4)
2
0.25
50%
WB
TH(5) RT(6)
6
0.25
50%
LT(7)
52
0.65
50%
Total
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
8
12
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Left (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (10)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NB
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (6)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru (11)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (12)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SB
Green Mountain Dr
Fonda Rd (WB)
Thru (5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
0
TH(8) RT(9) LT(10) TH(11) RT(12)
Classification
Approach
EB
WB
NB
Cars Trucks Buses

0.50 0.50 0.00
0.50 0.50 0.00
0.50 0.50 0.00
Total
1.00
1.00
1.00
12 11 10

Midday PEAK PERIOD
Arrowhead Lane
1
2
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Sat, 6/9/2012
4
Time
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
11:00 - 11:15
0
0
0
11:15 - 11:30
0
0
0
11:30 - 11:45
0
0
0
11:45 - 12:00
0
0
0
12:00 - 12:15
0
0
0
12:15 - 12:30
0
0
0
12:30 - 12:45
0
0
0
12:45 - 13:00
0
0
0
13:00 - 13:15
0
0
0
13:15 - 13:30
0
0
0
13:30 - 13:45
0
0
0
13:45 - 14:00
0
0
0
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Time
Left (7)
Auto Truck Bus
11:00 - 11:15
0
0
0
11:15 - 11:30
1
0
0
11:30 - 11:45
0
0
0
11:45 - 12:00
0
0
0
12:00 - 12:15
0
1
0
12:15 - 12:30
2
0
0
12:30 - 12:45
1
0
0
12:45 - 13:00
0
0
0
13:00 - 13:15
0
0
0
13:15 - 13:30
0
0
0
13:30 - 13:45
2
0
0
13:45 - 14:00
1
0
0
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
Peak Hour
12:15
- 13:15 PM
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd (EB)
Thru (2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0

Thru (8)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
LT(1)
EB
TH(2) RT(3)
4
0.50
0%
LT(4)
1
0.25
0%
Right (3)
Auto Truck Bus
3
2
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
Right (9)
Auto Truck Bus
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WB
TH(5) RT(6)
LT(7)
3
0.38
0%
Total
5
2
3
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
Total
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (10)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NB
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru (11)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SB
Green Mountain Dr
Fonda Rd (WB)
Thru (5)
Right (6)
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH(8) RT(9) LT(10) TH(11) RT(12)
Classification
Approach
EB
WB
NB
Right (12)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cars Trucks Buses

1.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00
Total
1.00
1.00
1.00
12 11 10

PM PEAK PERIOD
Arrowhead Lane
Intersection:
Day, Date:

Sat, 6/9/2012
7
4 5
Time
Left (1)
Auto Truck Bus
14:00 - 14:15
0
0
0
14:15 - 14:30
0
0
0
14:30 - 14:45
0
0
0
14:45 - 15:00
0
0
0
15:00 - 15:15
0
0
0
15:15 - 15:30
0
0
0
15:30 - 15:45
0
0
0
15:45 - 16:00
0
0
0
16:00 - 16:15
0
0
0
16:15 - 16:30
0
0
0
16:30 - 16:45
0
0
0
16:45 - 17:00
0
0
0
17:00 - 17:15
0
0
0
17:15 - 17:30
0
0
0
17:30 - 17:45
0
0
0
17:45 - 18:00
0
0
0
Time
Left (7)
Auto Truck Bus
14:00 - 14:15
0
0
0
14:15 - 14:30
1
0
0
14:30 - 14:45
0
0
0
14:45 - 15:00
2
0
0
15:00 - 15:15
1
0
0
15:15 - 15:30
1
0
0
15:30 - 15:45
0
0
0
15:45 - 16:00
2
0
0
16:00 - 16:15
0
2
0
16:15 - 16:30
2
0
0
16:30 - 16:45
0
0
0
16:45 - 17:00
2
0
0
17:00 - 17:15
1
0
0
17:15 - 17:30
2
0
0
17:30 - 17:45
1
0
0
17:45 - 18:00
0
1
0
Peak Hour
16:00
- 17:00 PM
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fonda Rd (EB)
Thru (2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (3)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
2
2
0
2
1
2
1
1

Thru (8)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right (9)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Volumes
P.H.F.
% of HV
LT(1)
EB
TH(2) RT(3)
1
0.25
0%
3
0.38
0%
LT(4)
WB
TH(5) RT(6)
1
0.25
0%
LT(7)
6
0.75
33%
Total
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
2
1
1
0
Left (4)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left (10)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NB
Total
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru (11)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SB
Green Mountain Dr
Fonda Rd (WB)
Thru (5)
Right (6)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TH(8) RT(9) LT(10) TH(11) RT(12)
1
0.25
0%
Classification
Approach
EB
WB
NB
Right (12)
Auto Truck Bus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cars Trucks Buses

1.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00
0.71 0.29 0.00
Total
1.00
1.00
1.00
Automatic TrafficD
Recorder (ATR) Counts
APPENDIX
Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) Counts
Appendix D:

ATR VOLUMES (CALIBRATED DATA)
Location #1
TIME
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
Daily Total
Loudon Road Northbound before Fonda Road

TUE
WED
THU
FRI
SAT
SUN
MON
TUE
WED
THU
06/05/12
11
12
7
17
12
10
7
6
4
3
7
8
8
19
15
17
14
21
26
55
62
89
89
85
86
75
65
60
55
57
74
78
78
68
83
74
79
72
89
83
89
85
88
94
86
113
89
118
124
106
130
107
102
108
111
115
119
108
104
119
126
132
145
185
208
208
333
365
426
461
435
286
170
163
107
86
97
91
65
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8025
06/06/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
06/07/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
06/08/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
06/09/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
6
7
7
17
13
15
12
19
23
49
55
63
54
86
80
76
81
87
88
95
63
54
69
87
82
88
94
95
103
105
111
113
115
119
125
166
146
145
162
165
154
151
153
155
155
158
129
165
132
119
135
125
124
124
129
123
109
109
119
116
130
108
89
100
105
90
75
71
57
52
32
33
23
28
19
15
15
12
17
11
9
8
8
9
5
4
6956
06/10/12
4
2
2
4
4
4
10
8
9
7
11
14
29
33
38
32
52
48
55
58
63
63
68
45
39
50
63
59
63
68
68
74
59
71
72
57
82
86
115
101
100
112
114
106
104
106
107
107
109
89
114
91
84
96
89
88
88
92
87
77
77
84
82
92
77
63
71
75
74
61
58
47
43
26
27
19
23
16
12
12
10
14
9
7
7
8
9
5
4
7
5
4
4
6
8
2
4898
06/11/12
8
9
5
12
9
7
5
4
3
2
5
6
6
14
11
12
11
18
25
51
64
85
89
81
82
79
69
62
55
57
74
78
78
68
83
74
79
72
89
83
89
85
88
94
86
113
89
118
124
106
130
107
102
108
111
115
119
108
104
119
126
132
145
185
208
208
333
365
426
461
435
286
170
163
107
86
97
91
65
61
57
48
42
25
31
33
30
28
21
19
16
21
15
18
14
12
8419
06/12/12
16
19
21
15
19
15
12
10
9
5
6
11
6
14
19
15
12
16
29
51
63
81
91
94
87
78
69
71
58
61
69
75
79
71
81
75
84
80
81
80
85
82
85
89
81
99
97
112
125
110
116
105
104
103
104
109
111
102
109
115
121
128
142
168
201
211
328
370
421
449
425
289
178
165
112
101
95
84
61
57
48
42
25
31
33
30
28
21
19
16
21
15
18
14
12
16
8386
06/13/12
19
21
15
19
15
12
10
9
5
6
11
6
14
19
15
12
16
29
51
63
81
91
94
87
78
69
71
58
61
69
75
79
71
81
75
84
80
81
80
85
82
85
89
81
99
97
112
125
110
116
105
104
103
104
109
111
102
109
115
121
128
142
168
201
211
328
370
421
449
425
289
178
165
112
101
95
95
66
62
56
51
45
30
30
28
26
25
22
21
18
16
14
16
12
13
12
8437
06/14/12
15
18
18
15
16
15
12
11
10
6
8
11
6
12
16
16
14
16
33
55
58
79
92
91
90
88
65
70
59
66
65
63
75
70
78
71
75
78
71
75
78
72
77
79
79
94
99
111
120
118
120
97
96
95
96
100
102
94
100
106
111
118
131
155
185
208
324
366
416
444
414
282
173
161
109
98
93
82
59
62
52
46
27
34
36
33
30
23
21
17
23
16
20
15
13
17
8149
FRI
AVERAGE
MID-
06/15/12 WEEKDAY*
18
15
13
18
7
15
17
17
13
16
10
13
7
10
6
9
4
7
3
5
7
8
9
9
9
9
20
16
16
16
17
15
16
14
19
21
27
35
55
56
69
66
91
85
96
92
87
89
88
85
85
78
74
68
67
65
60
58
62
63
80
71
85
74
85
76
74
73
90
79
80
76
86
80
78
78
97
80
90
81
86
84
82
81
85
85
91
86
83
86
109
101
111
99
114
117
120
120
102
113
126
118
103
103
99
101
105
103
108
105
112
109
116
109
105
103
105
107
120
115
127
122
133
130
146
147
187
177
229
201
229
239
366
339
419
381
421
428
355
445
296
391
236
259
165
172
158
150
104
107
83
95
94
95
72
81
66
62
62
54
58
38
49
33
43
21
25
24
32
24
34
22
31
21
28
17
22
15
19
13
16
15
22
11
15
14
18
10
15
10
12
11
8386
8260
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
HOURLY
HOURLY MID- AVERAGE
WEEKDAY* SATURDAY SATURDAY
65
66
61
56
48
39
31
29
29
31
42
50
56
61
66
85
126
178
242
299
332
351
344
320
296
269
254
257
266
284
294
302
304
308
313
314
319
323
326
331
336
338
358
372
403
437
449
468
454
435
425
412
418
426
426
428
434
447
474
514
576
655
764
956
1160
1387
1593
1645
1523
1267
972
688
524
447
378
333
292
235
187
146
116
102
91
91
84
75
66
60
54
53
50
45
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
6
7
7
17
13
15
12
19
23
49
55
63
54
86
80
76
81
87
88
95
63
54
69
87
82
88
94
95
103
105
111
113
115
119
125
166
146
145
162
165
154
151
153
155
155
158
129
165
132
119
135
125
124
124
129
123
109
109
119
116
130
108
89
100
105
90
75
71
57
52
32
33
23
28
19
15
15
12
17
11
9
8
8
9
5
4
6956
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
13
20
23
37
44
52
57
59
69
103
146
190
221
258
283
296
323
324
332
351
333
300
281
273
292
326
351
359
380
397
414
432
444
458
472
525
556
582
619
618
626
632
623
613
614
621
597
607
584
545
551
511
503
508
502
500
485
470
460
453
474
473
443
427
402
384
370
341
293
255
212
174
140
116
103
85
77
61
59
55
49
45
36
34
30
26
* Mid-Weekday defined to be Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday
1. Loudon Rd NB before Fonda Rd .xls

Location #2
TIME
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
Daily Total
Loudon Road Southbound between Falcon Avenue & Fonda Road

TUE
WED
THU
FRI
SAT
SUN
MON
TUE
WED
THU
06/05/12
5
4
2
3
2
5
3
0
3
7
5
11
4
12
7
13
12
24
34
44
46
96
131
177
205
282
341
378
337
324
441
435
346
281
236
200
124
106
138
101
102
126
112
136
112
116
118
144
114
100
145
152
116
120
120
129
126
118
102
136
124
133
122
122
135
146
115
118
149
144
129
116
99
89
94
95
94
88
64
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9577
06/06/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
06/07/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
06/08/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
06/09/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
4
10
4
11
6
12
11
21
30
39
41
68
81
72
82
80
87
88
85
87
73
87
78
89
86
94
95
92
94
79
104
101
99
102
105
131
172
135
159
158
168
166
175
189
201
194
166
189
126
120
145
114
114
103
110
111
115
113
124
111
110
127
118
122
97
85
78
71
74
58
30
31
29
33
21
11
14
17
21
13
15
8
9
11
12
5
7135
06/10/12
4
2
4
2
6
2
7
4
7
7
13
18
23
25
41
49
43
49
58
63
63
61
63
53
63
56
64
62
68
68
66
68
57
75
73
51
73
76
94
124
97
114
114
121
120
126
136
145
140
120
116
91
90
109
86
86
77
82
83
86
85
93
83
82
95
88
92
73
70
64
58
61
48
25
25
24
27
17
9
11
14
17
11
12
7
9
11
12
11
5
6
8
7
2
5
4
5215
06/11/12
8
6
3
4
3
8
4
11
4
10
8
16
6
18
10
13
12
24
34
44
46
96
131
177
211
293
388
424
425
411
338
218
153
108
123
122
124
106
106
101
102
126
112
136
112
106
136
162
144
100
110
126
116
156
120
136
130
118
102
136
124
138
122
122
116
151
130
115
108
82
84
102
79
89
60
74
94
88
64
56
56
42
40
28
32
31
27
33
20
17
21
22
14
22
16
22
9274
06/12/12
22
20
19
16
20
18
10
9
12
7
6
13
15
14
18
17
23
32
52
62
66
82
134
166
216
286
370
458
446
335
262
210
166
150
126
124
88
126
109
133
123
122
135
134
128
120
121
116
120
128
126
121
134
138
112
136
150
132
126
120
111
122
120
128
126
151
126
122
130
116
94
90
84
85
80
90
104
82
66
56
42
40
28
32
31
27
33
20
17
21
22
14
22
16
22
22
9492
06/13/12
20
19
16
20
18
10
9
12
7
6
13
15
14
18
17
23
32
52
62
66
82
134
166
216
286
370
458
446
335
262
210
166
150
126
124
88
126
109
133
123
122
135
134
128
120
121
116
120
128
126
121
134
138
112
136
150
132
126
120
111
122
120
128
126
151
126
122
130
116
94
90
84
85
80
90
104
82
69
67
59
59
44
42
29
34
33
28
27
20
20
19
16
14
17
16
17
9569
06/14/12
21
18
19
17
19
18
10
9
12
8
15
14
11
15
20
19
25
35
57
68
73
90
134
166
211
279
371
447
435
333
256
205
162
146
123
116
105
121
104
127
118
123
129
128
123
115
116
111
115
123
121
125
130
133
125
140
146
130
121
117
119
123
120
125
122
144
131
120
125
111
100
95
89
90
85
95
98
87
69
62
61
61
46
43
30
35
34
29
28
21
21
20
17
14
18
17
9528
FRI
AVERAGE
MID-
06/15/12 WEEKDAY*
20
17
18
15
17
14
15
14
18
15
17
13
9
8
8
8
11
9
6
7
6
10
12
13
14
11
13
15
17
16
16
18
21
23
29
36
48
51
57
60
61
67
75
101
123
141
153
181
199
230
275
304
355
385
440
432
428
388
338
314
252
292
202
254
159
206
144
176
126
152
124
132
105
111
119
116
112
121
137
121
126
116
125
127
139
128
138
132
132
121
123
118
124
118
119
123
123
119
132
119
130
128
127
133
140
130
144
126
117
123
142
139
157
139
138
127
132
117
126
121
116
119
128
125
126
123
134
125
132
134
158
142
132
124
135
123
136
130
121
116
100
103
96
96
89
89
91
86
81
87
92
96
91
95
82
82
75
67
72
52
64
41
64
36
48
29
45
26
31
24
37
24
36
24
30
19
29
16
22
16
22
16
21
13
20
13
19
12
15
14
12
14
9635
9552
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
HOURLY
HOURLY MID- AVERAGE
60
58
56
50
44
38
32
34
39
41
49
55
60
72
93
128
170
214
279
369
490
653
856
1100
1351
1509
1519
1426
1248
1066
928
788
666
571
511
480
469
474
485
492
503
508
499
489
480
478
479
489
499
510
517
512
518
527
528
522
504
484
482
488
492
507
524
525
523
519
493
472
445
404
374
358
358
364
360
340
296
242
196
158
132
115
103
98
91
83
75
67
61
58
54
52
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
5
4
11
6
12
11
21
30
39
41
68
81
72
82
80
87
88
85
87
73
87
78
89
86
94
95
92
94
79
104
101
99
102
105
131
172
135
159
158
168
166
175
189
201
194
166
189
126
120
145
114
114
103
110
111
115
113
124
111
110
127
118
122
97
85
78
71
74
58
30
31
29
33
21
11
14
17
21
13
15
8
9
11
12
5
7124
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
12
14
22
26
33
40
50
74
101
131
178
229
262
303
315
321
337
340
347
333
332
325
327
340
347
364
367
375
360
369
378
383
406
407
437
510
543
597
624
620
651
667
698
731
759
750
750
675
601
580
505
493
476
441
438
439
449
463
463
458
472
466
477
464
422
382
331
308
281
233
193
148
123
114
94
79
63
63
65
66
57
45
43
40
37
2. Loudon Rd SB between Falcon Ave & Fonda Rd .xls

Location #3
TIME
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
Daily Total
Fonda Road Eastbound between Loudon Road & Mustang Driveway

TUE
WED
THU
FRI
SAT
SUN
MON
TUE
WED
THU
06/05/12
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
4
5
0
6
10
17
18
14
13
14
9
12
10
9
9
1
14
3
10
11
5
10
7
10
7
3
11
6
16
14
15
12
14
6
12
12
10
10
14
12
12
15
13
15
24
12
20
17
32
11
18
6
9
6
12
9
4
11
10
13
6
5
7
4
2
4
3
0
2
1
1
4
2
0
716
06/06/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
3
1
4
9
15
9
8
12
14
10
9
9
8
3
11
3
10
5
9
10
13
6
9
9
4
13
15
9
4
11
15
8
8
9
14
11
10
10
12
16
17
13
18
26
17
17
19
23
11
15
10
12
8
7
8
16
13
8
16
17
5
6
2
2
8
3
2
4
4
6
1
0
0
710
06/07/12
0
3
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
4
2
3
10
18
15
9
11
8
13
8
7
9
13
5
14
8
11
11
7
6
10
9
14
7
13
9
8
11
10
17
8
6
12
8
14
12
8
13
14
13
19
15
26
16
19
18
26
12
13
8
10
9
7
13
2
13
6
5
14
14
10
9
6
5
5
4
4
7
7
3
0
2
751
06/08/12
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
5
2
3
2
10
10
12
10
8
14
10
14
10
6
6
8
11
7
3
11
18
8
7
10
8
14
21
10
9
16
10
17
12
9
6
15
13
16
13
10
21
11
21
17
24
18
19
17
25
21
10
11
7
15
10
6
8
6
4
7
6
2
11
6
4
3
5
2
4
5
2
1
2
2
750
06/09/12
1
5
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
3
3
4
2
3
4
3
2
4
2
9
8
5
10
6
9
8
7
4
12
11
11
16
11
17
11
10
15
15
13
14
9
12
8
12
11
7
10
8
8
7
10
13
14
8
6
4
8
5
5
6
4
8
10
4
11
5
5
2
6
3
5
2
4
2
1
4
2
524
06/10/12
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
4
3
6
3
4
5
4
6
3
8
4
8
7
4
6
8
8
3
1
7
14
6
9
10
6
9
5
8
11
11
8
3
8
7
3
5
9
12
5
8
9
5
5
12
7
9
10
3
10
6
5
3
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
1
3
0
390
06/11/12
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
15
13
9
11
12
16
15
9
10
14
7
9
8
6
12
6
3
10
6
8
7
7
19
8
11
12
5
4
11
11
8
16
7
9
13
13
16
13
26
14
23
14
15
18
18
12
8
13
8
12
10
17
10
10
11
8
5
4
6
4
5
5
5
3
2
1
4
2
1
0
703
06/12/12
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
4
0
2
3
4
8
13
15
8
14
19
5
6
11
12
9
7
6
8
7
11
5
17
11
12
14
13
11
9
6
18
16
10
9
11
7
3
12
12
10
8
18
13
16
20
24
12
20
21
16
14
10
19
7
8
7
7
13
7
6
4
9
4
4
5
0
6
3
5
2
1
3
2
3
1
704
06/13/12
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
2
11
11
17
11
8
18
12
8
7
7
5
6
10
3
6
11
7
11
9
10
13
7
10
16
9
15
8
8
11
9
16
9
9
15
6
15
10
13
14
20
28
14
15
27
23
14
15
6
14
8
10
5
8
9
5
11
13
6
8
14
11
4
5
6
2
2
6
2
1
0
734
06/14/12
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
6
6
2
6
9
14
13
10
10
11
10
11
10
10
5
7
10
1
11
5
7
8
11
13
16
9
8
16
14
9
13
10
9
10
15
7
22
15
18
9
21
14
14
9
16
20
12
20
26
16
23
7
6
8
7
13
10
9
4
8
17
8
8
8
8
5
1
1
4
3
3
3
2
3
749
FRI
AVERAGE
MID-
06/15/12 WEEKDAY*
0
1
4
1
1
0
3
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
3
2
3
4
4
1
2
7
4
8
10
17
15
8
15
13
10
8
11
9
14
15
10
8
9
11
9
9
10
13
7
3
6
10
10
6
6
14
8
11
10
6
7
8
11
8
9
7
11
14
12
13
7
15
11
13
12
13
10
13
12
21
12
20
12
19
10
12
8
12
12
11
9
14
13
12
12
17
11
9
12
16
15
16
14
22
15
17
16
24
24
18
15
19
17
17
20
25
24
22
13
11
16
12
9
8
10
17
8
11
8
7
9
9
9
7
10
5
7
8
10
7
13
2
7
13
7
7
7
5
5
3
5
6
3
2
3
5
3
6
3
2
4
1
3
2
1
2
1
809
730
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
HOURLY
HOURLY MID- AVERAGE
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
5
8
11
12
13
20
31
44
50
51
50
45
44
42
37
34
31
32
29
30
34
31
36
37
38
43
39
41
42
40
45
46
46
46
42
42
39
42
46
45
48
50
52
56
60
69
70
72
76
76
74
73
62
48
43
35
35
34
36
35
36
40
37
37
34
26
24
20
16
14
12
13
13
11
9
1
5
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
3
3
4
2
3
4
3
2
4
2
9
8
5
10
6
9
8
7
4
12
11
11
16
11
17
11
10
15
15
13
14
9
12
8
12
11
7
10
8
8
7
10
13
14
8
6
4
8
5
5
6
4
8
10
4
11
5
5
2
6
3
5
2
4
2
1
4
2
524
12
11
6
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
5
3
6
8
10
12
12
13
12
12
13
11
17
23
24
32
29
30
33
30
28
31
34
38
50
49
55
55
49
53
51
53
57
51
48
43
41
43
38
40
36
33
33
33
38
44
45
41
32
26
23
22
24
20
23
28
26
33
30
25
23
18
16
16
16
14
13
9
11
9
3. Fonda Rd EB between Loudon Rd & Mustang Dr.xls

Location #4
TIME
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
Daily Total
Fonda Road Westbound between Loudon Road & Mustang Driveway

TUE
WED
THU
FRI
SAT
SUN
MON
TUE
WED
THU
06/05/12
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
4
7
6
2
17
17
16
9
18
20
22
12
14
18
10
6
2
8
8
6
16
8
4
9
14
8
14
8
13
17
11
9
6
9
9
15
8
12
7
16
17
23
21
24
27
39
48
51
59
42
18
12
8
9
8
3
3
6
6
4
3
0
1
5
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
890
06/06/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
2
6
7
4
9
21
15
18
21
20
13
12
10
16
11
12
8
5
7
14
9
3
10
11
10
12
20
11
8
10
6
12
9
14
6
10
10
11
13
16
29
16
23
27
22
32
64
77
81
44
16
21
6
11
3
4
5
6
8
9
4
6
4
1
1
3
4
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
980
06/07/12
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
1
5
6
4
3
13
21
16
16
17
25
17
15
9
9
8
8
11
9
9
13
11
11
10
13
11
16
16
6
12
10
10
8
12
12
9
7
12
12
11
10
16
21
16
18
30
43
49
51
66
39
26
11
14
6
5
8
10
8
2
9
8
3
6
4
2
1
2
3
3
4
2
1
0
0
948
06/08/12
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
1
3
7
8
12
14
19
14
19
26
22
13
11
13
12
6
7
6
16
12
15
13
9
7
15
8
21
9
10
11
10
15
10
8
8
19
8
15
13
13
29
21
25
38
48
54
55
78
58
47
22
16
7
12
11
7
6
4
3
4
4
2
6
3
1
2
5
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
1061
06/09/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
3
5
5
6
3
5
6
8
6
4
7
5
14
14
10
8
8
7
7
12
9
8
7
13
8
10
6
15
8
12
6
12
9
10
12
10
12
8
7
9
9
12
8
5
2
7
9
5
3
7
10
10
6
5
7
8
5
3
5
1
3
4
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
491
06/10/12
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
0
4
5
2
2
5
3
9
5
10
9
10
6
7
2
9
5
8
9
6
9
6
6
5
7
7
3
10
1
7
5
10
8
8
6
7
4
6
5
6
4
3
5
5
6
4
7
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
7
3
4
1
3
2
2
1
0
2
0
0
1
350
06/11/12
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
2
1
1
3
7
8
9
13
14
14
13
17
21
19
16
10
9
7
12
10
7
13
9
10
9
12
7
13
10
9
12
11
11
7
13
8
13
10
19
12
12
15
10
25
17
16
20
33
24
37
56
50
50
21
11
12
6
6
7
9
4
5
4
5
4
3
2
3
3
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
904
06/12/12
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
1
1
4
8
7
3
8
14
19
15
18
22
18
18
12
8
11
8
10
8
14
5
15
12
13
14
12
14
15
13
14
8
18
10
8
13
2
7
6
10
8
4
13
16
13
19
37
37
51
55
40
51
28
16
10
5
4
5
6
2
4
8
4
4
2
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
902
06/13/12
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
9
7
4
8
12
12
12
22
19
20
20
7
16
8
11
8
11
7
8
12
7
6
10
14
16
15
11
15
8
10
14
11
12
8
10
16
7
5
15
9
10
28
22
32
43
46
46
54
43
29
19
15
5
7
11
9
6
9
12
4
2
2
5
4
5
2
1
4
0
0
0
1
2
941
06/14/12
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
3
1
7
11
12
12
11
11
13
15
26
16
17
16
18
9
7
16
8
7
8
10
5
6
6
12
16
9
11
12
14
5
8
13
9
14
7
15
13
10
9
18
14
17
23
28
39
49
58
56
41
23
18
12
13
5
9
2
2
5
5
9
4
5
2
2
5
3
2
3
2
2
0
2
0
932
FRI
AVERAGE
MID-
06/15/12 WEEKDAY*
2
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
8
7
6
7
6
5
16
11
11
16
15
15
13
14
20
19
20
22
16
18
13
16
12
11
24
14
14
10
8
9
6
9
15
8
9
9
13
9
16
12
13
8
9
8
13
11
12
12
14
14
20
15
14
10
16
12
13
11
12
10
11
10
12
10
17
12
10
8
11
9
11
11
14
11
12
9
13
12
20
17
20
17
20
20
31
22
39
29
44
39
44
51
63
56
47
59
38
43
20
23
14
16
6
11
11
8
10
5
6
7
6
6
5
5
3
6
5
8
5
5
2
3
7
3
3
4
1
2
2
3
6
2
1
1
0
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1006
933
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
HOURLY
HOURLY MID- AVERAGE
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
5
6
6
12
18
22
30
39
47
56
64
70
73
75
67
59
51
44
42
36
35
35
38
38
37
39
39
45
52
51
51
48
43
43
41
42
40
39
40
39
40
43
49
55
66
76
88
110
141
175
205
209
181
141
93
58
40
31
26
23
24
25
24
22
19
15
12
12
11
8
8
7
6
6
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
3
5
5
6
3
5
6
8
6
4
7
5
14
14
10
8
8
7
7
12
9
8
7
13
8
10
6
15
8
12
6
12
9
10
12
10
12
8
7
9
9
12
8
5
2
7
9
5
3
7
10
10
6
5
7
8
5
3
5
1
3
4
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
491
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
4
4
4
2
3
4
4
7
10
13
19
19
19
20
22
25
24
25
22
30
40
43
46
40
33
30
34
35
36
36
37
36
38
37
39
39
41
41
38
39
37
43
41
44
42
37
36
33
37
38
34
27
22
23
23
24
24
25
30
33
31
28
26
25
23
21
14
12
13
10
11
12
10
9
8
5
4
4. Fonda Rd WB between Loudon Rd & Mustang Dr.xls

Location #5
TIME
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
Daily Total
Green Mountain Driveway Northbound between Arrowhead Lane & Fonda Road
TUE
WED
THU
FRI
SAT
SUN
MON
TUE
WED
THU
06/05/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
0
3
2
3
0
10
13
30
12
6
10
14
5
4
7
10
3
1
8
0
6
6
5
3
6
5
7
8
16
7
6
6
8
11
7
4
12
7
4
3
1
8
8
2
1
5
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
320
06/06/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
1
1
2
3
1
11
16
25
6
5
9
14
14
4
7
5
8
5
0
7
5
3
8
4
9
5
3
11
7
8
3
2
12
5
3
2
6
4
5
5
6
9
11
4
2
5
3
2
4
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
315
06/07/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
2
1
3
2
13
9
24
11
6
4
15
8
6
3
19
6
9
9
6
4
9
2
4
6
13
5
5
7
5
7
9
8
12
6
5
3
5
4
2
4
4
9
6
4
4
0
4
0
4
0
3
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
350
06/08/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
0
1
3
6
4
11
15
16
3
10
14
12
8
12
6
5
5
9
7
4
5
10
3
9
1
7
6
10
8
7
4
8
4
7
6
1
4
3
3
8
4
3
6
1
7
0
2
1
1
5
4
2
4
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
327
06/09/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
2
1
5
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
06/10/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
06/11/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
3
1
1
4
5
1
2
5
28
24
14
4
5
20
11
12
8
11
4
2
4
4
11
3
5
2
4
8
3
6
4
9
5
7
7
0
6
6
4
9
3
2
5
9
7
3
2
5
4
1
5
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
331
06/12/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
10
17
21
11
9
11
14
11
7
13
7
6
3
8
8
7
3
5
7
5
8
11
12
8
6
7
5
5
8
3
5
1
4
4
1
3
6
7
1
4
1
3
0
1
0
1
3
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
328
06/13/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
3
1
9
15
23
5
4
6
10
5
6
4
4
1
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
3
3
14
5
8
7
14
5
7
7
5
8
9
6
3
4
11
12
1
13
3
3
3
0
1
5
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
293
06/14/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
2
7
7
9
14
21
8
11
6
14
10
5
9
9
2
5
3
4
7
3
4
6
1
3
6
4
4
8
7
5
6
7
5
8
9
2
10
5
3
8
7
9
5
1
3
5
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
0
5
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
327
FRI
AVERAGE
MID-
06/15/12 WEEKDAY*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
3
0
1
0
2
2
2
9
4
4
2
11
10
10
14
22
24
6
9
16
7
5
8
9
14
7
9
6
5
5
7
9
9
6
4
8
4
7
5
4
5
5
5
9
4
2
4
8
5
1
5
7
6
6
6
9
9
7
8
7
7
4
6
7
7
4
7
7
8
6
5
1
5
4
7
2
5
2
6
7
3
4
4
2
8
7
9
1
4
8
5
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
6
1
4
1
3
1
6
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
320
324
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
HOURLY
HOURLY MID- AVERAGE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
5
6
8
8
9
10
18
30
50
57
54
48
38
38
36
35
30
25
24
22
18
19
19
18
18
18
20
22
26
29
30
30
28
27
28
27
25
25
22
23
21
18
21
24
25
26
21
14
12
8
6
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
3
3
2
1
1
0
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
2
1
5
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
4
3
5
5
9
10
8
7
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
6
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
4
4
2
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5. Green Mountain Dr NB between Arrowhead Ln & Fonda Rd.xls

Location #6
TIME
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
Daily Total
Green Mountain Driveway Southbound between Arrowhead Lane & Fonda Road
TUE
WED
THU
FRI
SAT
SUN
MON
TUE
WED
THU
06/05/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
3
0
3
0
7
3
5
3
3
3
2
5
7
4
0
2
4
4
5
6
5
1
11
7
3
6
4
5
12
9
3
5
3
6
10
6
5
4
17
18
11
6
4
11
5
14
11
8
4
5
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
301
06/06/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
3
3
3
8
4
2
5
3
2
5
16
3
5
2
5
5
2
2
6
7
6
8
10
5
5
7
5
4
2
5
2
3
6
3
5
18
24
8
8
16
7
8
18
12
6
3
5
2
0
1
3
2
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
320
06/07/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
8
4
7
7
2
6
3
2
9
6
5
3
3
10
5
5
9
6
9
4
14
12
4
3
7
7
2
4
4
4
3
8
1
4
19
11
10
8
6
6
9
27
6
5
5
7
4
4
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
340
06/08/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
7
0
4
8
1
5
7
2
10
7
4
5
4
4
4
7
2
4
6
3
5
2
15
8
6
4
5
7
3
2
8
4
6
2
3
8
16
16
6
15
7
9
10
12
10
9
6
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
319
06/09/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
3
1
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
06/10/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
06/11/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
4
5
6
8
3
5
6
5
5
1
5
5
1
4
11
5
5
6
2
4
10
9
9
2
5
8
5
7
3
8
10
5
10
6
11
23
14
9
13
7
9
12
30
7
4
2
4
3
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
355
06/12/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
1
1
0
8
7
4
3
5
8
4
6
3
6
4
3
7
9
5
7
5
3
5
10
9
17
4
5
5
6
5
5
4
2
2
4
7
7
13
6
9
7
20
7
9
24
3
4
7
6
2
0
0
2
2
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
330
06/13/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
11
7
11
5
10
17
6
8
11
5
8
3
7
9
3
7
3
3
5
12
20
13
6
6
8
8
5
4
2
2
5
4
3
5
9
10
5
14
13
11
8
15
13
5
8
7
4
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
385
06/14/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
5
4
5
6
3
1
7
3
5
5
2
10
11
3
6
9
1
8
4
1
2
5
10
4
9
8
5
4
6
3
5
1
6
3
9
2
12
15
11
13
8
5
13
20
10
7
7
6
1
2
4
2
2
3
1
3
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
FRI
AVERAGE
MID-
06/15/12 WEEKDAY*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
2
2
5
2
4
7
0
5
4
6
6
4
0
5
9
7
1
4
4
5
6
6
6
8
4
5
4
3
4
5
7
8
2
4
4
6
6
5
2
3
5
7
2
7
8
11
7
10
6
5
4
5
5
7
7
7
2
4
2
4
7
4
4
3
6
5
2
5
2
5
7
5
15
15
17
14
6
9
15
9
7
11
8
8
10
9
13
20
10
9
8
6
7
6
4
6
2
2
3
1
0
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
318
337
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
HOURLY
HOURLY MID- AVERAGE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
6
12
16
20
22
20
22
20
21
22
23
24
22
21
21
20
23
23
18
21
22
28
35
33
31
27
24
23
22
19
15
16
17
18
20
30
39
43
47
43
37
37
48
46
44
41
27
20
15
11
7
6
6
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
3
1
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
5
7
6
5
4
2
5
6
7
8
5
4
3
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
0
2
4
5
6
4
3
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6. Green Mountain Dr SB between Arrowhead Ln & Fonda Rd.xls
EFlow Map
Appendix APPENDIX
E:
Traffic
Traffic Flow Map
1478
ColonieLandfillModificationTrafficImpactStudy
2012ExistingConditionTrafficVolumes
WeekdayAMPeakHour(7:15AM8:15AM)
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
15
0
7
46
46
6
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
32
8
56
258
1424
0
2
0
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
30
233
1493
233
9
24
12
31
18
17
NottoScale
SIMCOEngineeringP.C.
ShelterCovePudTripAssignment
22
5
15
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
35
5
15
15
5
22
96
2
0
0
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
38
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
104
37
13
0
2
0
7
NottoScale
MohawkRiverfrontTripAssignment
26
26
50
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
50
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
25
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
47
26
50
Mohawk
Riverfront
Development
0
2
0
3
NottoScale
NorthernPassTripAssignment
9
9
0
0
5
0
0
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
0
NorthernPass
Development
FondaRoad
0
1
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
0
1
0
2
NottoScale
DrivewayRelocationTrafficDetour(2012volume)
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
9
30
0
0
9
9
24
30
30
FondaRoad
33
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
39
0
0
33
39
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
33
0
0
15
21
15
0
0
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
24
9
24
0
0
39
0
NottoScale
0
9
21
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
5
5
FondaRoad
0
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
21
2017LandfillConstructionTripAssignment
NottoScale
21
2021&2038LandfillConstructionTripAssignment
GreenMountainD
5
5
9
FondaRoad
10
LoudonRoad/Rt9
21
30
0
0
10
30
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
10
0
21
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
21
0
0
0
0
30
0
NottoScale
1556
2017NoBuildConditionTrafficVolumes
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
30
292
35
12
57
48
331
FondaRoad
43
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
15
0
7
46
0
ArrowheadLane
0
2
0
22
96
1573
305
1563
15
15
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
1589
307
9
24
12
36
18
29
NottoScale
1577
2017BuildConditionTrafficVolumes
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
39
292
35
12
57
48
340
FondaRoad
43
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
15
0
7
46
0
ArrowheadLane
0
2
0
22
96
1578
314
30
1568
15
15
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
1594
307
14
29
12
36
18
29
NottoScale
1564
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
30
293
35
12
58
48
333
FondaRoad
43
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
15
0
7
47
0
ArrowheadLane
0
2
0
22
96
1582
307
1572
15
15
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
1597
308
9
24
12
36
18
29
NottoScale
1585
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
307
35
26
87
88
302
FondaRoad
49
73
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
85
0
7
90
69
ArrowheadLane
0
2
0
43
22
96
1587
290
1577
15
15
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
1573
322
0
0
12
36
88
29
NottoScale
1601
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
31
299
35
12
59
50
339
FondaRoad
44
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
16
0
7
48
0
ArrowheadLane
0
2
0
22
96
1618
313
1608
15
15
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
1632
314
9
25
12
37
19
30
NottoScale
1622
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
313
35
26
89
90
308
FondaRoad
50
74
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
86
0
7
92
70
ArrowheadLane
0
2
0
44
22
96
1624
296
1614
15
15
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
1607
328
0
0
12
37
89
30
NottoScale
444
WeekdayMiddayPeakHour(12:00PM1:00PM)
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
28
0
2
32
33
FondaRoad
20
LoudonRoad/Rt9
24
18
46
415
453
0
2
2
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
33
423
27
454
423
18
37
6
23
15
27
NottoScale
23
10
10
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
27
22
6
8
22
23
29
1
0
0
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
36
29
29
0
1
0
1
NottoScale
87
87
86
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
86
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
79
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
79
87
86
Mohawk
Riverfront
Development
0
8
0
8
NottoScale
9
9
0
0
9
0
0
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
0
NorthernPass
Development
FondaRoad
0
1
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
0
1
0
1
NottoScale
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
33
18
18
37
33
33
FondaRoad
55
27
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
60
0
0
55
60
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
55
0
0
10
15
27
10
0
0
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
37
18
18
37
0
0
60
0
NottoScale
10
10
10
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
10
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
10
10
10
FondaRoad
0
10
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
10
10
NottoScale
10
GreenMountainD
10
10
0
10
FondaRoad
20
LoudonRoad/Rt9
10
20
0
0
20
20
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
20
10
0
10
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
20
0
NottoScale
572
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
33
10
545
27
27
47
34
542
FondaRoad
20
33
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
28
0
2
32
0
ArrowheadLane
0
2
2
23
29
561
565
27
575
6
8
22
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
580
551
18
37
6
33
15
37
NottoScale
582
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
43
10
545
27
27
47
34
552
FondaRoad
20
33
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
28
0
2
32
0
ArrowheadLane
0
2
2
23
29
571
575
37
585
6
8
22
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
590
551
28
47
6
33
15
37
NottoScale
574
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
33
10
547
27
27
48
34
544
FondaRoad
20
33
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
28
0
2
32
0
ArrowheadLane
0
2
2
23
29
564
568
27
578
6
8
22
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
583
553
18
37
6
33
15
37
NottoScale
584
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
10
575
27
55
95
78
511
FondaRoad
96
70
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
109
0
2
108
81
ArrowheadLane
0
2
2
76
23
29
563
562
577
6
8
22
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
545
581
0
0
6
33
96
37
NottoScale
585
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
34
10
558
27
28
49
35
554
FondaRoad
21
34
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
29
0
2
33
0
ArrowheadLane
0
2
2
23
29
575
579
28
589
6
8
22
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
594
564
19
38
6
34
16
38
NottoScale
595
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
10
586
27
56
97
79
520
FondaRoad
98
72
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
111
0
2
110
82
ArrowheadLane
0
2
2
77
23
29
574
573
588
6
8
22
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
555
592
0
0
6
34
98
38
NottoScale
421
WeekdayPMPeakHour(4:45PM5:45PM)
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
48
0
2
19
44
FondaRoad
19
25
LoudonRoad/Rt9
21
136
68
1427
486
0
6
2
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
1479
429
1479
6
10
4
132
0
59
NottoScale
15
16
10
16
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
103
16
10
10
16
15
64
8
0
0
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
111
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
69
24
25
40
0
8
0
5
NottoScale
83
83
71
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
71
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
78
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
66
83
71
Mohawk
Riverfront
Development
0
6
0
5
NottoScale
7
7
0
0
9
0
0
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
0
NorthernPass
Development
0
FondaRoad
0
2
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
0
2
0
1
NottoScale
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
6
6
10
0
FondaRoad
16
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
0
16
2
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
16
0
0
8
0
8
0
0
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
10
6
10
0
0
2
0
NottoScale
0
5
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
21
9
FondaRoad
0
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
NottoScale
GreenMountainD
5
FondaRoad
30
LoudonRoad/Rt9
21
9
10
0
0
30
10
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
30
21
0
5
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
21
21
0
0
0
0
10
0
NottoScale
543
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
16
1594
103
151
70
46
1632
FondaRoad
19
25
31
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
48
0
2
19
0
ArrowheadLane
0
6
2
15
64
522
1595
528
10
10
16
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
633
24
1604
6
10
4
148
0
70
NottoScale
548
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
5
16
1594
103
151
70
46
1637
FondaRoad
19
25
31
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
48
0
2
19
0
ArrowheadLane
0
6
2
15
64
531
1600
537
10
10
16
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
642
24
1604
27
19
4
148
0
70
NottoScale
546
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
16
1603
103
151
71
46
1641
FondaRoad
19
25
31
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
49
0
2
19
0
ArrowheadLane
0
6
2
15
64
524
1604
530
10
10
16
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
636
24
1613
6
10
4
149
0
71
NottoScale
551
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
16
1630
103
178
90
51
1641
FondaRoad
19
72
38
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
61
0
2
65
12
ArrowheadLane
0
6
2
46
15
64
521
1631
527
10
10
16
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
626
24
1640
0
0
4
149
12
71
NottoScale
556
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
16
1639
103
155
72
47
1675
FondaRoad
20
26
31
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
50
0
2
20
0
ArrowheadLane
0
6
2
15
64
534
1640
540
10
10
16
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
648
24
1649
6
10
4
152
0
72
NottoScale
561
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
16
1666
103
182
92
52
1675
FondaRoad
20
73
39
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
62
0
2
66
12
ArrowheadLane
0
6
2
47
15
64
531
1667
537
10
10
16
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
637
24
1676
0
0
4
152
12
72
NottoScale
420
SaturdayMiddayPeakHour(12:15PM1:15PM)
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
0
4
30
3
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
20
14
19
572
604
0
0
1
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
75
495
15
492
495
11
87
1
32
2
48
NottoScale
36
15
11
15
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
43
36
9
11
36
36
43
4
0
0
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
54
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
50
12
45
48
0
4
0
4
NottoScale
55
55
53
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
53
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
50
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
48
55
53
Mohawk
Riverfront
Development
0
5
0
5
NottoScale
10
10
0
0
11.7
0
0
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
11.7
10
12
0
0
NorthernPass
Development
10
FondaRoad
0
1.3
11.7
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
0
1.3
0
1
NottoScale
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
75
11
11
87
75
75
FondaRoad
98
15
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
90
0
0
98
90
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
98
0
0
72
64
15
72
0
0
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
87
11
11
87
0
0
90
0
NottoScale
10
10
10
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
10
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
10
10
10
FondaRoad
0
10
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
10
10
NottoScale
10
GreenMountainD
10
10
0
10
FondaRoad
20
LoudonRoad/Rt9
10
20
0
0
20
20
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
20
10
0
10
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
20
0
NottoScale
535
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
76
15
600
43
23
20
31
690
FondaRoad
29
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
0
4
0
ArrowheadLane
0
0
1
36
43
571
654
15
596
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
718
12
609
11
88
1
43
2
58
NottoScale
545
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
86
15
600
43
23
20
31
700
FondaRoad
29
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
0
4
0
ArrowheadLane
0
0
1
36
43
581
664
25
606
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
728
12
609
21
98
1
43
2
58
NottoScale
538
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
76
15
603
43
23
21
32
694
FondaRoad
29
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
0
4
0
ArrowheadLane
0
0
1
36
43
574
658
15
599
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
721
12
612
11
88
1
43
2
59
NottoScale
548
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
15
624
43
44
119
117
618
FondaRoad
122
54
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
114
0
0
123
111
ArrowheadLane
0
0
1
119
36
43
511
603
536
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
633
12
633
0
0
1
43
113
59
NottoScale
548
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
78
15
615
43
24
21
32
708
FondaRoad
30
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
0
4
0
ArrowheadLane
0
0
1
36
43
586
671
16
611
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
736
12
624
11
90
1
43
2
60
NottoScale
558
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
15
636
43
45
121
120
630
FondaRoad
125
55
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
116
0
0
126
113
ArrowheadLane
0
0
1
122
36
43
521
615
546
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
646
12
645
0
0
1
43
115
60
NottoScale
382
SaturdayPMPeakHour(4:00PM5:00PM)
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
1
3
16
1
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
13
17
20
420
401
0
1
0
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
391
382
391
0
0
3
40
0
28
NottoScale
36
15
11
15
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
43
36
9
11
36
36
43
4
0
0
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
54
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
50
12
45
48
0
4
0
4
NottoScale
55
55
53
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
53
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
50
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
48
55
53
Mohawk
Riverfront
Development
0
5
0
5
NottoScale
10
10
0
0
12
0
0
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
12
10
12
0
0
NorthernPass
Development
10
FondaRoad
0
1.3
12
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
0
1.3
0
1
NottoScale
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
0
0
0
FondaRoad
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
0
0
0
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
0
0
0
0
0
0
NottoScale
0
5
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
21
9
FondaRoad
0
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
ArrowheadLane
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
NottoScale
GreenMountainD
5
FondaRoad
30
LoudonRoad/Rt9
21
9
10
0
0
30
10
ArrowheadLane
0
0
0
30
21
0
5
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
21
21
0
0
0
0
10
0
NottoScale
497
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
15
495
43
26
21
17
537
FondaRoad
22
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
1
3
0
ArrowheadLane
0
1
0
36
43
460
474
485
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
514
12
504
0
0
3
51
0
38
NottoScale
502
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
5
15
495
43
26
21
17
542
FondaRoad
22
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
1
3
0
ArrowheadLane
0
1
0
36
43
469
479
494
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
523
12
504
21
9
3
51
0
38
NottoScale
499
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
15
497
43
26
22
17
540
FondaRoad
22
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
1
3
0
ArrowheadLane
0
1
0
36
43
462
476
487
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
516
12
506
0
0
3
51
0
38
NottoScale
504
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
15
518
43
47
31
22
540
FondaRoad
31
27
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
16
0
1
33
10
ArrowheadLane
0
1
0
30
36
43
467
497
492
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
516
12
527
0
0
3
51
10
38
NottoScale
509
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
15
507
43
27
22
18
550
FondaRoad
22
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
0
1
3
0
ArrowheadLane
0
1
0
36
43
472
486
497
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
526
12
516
0
0
3
52
0
39
NottoScale
514
Colonie
Landfill
Project
Site
0
15
528
43
48
31
23
550
FondaRoad
31
27
LoudonRoad/Rt9
GreenMountainD
16
0
1
33
10
ArrowheadLane
0
1
0
30
36
43
477
507
502
9
11
36
Shelter
Cove
Development
Site
526
12
537
0
0
3
52
10
39
NottoScale
Intersection Los
APPENDIX
F Summary Tables
Intersection Los Summary Tables
Appendix F:
Traffic Impact Analysis

Colonie Landfill
Cohoes, Albany, New York
Appendix F
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY - WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR (7:15 AM - 8:15 AM)
2012 Existing
NO.
1.
INTERSECTION
Movement
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
0.15
20.8
0.02
9.6
2017 No-Build
LOS
2021 No-Build
2017 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2021 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 Build
V/C
DELAY
LOS
V/C
Ratio
(sec/veh)
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
LOS
0.16
22.7
0.20
23.7
0.16
22.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.17
23.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
9.9
0.04
10.0
0.02
10.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
10.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Landfill Driveway Exit @ Loudon Road/Route 9
(U)
Landfill Driveway Exit WB

Loudon Road NB
SB
T
T
Intersection
2.
(U)
Landfill Driveway Ent @ Loudon Road/Route 9

Shelter Cove Driveway North EB
Loudon Road NB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.21
35.7
0.23
38.8
0.22
35.9
0.21
35.4
0.23
37.9
0.22
37.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
16.4
0.02
16.5
0.02
16.5
0.02
16.5
0.02
17.0
0.02
17.0
0.03
8.2
0.01
8.4
0.04
8.5
0.01
8.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.01
8.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
LR
0.16
23.3
0.18
23.5
0.18
23.5
0.18
23.5
0.31
24.6
0.18
23.5
0.28
24.3
TR
0.17
8.8
0.22
9.1
0.23
9.1
0.22
9.1
0.24
9.2
0.23
9.1
0.24
9.2
0.09
8.4
0.13
8.6
0.13
8.6
0.13
8.6
0.22
9.2
0.13
8.6
0.28
9.7
0.83
18.2
0.93
25.1
0.93
25.4
0.93
25.7
0.92
24.1
0.95
28.5
0.88
20.7
16.7
21.8
22.1
22.3
20.9
24.5
18.1
0.02
7.4
0.02
7.4
0.02
7.4
0.02
7.4
0.10
7.6
0.02
7.4
0.06
7.5
0.02
9.0
0.02
9.1
0.02
9.1
0.02
9.1
0.10
9.3
0.02
9.1
0.06
8.9
T
R
SB
L
T
Intersection
3.
Fonda Road @ Loudon Road/Route 9
(S)
Fonda Road WB
Loudon Road/Route 9
NB
SB
Intersection
4.
Fonda Road @ Green Mountain Drive
(U)
Fonda Road EB
LT
Green Mountain Drive WB
TR
SB
LR
Intersection
5.
Green Mountain Drive @ Arrowhead Lane
(U)
Arrowhead Lane EB
LT
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
8.7
7.7
9.3
WB
LTR
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.5
8.0
8.5
Green Mountain Drive NB
LTR
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
10.1
8.4
9.9
SB
LTR
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.5
7.1
7.6
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
9.4
7.9
9.5
Intersection
7.
(U)
Shelter Cove Driveway South @ Loudon Road/Route 9

Shelter Cove Driveway South EB
Loudon Road NB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.54
37.3
0.55
37.8
0.55
38.1
0.55
37.8
0.57
40.6
0.57
40.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.11
16.6
0.11
16.6
0.11
16.7
0.11
16.6
0.11
17.2
0.11
17.3
Intersection
U - Unsignalized Intersection
S- Signalized Intersection
N/A - HCS results indicated as "N/A" when Shelter Cove driveways were not exist in 2012 Existing condition and the existing Solid Waste driveways were relocated in 2021 and 2038 Build conditions.

Colonie Landfill
Appendix F
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY - WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR (12:00 PM - 1:00 PM)
2012 Existing
NO.
1.
INTERSECTION
Movement
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2017 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2017 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2021 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2021 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
LOS
(U)

Loudon Road NB
SB
0.11
15.2
0.14
18.0
0.17
18.6
0.14
18.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.14
18.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
10.6
0.04
11.4
0.06
11.5
0.04
11.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.04
11.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
T
T
Intersection
2.
(U)

Loudon Road NB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.03
13.3
0.03
13.8
0.03
13.4
0.03
12.7
0.03
13.5
0.03
12.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.01
9.1
0.01
9.2
0.01
9.1
0.01
9.1
0.01
9.2
0.01
9.2
0.05
9.1
0.06
9.7
0.08
9.9
0.06
9.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.06
9.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
T
R
SB
L
T
Intersection
3.
(S)
Fonda Road WB
Loudon Road/Route 9
NB
SB
LR
0.22
23.8
0.25
24.1
0.25
24.1
0.26
24.2
0.55
27.7
0.27
24.3
0.57
28.2
TR
0.25
9.3
0.33
9.8
0.33
9.8
0.33
9.8
0.36
10.0
0.34
9.8
0.35
9.9
0.12
8.6
11.4
11.7
0.28
0.20
9.1
0.20
9.2
0.20
9.1
0.44
9.4
0.36
10.0
0.36
10.1
0.36
10.0
0.34
10.5
10.9
10.9
10.9
0.01
7.4
0.01
7.5
0.01
7.5
0.01
7.5
0.06
9.0
0.06
9.1
0.06
9.1
0.06
9.1
Intersection
4.
0.21
9.2
0.47
9.9
0.37
10.1
0.34
12.5
11.0
0.08
7.6
0.01
7.5
0.21
9.8
0.06
9.1
9.8
12.5
0.08
7.6
0.22
10.0
(U)
Fonda Road EB
LT
TR
SB
LR
Intersection
5.
(U)
Arrowhead Lane EB
LTR
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
8.8
7.6
8.8
WB
LTR
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.6
8.1
8.7
LTR
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
10.3
8.5
10.4
SB
LTR
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.5
7.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
9.6
8.1
9.7
Intersection
7.
(U)

Loudon Road NB
EB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.11
13.1
0.11
13.2
0.11
13.2
0.11
13.1
0.11
13.3
0.11
13.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.03
9.0
0.03
9.0
0.03
9.1
0.03
9.0
0.03
9.1
0.03
9.1
Intersection

Colonie Landfill
Appendix F
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY - WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR (4:45 PM - 5:45 PM)
2012 Existing
NO.
1.
INTERSECTION
Movement
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2017 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2017 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2021 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2021 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
LOS
(U)

Loudon Road NB
SB
0.15
37.1
0.18
44.9
0.35
54.1
0.18
45.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.04
18.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.04
16.3
0.04
17.6
0.18
19.7
0.04
17.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.19
47.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
T
T
Intersection
2.
(U)

Loudon Road NB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.06
15.7
0.06
16.6
0.06
15.8
0.06
15.7
0.06
16.1
0.06
15.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
8.9
0.02
8.9
0.02
8.9
0.02
8.8
0.02
8.9
0.02
8.9
0.02
13.9
0.02
15.0
0.08
15.6
0.02
15.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
15.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
T
R
SB
L
T
Intersection
3.
(S)
Fonda Road WB
Loudon Road/Route 9
NB
SB
LR
0.34
24.9
0.38
25.3
0.38
25.3
0.38
25.4
0.49
26.6
0.39
25.5
0.50
26.6
TR
0.80
17.1
0.92
24.0
0.92
24.3
0.92
24.6
0.93
25.2
0.94
27.0
0.95
27.7
0.48
0.26
Intersection
4.
15.0
0.49
9.4
0.34
15.9
15.3
0.49
15.3
0.49
9.9
0.35
10.0
0.35
20.5
20.6
0.00
0.0
0.08
10.4
15.3
0.61
9.9
0.34
20.8
24.1
0.49
15.3
0.62
9.9
0.35
10.0
0.35
21.7
22.5
0.00
0.0
0.09
10.4
25.3
9.9
23.3
(U)
Fonda Road EB
LT
TR
SB
LR
0.00
0.0
0.08
10.1
0.00
0.0
0.08
10.4
0.00
0.0
0.08
10.4
0.01
7.7
0.15
10.6
0.01
7.7
0.16
10.6
Intersection
5.
(U)
Arrowhead Lane EB
LTR
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
8.5
7.7
8.5
WB
LTR
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.5
8.3
8.5
LTR
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.8
9.3
8.8
9.3
SB
LTR
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.2
7.5
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.7
8.4
8.8
Intersection
7.
(U)

Loudon Road NB
EB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.18
14.4
0.18
14.5
0.18
14.5
0.18
14.5
0.19
14.7
0.19
14.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.12
9.2
0.12
9.3
0.12
9.2
0.12
9.2
0.12
9.3
0.12
9.3
Intersection

Colonie Landfill
Appendix F
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY - SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR (12:45 PM - 1:45 PM)
2012 Existing
NO.
1.
INTERSECTION
Movement
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2017 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2017 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2021 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2021 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
LOS
(U)

Loudon Road NB
SB
0.26
16.6
0.30
19.3
0.34
20.2
0.30
19.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.32
19.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
10.5
0.02
11.1
0.05
11.2
0.02
11.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
11.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
T
T
Intersection
2.
(U)

Loudon Road NB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.05
14.0
0.05
14.6
0.04
13.4
0.04
12.4
0.05
13.6
0.04
12.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
9.1
0.02
9.1
0.02
9.1
0.02
8.9
0.02
9.1
0.02
8.9
0.04
9.7
0.04
10.3
0.07
10.5
0.04
10.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.05
10.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
T
R
SB
L
T
Intersection
3.
(S)
Fonda Road WB
Loudon Road/Route 9
NB
SB
LR
0.08
22.7
0.11
22.9
0.11
22.9
0.11
22.9
0.46
26.2
0.12
23.0
0.44
26.0
TR
0.31
9.7
0.38
10.2
0.38
10.2
0.38
10.2
0.39
10.3
0.39
10.2
0.38
10.2
0.06
8.2
9.0
0.32
0.09
8.4
0.09
8.4
0.09
8.4
0.18
9.7
0.38
10.2
0.38
10.2
0.38
10.2
0.33
10.1
10.6
10.6
10.6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.01
8.9
0.01
9.0
0.01
9.0
0.01
9.0
Intersection
4.
0.10
8.5
0.20
9.8
0.39
10.3
0.34
12.2
10.7
0.15
7.7
0.00
0.0
0.18
9.6
0.01
9.0
9.2
9.9
12.0
(U)
Fonda Road EB
LT
TR
SB
LR
0.15
7.8
0.18
9.7
Intersection
5.
(U)
Arrowhead Lane EB
LTR
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
8.6
6.3
8.7
WB
LTR
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
8.2
7.1
8.3
LTR
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
10.6
7.2
10.7
SB
LTR
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.8
6.9
7.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
9.7
6.8
9.8
Intersection
7.
(U)

Loudon Road NB
EB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.18
14.5
0.19
14.7
0.18
14.6
0.17
13.8
0.19
14.8
0.17
13.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.05
9.0
0.05
9.1
0.05
9.0
0.05
8.8
0.05
9.1
0.05
8.8
Intersection

Colonie Landfill
Appendix F
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY - SATURDAY PM PEAK HOUR (4:00 PM - 5:00 PM)
2012 Existing
NO.
1.
INTERSECTION
Movement
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2017 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2017 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2021 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2021 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 No-Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
2038 Build
LOS
V/C
DELAY
Ratio
(sec/veh)
LOS
(U)

Loudon Road NB
SB
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.02
13.3
0.00
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.03
9.9
0.00
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
T
T
Intersection
2.
(U)

Loudon Road NB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.04
11.8
0.04
12.0
0.04
11.8
0.04
11.9
0.04
11.9
0.04
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02
8.6
0.02
8.6
0.01
8.6
0.01
8.6
0.02
8.6
0.02
8.6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
LR
0.09
22.7
0.13
23.0
0.13
23.0
0.13
23.1
0.23
23.9
0.13
23.1
0.23
23.9
TR
0.24
9.2
0.30
9.6
0.30
9.6
0.30
9.6
0.31
9.6
0.31
9.7
0.31
9.7
0.06
8.2
0.13
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.9
8.7
8.9
0.21
9.0
0.27
9.7
0.00
0.0
0.01
8.7
T
R
SB
L
T
Intersection
3.
(S)
Fonda Road WB
Loudon Road/Route 9
NB
SB
Intersection
4.
0.13
9.4
0.27
10.1
0.13
9.4
0.27
10.1
0.00
0.0
0.01
8.8
0.16
9.4
0.27
10.1
0.00
0.0
0.01
8.8
0.13
9.4
0.28
10.7
0.00
0.0
0.01
8.8
0.16
9.4
0.28
10.2
0.01
7.3
0.00
0.0
0.13
9.1
0.01
8.9
9.4
10.7
0.01
7.3
0.13
9.1
(U)
Fonda Road EB
LT
TR
SB
LR
Intersection
5.
(U)
Arrowhead Lane EB
LTR
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.6
WB
LTR
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
LTR
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.9
SB
LTR
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.0
Intersection
7.
(U)

Loudon Road NB
EB
LR
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.16
13.0
0.16
13.1
0.16
13.0
0.16
13.1
0.16
13.1
0.16
13.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.04
8.6
0.04
8.7
0.04
8.6
0.04
8.6
0.04
8.7
0.04
8.7
Intersection
APPENDIX
G
HCS Analysis Worksheets
HCS Analysis Worksheets
Appendix G:
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d

_______________________TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY___________________________
Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
SIMCO Engineering P.C.
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM (7:15 - 8:15)
Intersection:
S Waste Dr Exit @ Loudon Rd
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
Project ID: Colonie Landfill TIS
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Intersection Orientation: NS
Study period (hrs):
0.25
______________________Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments_________________________

Major Street: Approach
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
307
1556
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
0.86
0.87
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
356
1788
Percent Heavy Vehicles
----Median Type/Storage
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Minor Street: Approach
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
24
9
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
0.61
0.50
39
18
24
33
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service___________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
39
18
C(m) (vph)
242
746
v/c
0.16
0.02
95% queue length
0.56
0.07
Control Delay
22.7
9.9
LOS
C
A
Approach Delay
18.7
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Solid Waste Dr Ent @ Loudon Rd
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Entrance
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
5
292
30
9
1563
8
0.92
0.86
0.79
0.75
0.87
0.92
5
339
37
12
1796
8
6
--17
--Median Type/Storage
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
15
0.92
0.92
16
16
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
5
12
32
C(m) (vph)
321
1078
149
v/c
0.02
0.01
0.21
95% queue length
0.05
0.03
0.78
Control Delay
16.4
8.4
35.7
LOS
C
A
E
Approach Delay
35.7
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1f

Analyst: Joe Nieciak
Agency: SIMCO Engineering P.C.
Date:
11/5/2014
Period: Weekday AM (7:15 - 8:15)
E/W St: Fonda Rd
Inter.: Fonda Rd @ Loudon Rd/Rte 9

Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2017 No Build
N/S St: Loudon Rd/ Rte 9
_________________________SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY_______________________

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|57
12
|
331 48
|43
1589
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
4
|
23
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
______________________________Signal Operations________________________________
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
____________________Intersection Performance Summary___________________________
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
Flow Rate __________
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
450
1567
0.18
0.29
23.5
23.5
1828
3180
0.22
0.57
9.1
9.1
Southbound
L
514
T
1970
894
3428
0.13
0.93
0.57
0.57
8.6
25.1
A
C
24.5
Northbound
TR
Intersection Delay = 21.8
(sec/veh)
Intersection LOS = C
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Fonda Rd @ Green Mountain Dr
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Intersection Orientation: EW
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
18
29
36
12
0.59
0.64
0.55
0.54
30
45
65
22
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
6
0.25
0.58
8
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
30
18
C(m) (vph)
1522
894
v/c
0.02
0.02
95% queue length
0.06
0.06
Control Delay
7.4
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Simco Engineering, P.C.
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:
___________________ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Green Mountain Dr @ Arrowhead
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
_________Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics____________
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
7
46
|0
2
0
|15
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.73
72
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
30
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
___________Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet______________

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
72
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
63
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Prop. Right-Turns 0.9
Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.5
Geometry Group
1
Adjustments Exhibit 17-33:
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
30
30
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
_______________Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time_______________
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
72
3.20
3.20
0.06
4.32
0.09
2.0
2.3
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
4.91
0.01
2.9
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
30
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.14
0.04
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.12
0.00
2.0
2.1
_______________Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service____________________

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
72
8
30
0
Service Time
2.3
2.9
3.1
2.1
Utilization, x
0.09
0.01
0.04
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.32
4.91
5.14
4.12
Capacity
322
258
280
0
Delay
7.72
7.96
8.37
7.12
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.72
7.96
8.37
7.12
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection Delay 7.92
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
New Driveway @ Loudon Rd
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
35
305
1573
5
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
38
331
1709
5
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
22
96
0.92
0.92
23
104
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
38
127
C(m) (vph)
349
234
v/c
0.11
0.54
95% queue length
0.36
2.92
Control Delay
16.6
37.3
LOS
C
E
Approach Delay
37.3
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Analysis Time Period: Weekday Midday (12:00 - 13:00)
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
551
572
0.88
0.86
626
665
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
37
18
0.84
0.81
44
22
30
38
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
44
22
C(m) (vph)
321
587
v/c
0.14
0.04
95% queue length
0.47
0.12
Control Delay
18.0
11.4
LOS
C
B
Approach Delay
15.8
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
545
33
27
575
7
0.92
0.88
0.75
0.59
0.86
0.92
10
619
44
45
668
7
6
--21
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
6
8
0.92
0.92
6
8
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
10
45
14
C(m) (vph)
886
805
446
v/c
0.01
0.06
0.03
95% queue length
0.03
0.18
0.10
Control Delay
9.1
9.7
13.3
LOS
A
A
B
Approach Delay
13.3
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1e

Date:
11/5/2014
Period: Weekday Midday (12:00 - 13:00)
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|47
27
|
542 34
|33
580
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
9
|
16
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
428
1490
0.25
0.29
24.1
24.1
1909
3321
0.33
0.57
9.8
9.8
Southbound
L
388
T
1933
675
3363
0.20
0.36
0.57
0.57
9.1
10.0+
A
B
9.9
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
Intersection LOS = B
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
37
33
6
0.80
0.48
0.69
0.58
18
77
47
10
13
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
20
0.50
0.55
18
36
0
9
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
18
54
C(m) (vph)
1480
929
v/c
0.01
0.06
95% queue length
0.04
0.18
Control Delay
7.5
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
32
|2
2
0
|28
4
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.75
44
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.61
51
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
44
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
42
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
4
0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
51
45
0
0.9
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
44
3.20
3.20
0.04
4.33
0.05
2.0
2.3
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
5.04
0.01
3.0
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
51
3.20
3.20
0.05
5.05
0.07
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.08
0.00
2.0
2.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
44
8
51
0
Service Time
2.3
3.0
3.1
2.1
Utilization, x
0.05
0.01
0.07
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.33
5.04
5.05
4.08
Capacity
294
258
301
0
Delay
7.57
8.09
8.44
7.08
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.57
8.09
8.44
7.08
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
27
565
561
22
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
29
614
609
23
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
23
29
0.92
0.92
24
31
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
29
55
C(m) (vph)
920
497
v/c
0.03
0.11
95% queue length
0.10
0.37
Control Delay
9.0
13.1
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.1
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM (16:45 - 17:45)
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1604
543
0.92
0.93
1743
583
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
6
0.50
0.50
20
12
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
20
12
C(m) (vph)
110
298
v/c
0.18
0.04
95% queue length
0.63
0.13
Control Delay
44.9
17.6
LOS
E
C
Approach Delay
34.6
Approach LOS
D
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
16
1594
0
2
528
24
0.92
0.92
0.79
0.25
0.93
0.92
17
1732
0
8
567
26
6
--0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
10
0.92
0.92
10
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
17
8
20
C(m) (vph)
952
369
355
v/c
0.02
0.02
0.06
95% queue length
0.05
0.07
0.18
Control Delay
8.9
15.015.7
LOS
A
B
C
Approach Delay
15.7
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
Period: Weekday PM (16:45 - 17:45)
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|70
151 |
1632 46
|31
633
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
68
|
22
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
469
1632
0.38
0.29
25.3
25.3
1982
3449
0.92
0.57
24.0
24.0
Southbound
L
84
T
1951
147
3395
0.49
0.34
0.57
0.57
15.3
9.9
B
A
10.2
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
0
70
148
4
1.00
0.57
0.71
0.50
0
122
208
8
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
19
25
0.56
0.84
33
29
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
0
62
C(m) (vph)
1366
734
v/c
0.00
0.08
95% queue length
0.00
0.28
Control Delay
7.6
10.4
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
10.4
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
19
|2
6
0
|48
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.46
45
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
32
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.65
73
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
45
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
41
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
32
8
0
0.3
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
73
73
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
45
3.20
3.20
0.04
4.44
0.06
2.0
2.4
Westbound
L1
L2
32
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.05
0.04
2.0
3.1
Northbound
L1
L2
73
3.20
3.20
0.06
5.14
0.10
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.18
0.00
2.0
2.2

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
45
32
73
0
Service Time
2.4
3.1
3.1
2.2
Utilization, x
0.06
0.04
0.10
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.44
5.05
5.14
4.18
Capacity
295
282
323
0
Delay
7.71
8.29
8.74
7.18
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.71
8.29
8.74
7.18
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
103
1595
522
16
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
111
1733
567
17
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
64
0.92
0.92
16
69
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
111
85
C(m) (vph)
960
467
v/c
0.12
0.18
95% queue length
0.39
0.66
Control Delay
9.2
14.4
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.4
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday (12:15 -13:15)
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
609
535
0.88
0.92
692
581
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
88
11
0.80
0.75
109
14
2
17
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
109
14
C(m) (vph)
359
608
v/c
0.30
0.02
95% queue length
1.26
0.07
Control Delay
19.3
11.1
LOS
C
B
Approach Delay
18.4
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
600
76
15
596
12
0.92
0.88
0.95
0.50
0.92
0.92
16
681
80
30
647
13
6
--25
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
11
9
0.92
0.92
11
9
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
30
20
C(m) (vph)
898
712
420
v/c
0.02
0.04
0.05
95% queue length
0.05
0.13
0.15
Control Delay
9.1
10.3
14.0
LOS
A
B
B
Approach Delay
14.0
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
Period: Saturday Midday (12:15 -13:15)
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|20
23
|
690 31
|29
718
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
7
|
15
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
481
1675
0.11
0.29
22.9
22.9
2002
3484
0.38
0.57
10.2
10.2
Southbound
L
353
T
1990
614
3462
0.09
0.38
0.57
0.57
8.4
10.2
A
B
10.1
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
58
43
1
0.50
0.91
0.77
0.25
4
63
55
4
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
3
0.25
0.75
8
4
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
4
12
C(m) (vph)
1558
913
v/c
0.00
0.01
95% queue length
0.01
0.04
Control Delay
7.3
9.0
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.0
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
0
4
|1
0
0
|3
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
8
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.38
7
0
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
8
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
8
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
4
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
7
7
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.6
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
3.32
0.01
1.3
3.20
2.0
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
4.12
0.00
2.1
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
7
3.20
3.20
0.01
4.12
0.01
2.0
2.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
2.0
1.9

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
8
4
7
0
Service Time
1.3
2.1
2.1
1.9
Utilization, x
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.32
4.12
4.12
3.93
Capacity
258
254
257
0
Delay
6.34
7.14
7.16
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.34
7.14
7.16
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
654
571
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
710
620
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
939
462
v/c
0.05
0.18
95% queue length
0.15
0.67
Control Delay
9.0
14.5
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.5
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Analysis Time Period: Saturday PM (16:00 - 17:00)
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
495
0
0
485
12
0.92
0.99
0.91
0.92
0.89
0.92
16
499
0
0
544
13
0
--0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
0.92
0.92
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
0
20
C(m) (vph)
1024
1075
547
v/c
0.02
0.00
0.04
95% queue length
0.05
0.00
0.11
Control Delay
8.6
8.3
11.8
LOS
A
A
B
Approach Delay
11.8
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
Period: Saturday PM (16:00 - 17:00)
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|21
26
|
537 17
|22
514
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
8
|
8
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
479
1666
0.13
0.29
23.0
23.0
2003
3486
0.30
0.57
9.6
9.6
Southbound
L
431
T
2010
750
3497
0.13
0.27
0.57
0.57
8.6
9.4
A
A
9.3
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
0
38
51
3
1.00
0.68
0.88
0.38
0
55
57
7
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1
1
0.25
0.25
4
4
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
0
8
C(m) (vph)
1551
944
v/c
0.00
0.01
95% queue length
0.00
0.03
Control Delay
7.3
8.8
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
8.8
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
1
3
|0
1
0
|6
1
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
8
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.58
11
29
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
8
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
6
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
11
10
0
0.9
0.0
0.3
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.5
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
0.7
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
3.48
0.01
1.5
3.20
2.0
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
1.9
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
11
3.20
3.20
0.01
4.60
0.01
2.0
2.6
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
2.0
1.9

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
8
4
11
0
Service Time
1.5
1.9
2.6
1.9
Utilization, x
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.48
3.93
4.60
3.93
Capacity
258
254
261
0
Delay
6.51
6.95
7.66
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.51
6.95
7.66
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 No Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
474
460
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
515
499
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
1040
536
v/c
0.04
0.16
95% queue length
0.14
0.56
Control Delay
8.6
13.0
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.0
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
302
1577
0.86
0.87
351
1812
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
29
14
0.61
0.50
47
28
24
33
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
47
28
C(m) (vph)
239
748
v/c
0.20
0.04
95% queue length
0.71
0.12
Control Delay
23.7
10.0LOS
C
A
Approach Delay
18.6
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f

Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
5
292
39
30
1568
8
0.92
0.86
0.79
0.75
0.87
0.92
5
339
49
40
1802
8
6
--17
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
15
0.92
0.92
16
16
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
5
40
32
C(m) (vph)
319
1067
138
v/c
0.02
0.04
0.23
95% queue length
0.05
0.12
0.85
Control Delay
16.5
8.5
38.8
LOS
C
A
E
Approach Delay
38.8
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1f

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2017 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|57
12
|
340 48
|43
1594
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
4
|
23
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
450
1567
0.18
0.29
23.5
23.5
1828
3181
0.23
0.57
9.1
9.1
Southbound
L
509
T
1970
885
3428
0.13
0.93
0.57
0.57
8.6
25.4
A
C
24.8
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
18
29
36
12
0.59
0.64
0.55
0.54
30
45
65
22
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
6
0.25
0.58
8
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
30
18
C(m) (vph)
1522
894
v/c
0.02
0.02
95% queue length
0.06
0.06
Control Delay
7.4
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
7
46
|0
2
0
|15
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.73
72
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
30
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
72
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
63
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
30
30
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
72
3.20
3.20
0.06
4.32
0.09
2.0
2.3
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
4.91
0.01
2.9
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
30
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.14
0.04
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.12
0.00
2.0
2.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
72
8
30
0
Service Time
2.3
2.9
3.1
2.1
Utilization, x
0.09
0.01
0.04
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.32
4.91
5.14
4.12
Capacity
322
258
280
0
Delay
7.72
7.96
8.37
7.12
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.72
7.96
8.37
7.12
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
35
314
1578
5
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
38
341
1715
5
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
22
96
0.92
0.92
23
104
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
38
127
C(m) (vph)
347
232
v/c
0.11
0.55
95% queue length
0.37
2.96
Control Delay
16.6
37.8
LOS
C
E
Approach Delay
37.8
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
551
582
0.88
0.86
626
676
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
47
28
0.84
0.81
55
34
30
38
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
55
34
C(m) (vph)
319
587
v/c
0.17
0.06
95% queue length
0.61
0.18
Control Delay
18.6
11.5
LOS
C
B
Approach Delay
15.9
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
545
43
37
585
7
0.92
0.88
0.75
0.59
0.86
0.92
10
619
57
62
680
7
6
--21
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
6
8
0.92
0.92
6
8
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
10
62
14
C(m) (vph)
876
795
424
v/c
0.01
0.08
0.03
95% queue length
0.03
0.25
0.10
Control Delay
9.2
9.9
13.8
LOS
A
A
B
Approach Delay
13.8
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2017 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|47
27
|
552 34
|33
590
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
9
|
16
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
428
1490
0.25
0.29
24.1
24.1
1909
3322
0.33
0.57
9.8
9.8
Southbound
L
383
T
1933
666
3363
0.20
0.36
0.57
0.57
9.2
10.1
A
B
10.0-
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
37
33
6
0.80
0.48
0.69
0.58
18
77
47
10
13
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
20
0.50
0.55
18
36
0
9
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
18
54
C(m) (vph)
1480
929
v/c
0.01
0.06
95% queue length
0.04
0.18
Control Delay
7.5
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
32
|2
2
0
|28
4
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.75
44
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.61
51
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
44
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
42
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
4
0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
51
45
0
0.9
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
44
3.20
3.20
0.04
4.33
0.05
2.0
2.3
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
5.04
0.01
3.0
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
51
3.20
3.20
0.05
5.05
0.07
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.08
0.00
2.0
2.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
44
8
51
0
Service Time
2.3
3.0
3.1
2.1
Utilization, x
0.05
0.01
0.07
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.33
5.04
5.05
4.08
Capacity
294
258
301
0
Delay
7.57
8.09
8.44
7.08
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.57
8.09
8.44
7.08
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
27
575
571
22
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
29
624
620
23
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
23
29
0.92
0.92
24
31
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
29
55
C(m) (vph)
911
492
v/c
0.03
0.11
95% queue length
0.10
0.38
Control Delay
9.1
13.2
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.2
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1604
548
0.92
0.93
1743
589
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
19
27
0.50
0.50
38
54
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
38
54
C(m) (vph)
110
298
v/c
0.35
0.18
95% queue length
1.37
0.65
Control Delay
54.1
19.7
LOS
F
C
Approach Delay
33.9
Approach LOS
D
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
16
1594
5
7
537
24
0.92
0.92
0.79
0.25
0.93
0.92
17
1732
6
28
577
26
6
--0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
10
0.92
0.92
10
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
17
28
20
C(m) (vph)
944
367
330
v/c
0.02
0.08
0.06
95% queue length
0.05
0.25
0.19
Control Delay
8.9
15.6
16.6
LOS
A
C
C
Approach Delay
16.6
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2017 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|70
151 |
1637 46
|31
642
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
68
|
22
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
469
1632
0.38
0.29
25.3
25.3
1982
3449
0.92
0.57
24.3
24.3
Southbound
L
84
T
1951
147
3395
0.49
0.35
0.57
0.57
15.3
10.0-
B
A
10.3
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
0
70
148
4
1.00
0.57
0.71
0.50
0
122
208
8
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
19
25
0.56
0.84
33
29
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
0
62
C(m) (vph)
1366
734
v/c
0.00
0.08
95% queue length
0.00
0.28
Control Delay
7.6
10.4
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
10.4
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
19
|2
6
0
|48
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.46
45
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
32
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.65
73
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
45
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
41
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
32
8
0
0.3
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
73
73
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
45
3.20
3.20
0.04
4.44
0.06
2.0
2.4
Westbound
L1
L2
32
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.05
0.04
2.0
3.1
Northbound
L1
L2
73
3.20
3.20
0.06
5.14
0.10
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.18
0.00
2.0
2.2

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
45
32
73
0
Service Time
2.4
3.1
3.1
2.2
Utilization, x
0.06
0.04
0.10
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.44
5.05
5.14
4.18
Capacity
295
282
323
0
Delay
7.71
8.29
8.74
7.18
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.71
8.29
8.74
7.18
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
103
1600
531
16
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
111
1739
577
17
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
64
0.92
0.92
16
69
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
111
85
C(m) (vph)
951
462
v/c
0.12
0.18
95% queue length
0.39
0.67
Control Delay
9.3
14.5
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.5
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
609
545
0.88
0.92
692
592
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
98
21
0.80
0.75
122
28
2
17
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
122
28
C(m) (vph)
358
608
v/c
0.34
0.05
95% queue length
1.48
0.14
Control Delay
20.2
11.2
LOS
C
B
Approach Delay
18.5
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
600
86
25
606
12
0.92
0.88
0.95
0.50
0.92
0.92
16
681
90
50
658
13
6
--25
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
11
9
0.92
0.92
11
9
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
50
20
C(m) (vph)
889
705
395
v/c
0.02
0.07
0.05
95% queue length
0.05
0.23
0.16
Control Delay
9.1
10.5
14.6
LOS
A
B
B
Approach Delay
14.6
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2017 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|20
23
|
700 31
|29
728
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
7
|
15
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
481
1675
0.11
0.29
22.9
22.9
2003
3485
0.38
0.57
10.2
10.2
Southbound
L
348
T
1990
605
3462
0.09
0.38
0.57
0.57
8.4
10.2
A
B
10.2
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
58
43
1
0.50
0.91
0.77
0.25
4
63
55
4
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
3
0.25
0.75
8
4
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
4
12
C(m) (vph)
1558
913
v/c
0.00
0.01
95% queue length
0.01
0.04
Control Delay
7.3
9.0
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.0
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
0
4
|1
0
0
|3
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
8
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.38
7
0
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
8
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
8
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
4
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
7
7
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.6
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
3.32
0.01
1.3
3.20
2.0
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
4.12
0.00
2.1
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
7
3.20
3.20
0.01
4.12
0.01
2.0
2.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
2.0
1.9

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
8
4
7
0
Service Time
1.3
2.1
2.1
1.9
Utilization, x
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.32
4.12
4.12
3.93
Capacity
258
254
257
0
Delay
6.34
7.14
7.16
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.34
7.14
7.16
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
664
581
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
721
631
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
930
456
v/c
0.05
0.19
95% queue length
0.16
0.68
Control Delay
9.1
14.7
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.7
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
504
502
0.99
0.89
509
564
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
21
0.92
0.92
9
22
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
9
22
C(m) (vph)
442
752
v/c
0.02
0.03
95% queue length
0.06
0.09
Control Delay
13.3
9.9
LOS
B
A
Approach Delay
10.9
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
495
5
5
494
12
0.92
0.99
0.91
0.92
0.89
0.92
16
499
5
5
555
13
0
--0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
0.92
0.92
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
5
20
C(m) (vph)
1014
1071
537
v/c
0.02
0.00
0.04
95% queue length
0.05
0.01
0.12
Control Delay
8.6
8.4
12.0
LOS
A
A
B
Approach Delay
12.0
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2017 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|21
26
|
542 17
|22
523
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
8
|
8
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
479
1666
0.13
0.29
23.0
23.0
2003
3486
0.30
0.57
9.6
9.6
Southbound
L
428
T
2010
744
3497
0.13
0.27
0.57
0.57
8.6
9.4
A
A
9.3
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
0
38
51
3
1.00
0.68
0.88
0.38
0
55
57
7
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1
1
0.25
0.25
4
4
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
0
8
C(m) (vph)
1551
944
v/c
0.00
0.01
95% queue length
0.00
0.03
Control Delay
7.3
8.8
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
8.8
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
1
3
|0
1
0
|6
1
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
8
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.58
11
29
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
8
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
6
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
11
10
0
0.9
0.0
0.3
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.5
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
0.7
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
3.48
0.01
1.5
3.20
2.0
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
1.9
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
11
3.20
3.20
0.01
4.60
0.01
2.0
2.6
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
2.0
1.9

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
8
4
11
0
Service Time
1.5
1.9
2.6
1.9
Utilization, x
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.48
3.93
4.60
3.93
Capacity
258
254
261
0
Delay
6.51
6.95
7.66
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.51
6.95
7.66
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2017 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
479
469
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
520
509
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
1032
531
v/c
0.04
0.16
95% queue length
0.14
0.57
Control Delay
8.7
13.1
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.1
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
308
1564
0.86
0.87
358
1797
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
24
9
0.61
0.50
39
18
24
33
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
39
18
C(m) (vph)
240
744
v/c
0.16
0.02
95% queue length
0.57
0.07
Control Delay
22.9
10.0LOS
C
A
Approach Delay
18.8
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
5
293
30
9
1572
8
0.92
0.86
0.79
0.75
0.87
0.92
5
340
37
12
1806
8
6
--17
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
15
0.92
0.92
16
16
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
5
12
32
C(m) (vph)
318
1077
148
v/c
0.02
0.01
0.22
95% queue length
0.05
0.03
0.79
Control Delay
16.5
8.4
35.9
LOS
C
A
E
Approach Delay
35.9
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|58
12
|
333 48
|43
1597
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
4
|
23
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
450
1567
0.18
0.29
23.5
23.5
1828
3180
0.22
0.57
9.1
9.1
Southbound
L
513
T
1970
892
3428
0.13
0.93
0.57
0.57
8.6
25.7
A
C
25.1
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
18
29
36
12
0.59
0.64
0.55
0.54
30
45
65
22
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
6
0.25
0.58
8
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
30
18
C(m) (vph)
1522
894
v/c
0.02
0.02
95% queue length
0.06
0.06
Control Delay
7.4
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
7
47
|0
2
0
|15
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.73
73
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
30
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
73
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
64
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
30
30
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
73
3.20
3.20
0.06
4.32
0.09
2.0
2.3
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
4.91
0.01
2.9
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
30
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.14
0.04
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.13
0.00
2.0
2.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
73
8
30
0
Service Time
2.3
2.9
3.1
2.1
Utilization, x
0.09
0.01
0.04
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.32
4.91
5.14
4.13
Capacity
323
258
280
0
Delay
7.73
7.96
8.37
7.13
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.73
7.96
8.37
7.13
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Shelter Cove Dr S @ Route 9
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Shelter Cove Driveway South
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd/Route 9
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
35
307
1582
5
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
38
333
1719
5
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
22
96
0.92
0.92
23
104
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
38
127
C(m) (vph)
346
231
v/c
0.11
0.55
95% queue length
0.37
2.98
Control Delay
16.7
38.1
LOS
C
E
Approach Delay
38.1
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
553
574
0.88
0.86
628
667
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
37
18
0.84
0.81
44
22
30
38
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
44
22
C(m) (vph)
320
586
v/c
0.14
0.04
95% queue length
0.47
0.12
Control Delay
18.0
11.4
LOS
C
B
Approach Delay
15.8
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
547
33
27
578
7
0.92
0.88
0.75
0.59
0.86
0.92
10
621
44
45
672
7
6
--21
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
6
8
0.92
0.92
6
8
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
10
45
14
C(m) (vph)
883
803
444
v/c
0.01
0.06
0.03
95% queue length
0.03
0.18
0.10
Control Delay
9.1
9.7
13.4
LOS
A
A
B
Approach Delay
13.4
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|48
27
|
544 34
|33
583
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
9
|
16
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
428
1490
0.26
0.29
24.2
24.2
1909
3321
0.33
0.57
9.8
9.8
Southbound
L
387
T
1933
674
3363
0.20
0.36
0.57
0.57
9.1
10.0+
A
B
9.9
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
37
33
6
0.80
0.48
0.69
0.58
18
77
47
10
13
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
20
0.50
0.55
18
36
0
9
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
18
54
C(m) (vph)
1480
929
v/c
0.01
0.06
95% queue length
0.04
0.18
Control Delay
7.5
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
32
|2
2
0
|28
4
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.75
44
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.61
51
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
44
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
42
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
4
0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
51
45
0
0.9
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
44
3.20
3.20
0.04
4.33
0.05
2.0
2.3
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
5.04
0.01
3.0
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
51
3.20
3.20
0.05
5.05
0.07
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.08
0.00
2.0
2.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
44
8
51
0
Service Time
2.3
3.0
3.1
2.1
Utilization, x
0.05
0.01
0.07
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.33
5.04
5.05
4.08
Capacity
294
258
301
0
Delay
7.57
8.09
8.44
7.08
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.57
8.09
8.44
7.08
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Hassan Hashmi
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
6/27/2012
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
27
568
564
22
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
29
617
613
23
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
23
29
0.92
0.92
24
31
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
29
55
C(m) (vph)
917
496
v/c
0.03
0.11
95% queue length
0.10
0.37
Control Delay
9.1
13.2
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.2
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1613
546
0.92
0.93
1753
587
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
6
0.50
0.50
20
12
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
20
12
C(m) (vph)
109
296
v/c
0.18
0.04
95% queue length
0.64
0.13
Control Delay
45.3
17.7
LOS
E
C
Approach Delay
34.9
Approach LOS
D
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
16
1603
0
2
530
24
0.92
0.92
0.79
0.25
0.93
0.92
17
1742
0
8
569
26
6
--0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
10
0.92
0.92
10
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
17
8
20
C(m) (vph)
950
366
353
v/c
0.02
0.02
0.06
95% queue length
0.05
0.07
0.18
Control Delay
8.9
15.1
15.8
LOS
A
C
C
Approach Delay
15.8
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|71
151 |
1641 46
|31
636
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
68
|
22
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
469
1633
0.38
0.29
25.4
25.4
1982
3449
0.92
0.57
24.6
24.6
Southbound
L
84
T
1951
147
3395
0.49
0.35
0.57
0.57
15.3
9.9
B
A
10.2
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
0
71
149
4
1.00
0.57
0.71
0.50
0
124
209
8
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
19
25
0.56
0.84
33
29
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
0
62
C(m) (vph)
1365
733
v/c
0.00
0.08
95% queue length
0.00
0.28
Control Delay
7.6
10.4
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
10.4
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
19
|2
6
0
|49
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.46
45
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
32
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.65
75
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
45
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
41
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
32
8
0
0.3
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
75
75
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
45
3.20
3.20
0.04
4.45
0.06
2.0
2.5
Westbound
L1
L2
32
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.06
0.04
2.0
3.1
Northbound
L1
L2
75
3.20
3.20
0.07
5.14
0.11
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.19
0.00
2.0
2.2

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
45
32
75
0
Service Time
2.5
3.1
3.1
2.2
Utilization, x
0.06
0.04
0.11
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.45
5.06
5.14
4.19
Capacity
295
282
325
0
Delay
7.71
8.30
8.76
7.19
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.71
8.30
8.76
7.19
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
RV
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
103
1604
524
16
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
111
1743
569
17
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
64
0.92
0.92
16
69
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
111
85
C(m) (vph)
958
465
v/c
0.12
0.18
95% queue length
0.39
0.66
Control Delay
9.2
14.5
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.5
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
612
538
0.88
0.92
695
584
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
88
11
0.80
0.75
109
14
2
17
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
109
14
C(m) (vph)
358
606
v/c
0.30
0.02
95% queue length
1.26
0.07
Control Delay
19.4
11.1
LOS
C
B
Approach Delay
18.5
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
603
76
15
599
12
0.92
0.88
0.95
0.50
0.92
0.92
16
685
80
30
651
13
6
--25
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
0.92
0.92
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
30
20
C(m) (vph)
894
709
448
v/c
0.02
0.04
0.04
95% queue length
0.05
0.13
0.14
Control Delay
9.1
10.3
13.4
LOS
A
B
B
Approach Delay
13.4
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|21
23
|
694 32
|29
721
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
7
|
15
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
482
1678
0.11
0.29
22.9
22.9
2002
3484
0.38
0.57
10.2
10.2
Southbound
L
351
T
1990
610
3462
0.09
0.38
0.57
0.57
8.4
10.2
A
B
10.1
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
59
43
1
0.50
0.91
0.77
0.25
4
64
55
4
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
3
0.25
0.75
8
4
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
4
12
C(m) (vph)
1558
912
v/c
0.00
0.01
95% queue length
0.01
0.04
Control Delay
7.3
9.0
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.0
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
0
4
|1
0
0
|3
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
8
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.38
7
0
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
8
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
8
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
4
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
7
7
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.6
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
3.32
0.01
1.3
3.20
2.0
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
4.12
0.00
2.1
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
7
3.20
3.20
0.01
4.12
0.01
2.0
2.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
2.0
1.9

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
8
4
7
0
Service Time
1.3
2.1
2.1
1.9
Utilization, x
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.32
4.12
4.12
3.93
Capacity
258
254
257
0
Delay
6.34
7.14
7.16
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.34
7.14
7.16
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
RV
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
658
574
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
715
623
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
936
460
v/c
0.05
0.18
95% queue length
0.15
0.67
Control Delay
9.0
14.6
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.6
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
497
0
0
487
12
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.89
1.00
15
502
0
0
547
12
0
--0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
1.00
1.00
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
15
0
20
C(m) (vph)
1022
1073
546
v/c
0.01
0.00
0.04
95% queue length
0.04
0.00
0.11
Control Delay
8.6
8.4
11.8
LOS
A
A
B
Approach Delay
11.8
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|22
26
|
540 17
|22
516
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
8
|
8
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
479
1667
0.13
0.29
23.1
23.1
2003
3486
0.30
0.57
9.6
9.6
Southbound
L
429
T
2010
747
3497
0.13
0.27
0.57
0.57
8.6
9.4
A
A
9.3
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
0
38
51
3
0.92
0.68
0.88
0.38
0
55
57
7
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1
1
0.25
0.25
4
4
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
0
8
C(m) (vph)
1551
944
v/c
0.00
0.01
95% queue length
0.00
0.03
Control Delay
7.3
8.8
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
8.8
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
1
3
|0
1
0
|6
1
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
8
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.58
11
29
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
8
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
6
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
11
10
0
0.9
0.0
0.3
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.5
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
0.7
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
3.48
0.01
1.5
3.20
2.0
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
1.9
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
11
3.20
3.20
0.01
4.60
0.01
2.0
2.6
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
2.0
1.9

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
8
4
11
0
Service Time
1.5
1.9
2.6
1.9
Utilization, x
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.48
3.93
4.60
3.93
Capacity
258
254
261
0
Delay
6.51
6.95
7.66
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.51
6.95
7.66
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
RV
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 No Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
476
462
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
517
502
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
1038
535
v/c
0.04
0.16
95% queue length
0.14
0.56
Control Delay
8.6
13.0
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.0
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
5
307
1577
8
0.92
0.86
0.87
0.92
5
356
1812
8
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
15
0.92
0.92
16
16
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
5
32
C(m) (vph)
317
150
v/c
0.02
0.21
95% queue length
0.05
0.77
Control Delay
16.5
35.4
LOS
C
E
Approach Delay
35.4
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2021 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|87
26
|
302 88
|73
1573
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
4
|
23
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
451
1570
0.31
0.29
24.6
24.6
1803
3138
0.24
0.57
9.2
9.2
Southbound
L
503
T
1970
875
3428
0.22
0.92
0.57
0.57
9.2
24.1
A
C
23.2
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
88
29
36
12
0.59
0.64
0.55
0.54
149
45
65
22
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
49
0.25
0.58
8
84
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
149
92
C(m) (vph)
1522
923
v/c
0.10
0.10
95% queue length
0.32
0.33
Control Delay
7.6
9.3
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.3
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
7
90
|0
2
0
|85
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.73
132
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
170
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
132
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
123
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
170
170
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
132
3.20
3.20
0.12
4.69
0.17
2.0
2.7
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
5.40
0.01
3.4
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
170
3.20
3.20
0.15
5.31
0.25
2.0
3.3
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.48
0.00
2.0
2.5

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
132
8
170
0
Service Time
2.7
3.4
3.3
2.5
Utilization, x
0.17
0.01
0.25
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.69
5.40
5.31
4.48
Capacity
382
258
420
0
Delay
8.66
8.47
10.07
7.48
LOS
A
A
B
A
Approach:
Delay
8.66
8.47
10.07
7.48
LOS
A
A
B
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd/Route 9
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
35
290
1577
5
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
38
315
1714
5
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
22
96
0.92
0.92
23
104
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
38
127
C(m) (vph)
347
232
v/c
0.11
0.55
95% queue length
0.37
2.96
Control Delay
16.6
37.8
LOS
C
E
Approach Delay
37.8
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
575
577
7
0.92
0.88
0.86
0.92
10
653
670
7
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
6
8
0.92
0.92
6
8
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
10
14
C(m) (vph)
884
484
v/c
0.01
0.03
95% queue length
0.03
0.09
Control Delay
9.1
12.7
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
12.7
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2021 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|95
55
|
511 78
|70
545
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
9
|
16
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
429
1492
0.55
0.29
27.7
27.7
1856
3229
0.36
0.57
10.0+
10.0+
Southbound
L
371
T
1933
645
3363
0.44
0.34
0.57
0.57
11.4
9.9
B
A
10.2
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
96
37
33
6
0.80
0.48
0.69
0.58
119
77
47
10
13
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
96
0.50
0.55
18
174
0
9
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
119
192
C(m) (vph)
1480
935
v/c
0.08
0.21
95% queue length
0.26
0.77
Control Delay
7.6
9.8
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.8
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
108 |2
2
0
|109 4
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.75
146
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.61
184
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
146
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
144
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
4
0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
184
178
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
146
3.20
3.20
0.13
4.70
0.19
2.0
2.7
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
5.56
0.01
3.6
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
184
3.20
3.20
0.16
5.34
0.27
2.0
3.3
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.54
0.00
2.0
2.5

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
146
8
184
0
Service Time
2.7
3.6
3.3
2.5
Utilization, x
0.19
0.01
0.27
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.70
5.56
5.34
4.54
Capacity
396
258
434
0
Delay
8.80
8.63
10.33
7.54
LOS
A
A
B
A
Approach:
Delay
8.80
8.63
10.33
7.54
LOS
A
A
B
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Hassan Hashmi
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
6/27/2012
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
27
562
563
22
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
29
610
611
23
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
23
29
0.92
0.92
24
31
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
29
55
C(m) (vph)
918
497
v/c
0.03
0.11
95% queue length
0.10
0.37
Control Delay
9.0
13.1
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.1
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
16
1630
527
24
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.92
17
1771
566
26
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
10
0.92
0.92
10
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
17
20
C(m) (vph)
953
358
v/c
0.02
0.06
95% queue length
0.05
0.18
Control Delay
8.8
15.7
LOS
A
C
Approach Delay
15.7
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2021 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|90
178 |
1641 51
|38
626
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
68
|
22
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
469
1631
0.49
0.29
26.6
26.6
1980
3446
0.93
0.57
25.2
25.2
Southbound
L
84
T
1951
147
3395
0.61
0.34
0.57
0.57
24.1
9.9
C
A
10.9
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
12
71
149
4
1.00
0.57
0.71
0.50
12
124
209
8
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
19
72
0.56
0.84
33
85
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
12
118
C(m) (vph)
1365
766
v/c
0.01
0.15
95% queue length
0.03
0.54
Control Delay
7.7
10.6
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
10.6
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
65
|2
6
0
|61
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.46
145
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
32
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.65
93
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
145
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
141
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
32
8
0
0.3
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
93
93
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
145
3.20
3.20
0.13
4.48
0.18
2.0
2.5
Westbound
L1
L2
32
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.23
0.05
2.0
3.2
Northbound
L1
L2
93
3.20
3.20
0.08
5.39
0.14
2.0
3.4
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.46
0.00
2.0
2.5

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
145
32
93
0
Service Time
2.5
3.2
3.4
2.5
Utilization, x
0.18
0.05
0.14
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.48
5.23
5.39
4.46
Capacity
395
282
343
0
Delay
8.46
8.49
9.26
7.46
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
8.46
8.49
9.26
7.46
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
RV
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
103
1631
521
16
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
111
1772
566
17
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
64
0.92
0.92
16
69
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
111
85
C(m) (vph)
960
462
v/c
0.12
0.18
95% queue length
0.39
0.67
Control Delay
9.2
14.5
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.5
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
624
536
12
0.92
0.88
0.92
0.92
16
709
582
13
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
0.92
0.92
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
20
C(m) (vph)
950
506
v/c
0.02
0.04
95% queue length
0.05
0.12
Control Delay
8.9
12.4
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
12.4
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2021 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|119
44
|
618 117 |54
633
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
7
|
15
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
491
1709
0.46
0.29
26.2
26.2
1965
3419
0.39
0.57
10.3
10.3
Southbound
L
344
T
1990
598
3462
0.18
0.33
0.57
0.57
9.0
9.8
A
A
9.8
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
113
59
43
1
0.50
0.91
0.77
0.25
226
64
55
4
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
122
0.25
0.75
8
162
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
226
170
C(m) (vph)
1558
950
v/c
0.15
0.18
95% queue length
0.51
0.65
Control Delay
7.7
9.6
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.6
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
0
123 |1
0
0
|114 0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
246
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.38
300
0
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
246
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
246
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
4
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
300
300
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.6
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
246
3.20
3.20
0.22
4.05
0.28
2.0
2.1
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
5.13
0.01
3.1
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
300
3.20
3.20
0.27
4.65
0.39
2.0
2.6
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.81
0.00
2.0
2.8

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
246
4
300
0
Service Time
2.1
3.1
2.6
2.8
Utilization, x
0.28
0.01
0.39
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.05
5.13
4.65
4.81
Capacity
496
254
550
0
Delay
8.60
8.16
10.55
7.81
LOS
A
A
B
A
Approach:
Delay
8.60
8.16
10.55
7.81
LOS
A
A
B
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
RV
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
603
511
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
655
555
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
992
494
v/c
0.05
0.17
95% queue length
0.15
0.62
Control Delay
8.8
13.8
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.8
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
518
492
12
1.00
0.99
0.89
1.00
15
523
552
12
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
1.00
1.00
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
15
20
C(m) (vph)
1018
541
v/c
0.01
0.04
95% queue length
0.04
0.11
Control Delay
8.6
11.9
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
11.9
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2021 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|31
47
|
540 22
|27
516
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
8
|
8
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
474
1650
0.23
0.29
23.9
23.9
2000
3480
0.31
0.57
9.6
9.6
Southbound
L
425
T
2010
740
3497
0.16
0.27
0.57
0.57
8.9
9.4
A
A
9.3
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
38
51
3
0.92
0.68
0.88
0.38
10
55
57
7
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1
31
0.25
0.25
4
124
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
10
128
C(m) (vph)
1551
1005
v/c
0.01
0.13
95% queue length
0.02
0.44
Control Delay
7.3
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
1
33
|0
1
0
|16
1
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
68
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.58
28
29
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
68
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
66
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
28
27
0
1.0
0.0
0.3
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.6
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
0.7
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
68
3.20
3.20
0.06
3.39
0.06
2.0
1.4
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
4.02
0.00
2.0
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
28
3.20
3.20
0.02
4.72
0.04
2.0
2.7
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.06
0.00
2.0
2.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
68
4
28
0
Service Time
1.4
2.0
2.7
2.1
Utilization, x
0.06
0.00
0.04
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.39
4.02
4.72
4.06
Capacity
318
254
278
0
Delay
6.62
7.04
7.90
7.06
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.62
7.04
7.90
7.06
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
RV
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2021 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
497
467
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
540
507
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
1033
529
v/c
0.04
0.16
95% queue length
0.14
0.57
Control Delay
8.6
13.1
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.1
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
314
1601
0.86
0.87
365
1840
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
25
9
0.61
0.50
40
18
24
33
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
40
18
C(m) (vph)
233
741
v/c
0.17
0.02
95% queue length
0.61
0.07
Control Delay
23.6
10.0LOS
C
A
Approach Delay
19.4
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
5
299
31
9
1608
8
0.92
0.86
0.79
0.75
0.87
0.92
5
347
39
12
1848
8
6
--17
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
15
0.92
0.92
16
16
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
5
12
32
C(m) (vph)
306
1069
141
v/c
0.02
0.01
0.23
95% queue length
0.05
0.03
0.83
Control Delay
17.0
8.4
37.9
LOS
C
A
E
Approach Delay
37.9
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|59
12
|
339 50
|44
1632
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
4
|
23
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
450
1567
0.18
0.29
23.5
23.5
1827
3179
0.23
0.57
9.1
9.1
Southbound
L
508
T
1970
884
3428
0.13
0.95
0.57
0.57
8.6
28.5
A
C
27.8
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
19
30
37
12
0.59
0.64
0.55
0.54
32
46
67
22
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
6
0.25
0.58
8
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
32
18
C(m) (vph)
1519
888
v/c
0.02
0.02
95% queue length
0.06
0.06
Control Delay
7.4
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
7
48
|0
2
0
|16
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.73
74
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
32
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
74
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
65
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
32
32
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
74
3.20
3.20
0.07
4.32
0.09
2.0
2.3
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
4.91
0.01
2.9
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
32
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.14
0.05
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.13
0.00
2.0
2.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
74
8
32
0
Service Time
2.3
2.9
3.1
2.1
Utilization, x
0.09
0.01
0.05
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.32
4.91
5.14
4.13
Capacity
324
258
282
0
Delay
7.74
7.97
8.39
7.13
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.74
7.97
8.39
7.13
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd/Route 9
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
35
313
1618
5
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
38
340
1758
5
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
22
96
0.92
0.92
23
104
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
38
127
C(m) (vph)
333
223
v/c
0.11
0.57
95% queue length
0.38
3.14
Control Delay
17.2
40.6
LOS
C
E
Approach Delay
40.6
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
564
585
0.88
0.86
640
680
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
38
19
0.84
0.81
45
23
30
38
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
45
23
C(m) (vph)
314
581
v/c
0.14
0.04
95% queue length
0.49
0.12
Control Delay
18.4
11.5
LOS
C
B
Approach Delay
16.0
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
558
34
28
589
7
0.92
0.88
0.75
0.59
0.86
0.92
10
634
45
47
684
7
6
--21
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
6
8
0.92
0.92
6
8
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
10
47
14
C(m) (vph)
873
793
436
v/c
0.01
0.06
0.03
95% queue length
0.03
0.19
0.10
Control Delay
9.2
9.8
13.5
LOS
A
A
B
Approach Delay
13.5
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|49
28
|
554 35
|34
594
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
9
|
16
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
428
1491
0.27
0.29
24.3
24.3
1907
3319
0.34
0.57
9.8
9.8
Southbound
L
380
T
1933
662
3363
0.21
0.37
0.57
0.57
9.2
10.1
A
B
10.0-
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
16
38
34
6
0.80
0.48
0.69
0.58
19
79
49
10
13
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
21
0.50
0.55
18
38
0
9
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
19
56
C(m) (vph)
1477
928
v/c
0.01
0.06
95% queue length
0.04
0.19
Control Delay
7.5
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
33
|2
2
0
|29
4
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.75
46
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.61
53
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
46
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
44
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
4
0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
53
47
0
0.9
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
46
3.20
3.20
0.04
4.33
0.06
2.0
2.3
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
5.04
0.01
3.0
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
53
3.20
3.20
0.05
5.06
0.07
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.09
0.00
2.0
2.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
46
8
53
0
Service Time
2.3
3.0
3.1
2.1
Utilization, x
0.06
0.01
0.07
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.33
5.04
5.06
4.09
Capacity
296
258
303
0
Delay
7.58
8.10
8.46
7.09
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.58
8.10
8.46
7.09
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd/Route 9
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
27
579
575
22
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
29
629
624
23
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
23
29
0.92
0.92
24
31
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
29
55
C(m) (vph)
908
489
v/c
0.03
0.11
95% queue length
0.10
0.38
Control Delay
9.1
13.3
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.3
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1649
556
0.92
0.93
1792
597
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
6
0.50
0.50
20
12
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
20
12
C(m) (vph)
104
287
v/c
0.19
0.04
95% queue length
0.67
0.13
Control Delay
47.7
18.1
LOS
E
C
Approach Delay
36.6
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
16
1639
0
2
540
24
0.92
0.92
0.79
0.25
0.93
0.92
17
1781
0
8
580
26
6
--0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
10
0.92
0.92
10
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
17
8
20
C(m) (vph)
941
353
345
v/c
0.02
0.02
0.06
95% queue length
0.06
0.07
0.18
Control Delay
8.9
15.4
16.1
LOS
A
C
C
Approach Delay
16.1
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|72
155 |
1675 47
|31
648
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
68
|
22
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
469
1632
0.39
0.29
25.5
25.5
1982
3448
0.94
0.57
27.0
27.0
Southbound
L
84
T
1951
147
3395
0.49
0.35
0.57
0.57
15.3
10.0-
B
A
10.3
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
0
72
152
4
0.92
0.57
0.71
0.50
0
126
214
8
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
20
26
0.56
0.84
35
30
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
0
65
C(m) (vph)
1359
726
v/c
0.00
0.09
95% queue length
0.00
0.29
Control Delay
7.6
10.4
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
10.4
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
20
|2
6
0
|50
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.46
47
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
32
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.65
76
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
47
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
43
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
32
8
0
0.3
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
76
76
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
47
3.20
3.20
0.04
4.45
0.06
2.0
2.5
Westbound
L1
L2
32
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.06
0.05
2.0
3.1
Northbound
L1
L2
76
3.20
3.20
0.07
5.15
0.11
2.0
3.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.19
0.00
2.0
2.2

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
47
32
76
0
Service Time
2.5
3.1
3.1
2.2
Utilization, x
0.06
0.05
0.11
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.45
5.06
5.15
4.19
Capacity
297
282
326
0
Delay
7.73
8.30
8.78
7.19
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
7.73
8.30
8.78
7.19
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd/Route 9
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
103
1640
534
16
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
111
1782
580
17
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
64
0.92
0.92
16
69
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
111
85
C(m) (vph)
949
457
v/c
0.12
0.19
95% queue length
0.40
0.68
Control Delay
9.3
14.7
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.7
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Solid Waste Dr Exit
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
624
548
0.88
0.92
709
595
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
2
2
Configuration
T
T
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
90
11
0.80
0.75
112
14
2
17
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
/
Lanes
1
1
Configuration
L
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
| L
R
|
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
112
14
C(m) (vph)
352
601
v/c
0.32
0.02
95% queue length
1.34
0.07
Control Delay
19.9
11.1
LOS
C
B
Approach Delay
19.0
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
615
78
16
611
12
0.92
0.88
0.95
0.50
0.92
0.92
16
698
82
32
664
13
6
--25
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
0.92
0.92
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
32
20
C(m) (vph)
884
699
440
v/c
0.02
0.05
0.05
95% queue length
0.06
0.14
0.14
Control Delay
9.1
10.4
13.6
LOS
A
B
B
Approach Delay
13.6
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|21
24
|
708 32
|30
736
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
7
|
15
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
481
1675
0.12
0.29
23.0
23.0
2002
3484
0.39
0.57
10.2
10.2
Southbound
L
344
T
1990
598
3462
0.10
0.39
0.57
0.57
8.5
10.3
A
B
10.2
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
60
43
1
0.50
0.91
0.77
0.25
4
65
55
4
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
3
0.25
0.75
8
4
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
4
12
C(m) (vph)
1558
911
v/c
0.00
0.01
95% queue length
0.01
0.04
Control Delay
7.3
9.0
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.0
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
0
4
|1
0
0
|3
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
8
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.38
7
0
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
8
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
8
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
4
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
7
7
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.6
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
3.32
0.01
1.3
3.20
2.0
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
4.12
0.00
2.1
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
7
3.20
3.20
0.01
4.12
0.01
2.0
2.1
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
2.0
1.9

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
8
4
7
0
Service Time
1.3
2.1
2.1
1.9
Utilization, x
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.32
4.12
4.12
3.93
Capacity
258
254
257
0
Delay
6.34
7.14
7.16
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.34
7.14
7.16
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday (12:15 - 13:15)
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd/Route 9
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
671
586
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
729
636
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
926
453
v/c
0.05
0.19
95% queue length
0.16
0.68
Control Delay
9.1
14.8
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.8
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
507
0
0
497
12
0.92
0.99
0.92
0.92
0.89
0.92
16
512
0
0
558
13
0
--0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
Configuration
L T
TR
L T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
0.92
0.92
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
0
20
C(m) (vph)
1012
1064
539
v/c
0.02
0.00
0.04
95% queue length
0.05
0.00
0.12
Control Delay
8.6
8.4
11.9
LOS
A
A
B
Approach Delay
11.9
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|22
27
|
550 18
|22
526
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
8
|
8
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
478
1665
0.13
0.29
23.1
23.1
2003
3485
0.31
0.57
9.7
9.7
Southbound
L
422
T
2010
735
3497
0.13
0.28
0.57
0.57
8.7
9.4
A
A
9.4
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
0
39
52
3
0.92
0.68
0.88
0.38
0
57
59
7
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1
1
0.25
0.25
4
4
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
0
8
C(m) (vph)
1549
941
v/c
0.00
0.01
95% queue length
0.00
0.03
Control Delay
7.3
8.9
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
8.9
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
1
3
|0
1
0
|6
1
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
8
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.58
11
29
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
8
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
6
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
11
10
0
0.9
0.0
0.3
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.5
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
0.7
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
3.48
0.01
1.5
3.20
2.0
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
1.9
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
11
3.20
3.20
0.01
4.60
0.01
2.0
2.6
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
3.93
0.00
2.0
1.9

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
8
4
11
0
Service Time
1.5
1.9
2.6
1.9
Utilization, x
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.48
3.93
4.60
3.93
Capacity
258
254
261
0
Delay
6.51
6.95
7.66
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.51
6.95
7.66
6.93
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 No Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd/Route 9
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
486
472
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
528
513
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
1028
528
v/c
0.04
0.16
95% queue length
0.14
0.57
Control Delay
8.7
13.1
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.1
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd/Route 9
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
5
313
1614
8
0.92
0.86
0.87
0.92
5
363
1855
8
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
15
0.92
0.92
16
16
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
5
32
C(m) (vph)
304
143
v/c
0.02
0.22
95% queue length
0.05
0.82
Control Delay
17.0
37.3
LOS
C
E
Approach Delay
37.3
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2038 Build
N/S St: Loudon Rd/Route 9

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|89
26
|
308 90
|74
1607
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
0
|
22
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
480
1671
0.28
0.29
24.3
24.3
1902
3310
0.24
0.57
9.2
9.2
Southbound
L
513
T
1951
893
3395
0.28
0.88
0.57
0.57
9.7
20.7
A
C
19.9
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Rd
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
89
30
37
12
1.00
0.57
0.71
0.50
89
52
52
24
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
50
0.56
0.84
3
59
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
89
62
C(m) (vph)
1536
981
v/c
0.06
0.06
95% queue length
0.18
0.20
Control Delay
7.5
8.9
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
8.9
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Ln
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
7
92
|0
2
0
|86
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.46
214
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.65
132
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
214
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
199
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
132
132
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
214
3.20
3.20
0.19
4.59
0.27
2.0
2.6
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
5.40
0.01
3.4
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
132
3.20
3.20
0.12
5.50
0.20
2.0
3.5
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.64
0.00
2.0
2.6

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
214
8
132
0
Service Time
2.6
3.4
3.5
2.6
Utilization, x
0.27
0.01
0.20
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.59
5.40
5.50
4.64
Capacity
464
258
382
0
Delay
9.31
8.46
9.89
7.64
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
9.31
8.46
9.89
7.64
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd/Route 9
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
35
296
1624
5
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
38
321
1765
5
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
22
96
0.92
0.92
23
104
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
38
127
C(m) (vph)
331
222
v/c
0.11
0.57
95% queue length
0.39
3.17
Control Delay
17.3
40.9
LOS
C
E
Approach Delay
40.9
Approach LOS
E
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
586
588
7
0.92
0.88
0.86
0.92
10
665
683
7
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
6
8
0.92
0.92
6
8
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
10
14
C(m) (vph)
874
478
v/c
0.01
0.03
95% queue length
0.03
0.09
Control Delay
9.2
12.8
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
12.8
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2038 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|97
56
|
520 79
|72
555
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
16
|
29
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
405
1410
0.57
0.29
28.2
28.2
1880
3272
0.35
0.57
9.9
9.9
Southbound
L
359
T
1970
625
3428
0.47
0.34
0.57
0.57
11.7
9.8
B
A
10.2
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
98
38
34
6
0.80
0.48
0.69
0.58
122
79
49
10
12
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
98
0.50
0.55
18
178
0
20
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
122
196
C(m) (vph)
1483
909
v/c
0.08
0.22
95% queue length
0.27
0.82
Control Delay
7.6
10.0+
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
10.0+
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
110 |2
2
0
|111 4
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.75
148
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.50
8
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.61
187
50
LTR
1.00
0
33
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
148
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
146
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
8
4
0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
187
181
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.6
1.7
0.6
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
148
3.20
3.20
0.13
4.71
0.19
2.0
2.7
Westbound
L1
L2
8
3.20
0.01
5.58
0.01
3.6
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
187
3.20
3.20
0.17
5.34
0.28
2.0
3.3
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
5.12
0.00
2.0
3.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
148
8
187
0
Service Time
2.7
3.6
3.3
3.1
Utilization, x
0.19
0.01
0.28
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.71
5.58
5.34
5.12
Capacity
398
258
437
0
Delay
8.83
8.65
10.38
8.12
LOS
A
A
B
A
Approach:
Delay
8.83
8.65
10.38
8.12
LOS
A
A
B
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
27
573
574
22
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
29
622
623
23
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
23
29
0.92
0.92
24
31
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
29
55
C(m) (vph)
909
490
v/c
0.03
0.11
95% queue length
0.10
0.38
Control Delay
9.1
13.3
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.3
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
16
1666
537
24
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.92
17
1810
577
26
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
10
0.92
0.92
10
10
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
17
20
C(m) (vph)
944
351
v/c
0.02
0.06
95% queue length
0.05
0.18
Control Delay
8.9
15.9
LOS
A
C
Approach Delay
15.9
Approach LOS
C
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2038 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|92
182 |
1675 52
|39
637
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
73
|
23
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
469
1632
0.50
0.29
26.6
26.6
1980
3446
0.95
0.57
27.7
27.7
Southbound
L
84
T
1951
147
3395
0.62
0.35
0.57
0.57
25.3
9.9
C
A
11.0
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
12
72
152
4
1.00
0.57
0.71
0.50
12
126
214
8
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
20
73
0.56
0.84
35
86
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
12
121
C(m) (vph)
1359
758
v/c
0.01
0.16
95% queue length
0.03
0.57
Control Delay
7.7
10.6
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
10.6
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
2
66
|2
6
0
|62
0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.46
147
50
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
32
50
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.65
95
50
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
147
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
143
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
32
8
0
0.3
0.0
0.5
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
95
95
0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.9
-0.6
1.7
1.1
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
147
3.20
3.20
0.13
4.48
0.18
2.0
2.5
Westbound
L1
L2
32
3.20
3.20
0.03
5.24
0.05
2.0
3.2
Northbound
L1
L2
95
3.20
3.20
0.08
5.39
0.14
2.0
3.4
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.47
0.00
2.0
2.5

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
147
32
95
0
Service Time
2.5
3.2
3.4
2.5
Utilization, x
0.18
0.05
0.14
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.48
5.24
5.39
4.47
Capacity
397
282
345
0
Delay
8.49
8.50
9.28
7.47
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
8.49
8.50
9.28
7.47
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
103
1667
531
16
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
111
1811
577
17
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
64
0.92
0.92
16
69
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
111
85
C(m) (vph)
951
454
v/c
0.12
0.19
95% queue length
0.39
0.68
Control Delay
9.3
14.7
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
14.7
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
636
546
12
0.92
0.88
0.92
0.92
16
722
593
13
6
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
0.92
0.92
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
20
C(m) (vph)
941
499
v/c
0.02
0.04
95% queue length
0.05
0.13
Control Delay
8.9
12.5
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
12.5
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2038 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|121
45
|
630 120 |55
646
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
18
|
54
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
479
1668
0.44
0.29
26.0
26.0
1976
3438
0.38
0.57
10.2
10.2
Southbound
L
322
T
1990
560
3462
0.20
0.34
0.57
0.57
9.2
9.9
A
A
9.8
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
115
60
43
1
0.50
0.91
0.77
0.25
230
65
55
4
6
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
2
125
0.25
0.75
8
166
0
4
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
230
174
C(m) (vph)
1520
941
v/c
0.15
0.18
95% queue length
0.53
0.68
Control Delay
7.8
9.7
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.7
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
0
126 |1
0
0
|116 0
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
252
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
6
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.38
305
0
LTR
1.00
0
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
252
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
252
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
4
0
1.0
0.0
0.1
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
305
305
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.6
-0.6
1.7
0.3
-0.6
1.7
0.2
-0.6
1.7
0.1
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
252
3.20
3.20
0.22
4.07
0.28
2.0
2.1
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
5.25
0.01
3.3
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
305
3.20
3.20
0.27
4.66
0.39
2.0
2.7
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.91
0.00
2.0
2.9

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
252
4
305
0
Service Time
2.1
3.3
2.7
2.9
Utilization, x
0.28
0.01
0.39
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
4.07
5.25
4.66
4.91
Capacity
502
254
555
0
Delay
8.68
8.29
10.67
7.91
LOS
A
A
B
A
Approach:
Delay
8.68
8.29
10.67
7.91
LOS
A
A
B
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
615
521
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
668
566
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
983
488
v/c
0.05
0.17
95% queue length
0.15
0.63
Control Delay
8.8
13.9
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.9
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
15
528
502
12
0.92
0.99
0.89
0.92
16
533
564
13
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
9
11
0.92
0.92
9
11
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
16
20
C(m) (vph)
1006
534
v/c
0.02
0.04
95% queue length
0.05
0.12
Control Delay
8.6
12.0
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
12.0
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________

Date:
11/5/2014
E/W St: Fonda Rd

Jurisd: Albany
Year : 2038 Build

| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
No. Lanes |
0
0
0
|
0
0
0
|
0
2
0
|
1
2
0
|
LGConfig
|
|
LR
|
TR
| L
T
|
Volume
|
|31
48
|
550 23
|27
526
|
Lane Width |
|
11.0
|
11.0
|11.0 11.0
|
RTOR Vol
|
|
9
|
8
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Duration
0.25
Phase Combination 1
2
3
4 |
5
6
7
8
EB Left
| NB Left
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
|
Right A
Peds
|
Peds
WB Left
A
| SB Left
A
Thru
|
Thru
A
Right
A
|
Right
Peds
|
Peds
NB Right
| EB Right
SB Right
| WB Right
Green
25.0
50.0
Yellow
4.0
4.0
All Red
2.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
secs
Appr/
Lane
Adj Sat
Ratios
Lane Group
Approach
Lane
Group
__________ ___________
Grp
Capacity
(s)
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Eastbound
Westbound
LR
474
1650
0.23
0.29
23.9
23.9
1999
3479
0.31
0.57
9.7
9.7
Southbound
L
419
T
2010
729
3497
0.16
0.28
0.57
0.57
8.9
9.4
A
A
9.4
Northbound
TR
(sec/veh)
_______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Fonda Road
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
10
39
52
3
1.00
0.68
0.88
0.38
10
57
59
7
0
Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
1
0
Configuration
LT
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
1
31
0.25
0.25
4
124
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
LT
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
10
128
C(m) (vph)
1549
1003
v/c
0.01
0.13
95% queue length
0.02
0.44
Control Delay
7.3
9.1
LOS
A
A
Approach Delay
9.1
Approach LOS
A
______________________________________________________________________________

Cheng Xu
Phone:
E-Mail:
Fax:

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
Arrowhead Lane
North/South Street:
Green Mountain Dr
| Eastbound
| Westbound
| Northbound
| Southbound
|
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
| L
T
R
|
|_______________|_______________|_______________|_______________|
Volume
|0
1
33
|0
1
0
|16
1
0
|0
0
0
|
% Thrus Left Lane
Eastbound
L1
L2
Configuration
PHF
Flow Rate
% Heavy Veh
No. Lanes
Opposing-Lanes
Conflicting-lanes
Geometry group
Duration, T
0.25
LTR
0.50
68
0
hrs.
1
1
1
1
Westbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.25
4
0
1
1
1
1
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
LTR
0.58
28
29
LTR
1.00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Flow Rates:
Total in Lane
68
Left-Turn
0
Right-Turn
66
Prop. Left-Turns
0.0
Geometry Group
1
hLT-adj
0.2
Westbound
L1
L2
4
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
28
27
0
1.0
0.0
0.3
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.2
hRT-adj
hHV-adj
hadj, computed
-0.6
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
0.7
-0.6
1.7
0.0
-0.6
1.7
Flow rate
hd, initial value
x, initial
hd, final value
x, final value
Move-up time, m
Service Time
Eastbound
L1
L2
68
3.20
3.20
0.06
3.39
0.06
2.0
1.4
Westbound
L1
L2
4
3.20
0.00
4.02
0.00
2.0
3.20
2.0
Northbound
L1
L2
28
3.20
3.20
0.02
4.72
0.04
2.0
2.7
Southbound
L1
L2
0
3.20
3.20
0.00
4.06
0.00
2.0
2.1

Eastbound
L1
L2
Westbound
L1
L2
Northbound
L1
L2
Southbound
L1
L2
Flow Rate
68
4
28
0
Service Time
1.4
2.0
2.7
2.1
Utilization, x
0.06
0.00
0.04
0.00
Dep. headway, hd
3.39
4.02
4.72
4.06
Capacity
318
254
278
0
Delay
6.62
7.04
7.90
7.06
LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach:
Delay
6.62
7.04
7.90
7.06
LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection LOS A
______________________________________________________________________________

Analyst:
Joe Nieciak
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
11/5/2014
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Albany
Analysis Year:
2038 Build
East/West Street:
New Driveway
North/South Street:
Loudon Rd
Study period (hrs):
0.25

Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
2
3
| 4
5
6
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
43
507
477
36
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
46
551
518
39
0
TWLTL
/ 1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
1
2
2
0
Configuration
L T
T
TR
Upstream Signal?
No
No
______________________________________________________________________________
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
8
9
| 10
11
12
L
T
R
| L
T
R
______________________________________________________________________________
Volume
36
43
0.92
0.92
39
46
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
/
No
/
Lanes
0
0
Configuration
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
Approach
NB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
| 7
8
9
| 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
|
|
LR
______________________________________________________________________________
v (vph)
46
85
C(m) (vph)
1024
522
v/c
0.04
0.16
95% queue length
0.14
0.58
Control Delay
8.7
13.2
LOS
A
B
Approach Delay
13.2
Approach LOS
B
______________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX H
TITLE V PERMIT APPLICATION
542 State Route 29, Greenwich, NY 12834

T 877.294.9070 | F 518.692.9651 | W www.cornerstoneeg.com
February 17, 2015
Mr. Angelo Marcuccio

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Region 4
Division of Environmental Permits
1130 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306-2014
Re:
Town of Colonie Landfill, DEC ID 4012600033, Title V Permit No. 4-012600033/0009
Dear Mr. Marcuccio:

Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC (Cornerstone) submits this Minor Modification
Application on behalf of the Town of Colonie (landfill owner and permittee) and Capital
Region Landfills, Inc. (landfill operator). The Minor Modification of Title V Permit No. 40126-00033/0009 is to increase potential fugitive emissions due to the Proposed Area 7
Development (Development) of the Town of Colonie Landfill. Also, it is proposed that
Emission Unit 1COMPO, with associated Emission Source GRIND and Process GRI, be
removed from the Title V Operating Permit.
The Development will add 5,244,260 Mg (5,781,984 tons) of municipal solid waste (MSW)
capacity for a total Landfill MSW capacity of 11,037,178 Mg (12,140,895 tons). The
expected landfill closure will be extended from the year 2018, based on the current design
capacity, to the year 2040 with the Development.
The April 17, 2012 Title V Permit Renewal Application (Renewal Application) submitted
by the Town of Colonie provided detailed landfill gas generation and emission estimates.
The Renewal Application estimated a peak landfill gas recovery of 2,360 scfm with a peak
generation year of 2019. The Renewal Application also determined the capacity of the
existing open, utility flare being 3,000 scfm based on flare design. The PTE in the Renewal
Application was based on 3,000 scfm operation, 8,760 hours/year and 686,870
mmBtu/year. When using the same assumption as in the Renewal Application, the
expected landfill gas recovery will still be well below the 3,000 scfm flare capacity.
Attached is a revised output from a USEPA LandGEM model run accounting for the
additional capacity from the Development. The LandGEM model was prepared using
the same assumptions that were used for the Application, but updated to include the

February 17, 2015
Page 2
capacity of the Development. As assumed in the Application, a safety factor of 35% was
used in the revised model run to account for site-specific conditions for landfill gas
generation and an 85% collection efficiency was assumed for the performance of the
landfill gas collection system. Lastly, the resultant fugitive landfill gas was assumed to
have a 50% methane concentration. Using all of these assumptions (which were included
in the Application for the current Title V permit), in 2041, the expected peak landfill gas
generating year, the fugitive LFG is projected to reach a peak of 513 scfm. While this is
greater than the projected peak rate in the 2012 renewal application (424 scfm), the
resultant potential emissions increase of volatile organic compounds (1.46 tons/year,
assuming 275 ppmv, as hexane), air toxics, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is
insignificant. Attached is a presentation of potential emissions as provided in the
Renewal Application and the revised potential emissions as proposed for this Minor
Modification due to the Area 7 Development.
Lastly, Emission Unit 1COMPO is requested to be removed from the Title V Operating
Permit to reflect the current operations at the landfill. This request is also consistent with
the Part 360 Solid Waste Application.
Please call me at (845) 695-0221 with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Edwin P. Valis, Jr.

Senior Project Manager
Attachment: NYSDEC Application Form
USEPA LandGEM Model Run Output
Fugitive Emissions
cc:
Curt Taylor
Rob Holmes, P.E.
Kurt Shaner, P.E.
Matt McGarry, P.E.
Victoria Schmitt, P.E.
Rick Leone, P.E.
C:\Projects\120076\Colonie Air Area 7 Minor Mod Coverletter 2-17-15.docx

February 17, 2015
Page 3
NYSDEC Application Form

Air Permit Application
DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Application ID: 401260003300009
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am
Facility: TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL FACILITY
Section II - Identification Information

Permit Type: Air Title V Facility ( ATV )
RENEWAL
Minor Modification
General Permit Title:

Application involves construction of new facility
Application involves construction of new emission unit(s)
Owner / Firm
Name TOWN OF COLONIE
Street 347 OLD NISKAYUNA RD
City
State NY
LATHAM
Owner Classification Municipal
Country USA
Zip 12110
Taxpayer Id
146002139
Facility
Name
TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL FACILITY
Address
1319 LOUDON RD
City
COHOES
Zip 12047
Owner / Firm Contact Mailing Address

Name
MATTHEW J MCGARRY
Affiliation
Phone No.
5187836292
Fax No.
5187832860
Title
Street
TOWN OF COLONIE DPW

347 OLD NISKAYUNA RD
City
State NY
LATHAM
Country USA
Zip 12110
Project Description
Application for renewal of Air Title V Facility.
The Minor Modification of Title V Permit No. 4-0126-00033/0009 is to increase fugitive emissions due to the
Proposed Area 7 Development (Development) of the Town of Colonie Landfill. The Development will add 5,244,260
Mg (5,781,984 tons) of municipal solid waste (MSW) capacity for a total Landfill MSW capacity of 11,037,178 Mg
(12,140,895 tons). The expected landfill closure will be extended from the year 2018, based on the current design
capacity, to the year 2040 with the Development. The fugitive LFG is projected to reach of 513 scfm during the
expected peak landfill gas generating year of 2041. While this is greater than the projected peak rate in the 2012
renewal application (424 scfm), the resultant emissions increase of volatile organic compounds (1.46 tons/year,
assuming 275 ppmv, as hexane), air toxics, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are insignificant. Attached is a
presentation of emissions as provided in the Renewal Application and the revised emission as proposed for this
Minor Modification due to the Area 7 Development.
Page 2 of 11

DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am
Section III - Facility Information

Classification
X COMMERCIAL
Affected States
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
SIC Codes
4953
Facility Description
The facility is a municipally-owned, solid waste landfill. Landfill gas (LFG) generated by the facility is collected from both the closed and active
landfill areas. Collected landfill gas is combusted by one open 3000 CFM flare.
Compliance Statements (Title V Only)

X YES
I certify that as of the date of this application the facility is in compliance with all applicable requirements
If one or more emission units at the facility are not in compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of signing this
application ( the 'NO' box must be checked), the noncomplying units must be identified in the "Compliance Plan" block of
section IV of this form along with the compliance plan information required. For all emission units at this facility that are
operating in compliance with all applicable requirements complete the following:
NO
This facility will continue to be operated and maintained in such manner as to assure compliance for the duration of the
permit, except those units referenced in the compliance plan portion of Section IV of this application.
For all emission units, subject to any applicable requirements that will become effective during the term of the permit, this
facility will meet all such requirements on a timely basis.
Compliance certification reports will be submitted at least once a year. Each report will certify compliance status with
respect to each requirement, and the method used to determine status.
Facility Applicable Federal Requirements

Title
Type
Part
Sub Part
Section
Sub Division
Parag
40
CFR
60
40
CFR
60
WWW
752
40
CFR
60
40
CFR
60
WWW
754
WWW
757
40
CFR
60
WWW
758
40
40
CFR
60
CFR
68
40
CFR
82
NYCRR
200
F
6
NYCRR
200
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
Page 3 of 11
Sub Parag
Clause
Sub Clause
Item

DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am

Facility Applicable Federal Requirements
Title
Type
Part
Sub Part
Section
Sub Division
Parag
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
201
NYCRR
202
NYCRR
202
NYCRR
202
NYCRR
202
NYCRR
202
NYCRR
211
NYCRR
215
NYCRR
201
Sub Parag
Clause
Sub Clause
Item
Clause
Sub Clause
Item
ii
1
2
6
Facility State Only Requirements

Title
Type
Part
Sub Part
Section
NYCRR
ECL
201
19
0301
Sub Division
Parag
Sub Parag
Facility Emissions Summary

Cas No.
Contaminant Name
PTE
(lbs/yr)
Range
Actual
(lbs/yr)
000079-34-5
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
67.38
000107-06-2
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
14.57
000108-10-1
2-PENTANONE, 4-METHYL
43.81
000071-43-2
BENZENE
847.52
000106-46-7
BENZENE, 1,4-DICHLORO-
11.32
000075-15-0
CARBON DISULFIDE
16.05
000630-08-0
CARBON MONOXIDE
000056-23-5
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
2.23
000463-58-1
CARBONYL SULFIDE
10.64
000108-90-7
CHLOROBENZENE
10.34
000075-45-6
CHLORODIFLUORO-METHANE
37.85
000067-66-3
CHLOROFORM
0.84
000079-00-5
ETHANE, 1,1,2-TRICHLORO
4.82
000075-34-3
ETHANE, 1,1-DICHLORO-
7.14
000075-00-3
ETHANE, CHLORO
31.96
000100-41-4
ETHYLBENZENE
176.98
Page 4 of 11
257869

DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am

Facility Emissions Summary
Cas No.
Contaminant Name
PTE
(lbs/yr)
Range
Actual
(lbs/yr)
000110-54-3
HEXANE
204.74
007783-06-4
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
465.86
007439-92-1
LEAD
007439-97-6
MERCURY
7.76
000075-69-4
METHANE, TRICHLOROFLUORO-
37.55
000074-87-3
METHYL CHLORIDE
22.09
000078-93-3
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
184.86
0NY998-20-0
NMOC - LANDFILL USE ONLY
0NY210-00-0
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
000127-18-4
PERCHLOROETHYLENE
0NY075-00-5
PM-10
000107-13-1
PROPENENITRILE
007446-09-5
SULFUR DIOXIDE
000108-88-3
TOLUENE
0NY100-00-0
TOTAL HAP
000079-01-6
65181
Y
223.66
220.64
5496.75
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
133.87
000075-01-4
VINYL CHLORIDE
165.9
0NY998-00-0
VOC
001330-20-7
XYLENE, M, O & P MIXT.
464.63
12828
189917
12713
17333
Page 5 of 11

DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am
Section IV - Emission Unit Information

Emission Unit Description
Emission Unit
1COMPO
Grinder related to composting operations.
Emission Source / Control

Emission Unit
Source
Type
1COMPO
Date of
Construction
GRIND
Emission Source
Date of
Date of
Operation
Removal
Manufacturer's Name/Model No.
Morbark 4600 Wood Hog
Design Capacity
600
Control Type
Code
Desc
Waste Feed
Code
Desc
Waste Type
Code
Desc
Units Code
219
Desc
horsepower (mechanical)
Process Information
1COMPO
GRI
Emission Unit
Process
Source Classification
Total Thruput
Code (SCC)
Quantity / Hr
Quantity / Yr
Code
30788801
35
35000
0045
Operating Schedule
Confidential
Operating At Maximum Capacity
Hrs / Day
Days / Yr
Activity w/ Insignificant Emission
8
125
Building
Thruput Quantity Units

Description
GALLONS
Floor / Location
Description
Grinder related to composting operations.
Emission Point Identifier(s)
Emission Source / Control Identifier(s)
GRIND
Page 6 of 11

DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am

Emission Unit Description
Emission Unit
1MSWLF
This unit consists of closed and active landfill areas contributing to the generation of landfill gas (LFG) and the apparatus necessary to collect
and combust the LFG.
Emission Point
Emission Unit
Ground Elev
(ft)
212
260
Exit Velocity
(FPS)
1MSWLF
Height
(ft)
Emission Pt.
Height Above
Structure (ft)
FLR02
Inside Diameter
(in)
28
28
10
Exit Flow
(ACFM)
NYTM (E)
(KM)
NYTM (N)
(KM)
604 .114
63
Exit Temp
(`F)
Building
Cross Section
Length (in)
Width (in)
Distance to
Property Line (ft)
Date of
Removal
4740
4739.831
Emission Source / Control

Emission Unit
Source
Type
1MSWLF
Date of
Construction
ECF02
Emission Source
Date of
Date of
Operation
Removal
10/01/2000
12/15/2000
Design Capacity
3000
Units Code
Control Type
Code
023
Waste Feed
Code
Desc
Waste Type
Code
Desc
Emission Unit
Source
Type
1MSWLF
Date of
Construction

LFG SPECIALTIES, INC. MODEL PCF 10281C
39
Desc
cubic feet per minute

FLARING
Desc
LNDFL
Emission Source
Date of
Date of
Operation
Removal

ACTIVE AND CLOSED LANDFILLS
Design Capacity
Units Code
Desc
Control Type
Code
Desc
Waste Feed
Code
Desc
Waste Type
Code
Desc
Page 7 of 11

DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am

Process Information
1MSWLF
FUG
Emission Unit
Process
Total Thruput
Code (SCC)
Quantity / Hr
Quantity / Yr
Code
50200602
Operating Schedule
Confidential
Hrs / Day
Days / Yr

Description
Building
Floor / Location
Description
Fugitive LFG emissions (beyond the collection efficiency of the gas collection system) from the closed and active landfill areas.
LNDFL
1MSWLF
GAS
Emission Unit
Process
Total Thruput
Code (SCC)
Quantity / Hr
Quantity / Yr
Code
50200601
Operating Schedule
Confidential
Hrs / Day
Days / Yr

Description
Building
Floor / Location
Description
Landfill gas is collected and combusted in one open flare (max. 3,000 CFM).
ECF02
LNDFL
Emission Unit Applicable Federal Requirements

Emission Unit
1-MSWLF
Title
Type
Part
NYCRR
212
Emission Point
Sub Part
FLR02
Process
Section
Sub Division
Page 8 of 11
Parag
Emission Source
Sub Parag
Clause
Sub Clause
Item

DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am

Emission Unit Compliance Certification
1-MSWLF
Emission Unit
FLR02
Emission Point
Process
Emission Source
Rule Citation
Title
Type
Part
NYCRR
212
Sub Part
Section
Sub Division
Parag
Sub Parag
Clause Sub Clause
Item
X Applicable Federal Requirement
Description
The open flare uses a thermocouple to check for the presence of a flame. Without a flame, flow of gas to the flare ceases. A chart recorder
is used to record this information. Records shall be kept in accordance with Part 201-6.5(c).
Contaminants
Capping
Contaminant Name
CAS No.
0NY998-20-0
NMOC - LANDFILL USE ONLY
Monitoring Information
X MONITORING OF PROCESS OR CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS AS SURROGATE
Work Practice
Type
Ref Test Method
Process Material
Description
Code
Manufacturer Name/Model No.
Parameter
Code
03
Description
TEMPERATURE
Limit
Upper
Lower
200
LFG SPECIALITIES MODEL PCF 102816

Limit Units
Description
Code
44
degrees Fahrenheit
Averaging Method
Code
75
Desc
MINIMUM-NOT TO FALL BELOW EXCEPT DURING STARTUP/SHUTDOW
Monitoring Freq
Code
01
Desc
CONTINUOUS
Reporting Reqs
Code
14
Desc
SEMI-ANNUALLY (CALENDAR)
Page 9 of 11

DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am
Supporting Documentation
Aerial Photo
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Air Quality Model
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Air State Facility Permit
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Air Title V Facility Permit
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Alternative Fuel Monitoring Schedule

Ambient Air Monitoring Plan
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Analysis of Contemporaneous Emission Increase/Decrease
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Article 11, Title 5 Permit for Interference with Fish & Wildlife
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Authorized Agent Letter

BACT Demonstration
( ___ / ___ / _______ )

( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Baseline Period Demonstration
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Blasting Chart - Ground Vibration Limits

Building Identification Table
Calculations
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Capping Letter/Package
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Certificate of Capacity (Resource Recovery Facility)

Compliance Assurance Monitoring Plan (CAM)
Confidentiality Justification
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Construction and Demolition Debris Tracking Document

Construction Detail Drawings
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Plans/QA/QC

Control Equipment Layout
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )

( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Custom Schedule for Fuel Nitrogen and Sulfur Monitoring

Drawings/Blueprints
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Elevations/Sections
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Emission Inventory Report

Emission Survey
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Emission Unit Summary
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
EPA Memo Re: Technical Infeasibility of Monitoring Nitrogen in Fuel

Episode Action Plan
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Equipment Manufacturers Information

ERC Quantification
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Exemption Related Document
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Existing Certificates to Operate and/or Permits to Construct

Existing Consent Order
Existing Permit Figures
Facility Location Map
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )

( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Facility-Wide Operating Permit Submittal Schedule

Fugitive Dust Control Plan
General Flow Diagram
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Existing Methane Migration & Recovery Well Plan
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Generating Plant Site & Section Sheet

LAER Demonstration
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Letter of Intent to Commence Work
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
List of Exempt Activities (form attached)
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Page 10 of 11

DEC ID: 4012600033
Renewal Number: 3
Jan 06, 2015 8:48 am
Supporting Documentation
MACT Demonstration
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Methods Used To Determine Compliance (form attached)

Miscellaneous Attachments - Not Otherwise Specified
Miscellaneous Correspondence
Mitigation Planting Plan
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
MSDS Information Sheets
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Non-CEM: Custom Monitoring, Recordkeeping and/or Reporting Plan

Notice Covenant
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Notice of Intent to Commence Work

NOx RACT Compliance Plan
NOx RACT Operating Plan
Opacity Compliance Plan
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )

( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Operational Flexibility:Desc of Alternative Operating Scenarios and Protocols

P.E. Certification (form attached)
Permit Sign
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Pesticide Treatment Area Map

Photograph(s)
Plot Plan
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Process Flow Diagram(s)
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Process Material Specification Data

Process Operation Log Sheet(s)
Project Location Map
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
PSD Permit Correlation Tables

RACT Demonstration
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Regulatory Analysis Summary

Results of SEQR Review
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Seed Mixture Recommendations
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Short Environmental Assessment Form

Site Plan
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Solid Waste Annual Report Form

SPDES Permit
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Stack Test Protocols/Reports
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Title IV Acid Rain Permit Application

VOC RACT Compliance Plan
Wood Waste Specifications
( ___ / ___ / _______ )
( ___ / ___ / _______ )

( ___ / ___ / _______ )
Page 11 of 11
( ___ / ___ / _______ )

February 17, 2015
Page 4
USEPA LandGEM Model Run Output
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Summary Report
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2015
Description/Comments:
About LandGEM:
First-Order Decomposition Rate Equation:
Where,
QCH4 = annual methane generation in the year of the calculation (m 3 /year )
Mi = mass of waste accepted in the i th year (Mg )
tij = age of the j th section of waste mass M i accepted
in the i th year (decimal years , e.g., 3.2 years)
k = methane generation rate ( year -1 )

Lo = potential methane generation capacity ( m 3 /Mg )
LandGEM is based on a first-order decomposition rate equation for quantifying emissions from the decomposition of landfilled
waste in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The software provides a relatively simple approach to estimating landfill gas
emissions. Model defaults are based on empirical data from U.S. landfills. Field test data can also be used in place of model
defaults when available. Further guidance on EPA test methods, Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations, and other guidance regarding
landfill gas emissions and control technology requirements can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html.
LandGEM is considered a screening tool the better the input data, the better the estimates. Often, there are limitations with
the available data regarding waste quantity and composition, variation in design and operating practices over time, and changes
occurring over time that impact the emissions potential. Changes to landfill operation, such as operating under wet conditions
through leachate recirculation or other liquid additions, will result in generating more gas at a faster rate. Defaults for estimating
emissions for this type of operation are being developed to include in LandGEM along with defaults for convential landfills (no
leachate or liquid additions) for developing emission inventories and determining CAA applicability. Refer to the Web site
identified above for future updates.
Input Review
LANDFILL CHARACTERISTICS
Landfill Open Year
Landfill Closure Year (with 80-year limit)
Actual Closure Year (without limit)
Have Model Calculate Closure Year?
Waste Design Capacity
1973
2040
2040
Yes
11,037,178
MODEL PARAMETERS
Methane Generation Rate, k
megagrams
0.040
Potential Methane Generation Capacity, L o
100
NMOC Concentration
Methane Content
74
50
year
m 3 /Mg
ppmv as hexane
% by volume
WASTE ACCEPTANCE RATES
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Waste Accepted
(Mg/year)
68,932
68,932
68,932
68,932
68,932
68,932
68,932
68,932
68,932
126,073
126,073
114,793
139,587
160,571
68,555
93,476
105,285
81,027
85,282
(short tons/year)
75,825
75,825
75,825
75,825
75,825
75,825
75,825
75,825
75,825
138,680
138,680
126,272
153,546
176,628
75,410
102,824
115,813
89,130
93,810
Waste-In-Place
(Mg)
(avft^3/min)
36.39
71.36
104.96
137.23
168.25
198.04
226.67
254.18
280.60
336.16
389.55
434.88
491.52
557.03
571.38
598.33
630.45
648.51
668.11
687.60
Methane
(Mg/year)
180.68
354.28
521.07
681.32
835.29
983.22
1,125.35
1,261.90
1,393.10
1,668.94
1,933.96
2,159.02
2,440.24
2,765.44
2,836.70
2,970.48
3,129.98
3,219.63
3,316.93
3,413.69
(m3/year)
270,827.17
531,035.06
781,040.05
1,021,242.20
1,252,025.89
1,473,760.42
1,686,800.62
1,891,487.39
2,088,148.28
2,501,599.46
2,898,838.98
3,236,184.49
3,657,715.72
4,145,161.61
4,251,972.25
4,452,509.51
4,691,576.98
4,825,964.29
4,971,798.61
5,116,839.49
(avft^3/min)
18.20
35.68
52.48
68.62
84.12
99.02
113.34
127.09
140.30
168.08
194.77
217.44
245.76
278.51
285.69
299.16
315.23
324.26
334.05
343.80
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
14,483.90
15,417.41
16,155.77
16,483.23
17,158.32
17,810.34
18,503.57
19,005.04
19,612.17
20,254.83
20,676.98
21,334.79
21,966.81
22,291.15
22,880.88
23,281.58
23,649.29
24,180.76
24,751.77
26,039.55
27,300.85
28,512.69
29,677.02
30,795.69
31,870.50
32,903.17
33,895.34
34,848.62
35,764.51
36,644.49
37,489.96
38,302.29
39,082.76
39,832.63
40,553.10
41,245.31
41,910.39
42,549.38
43,163.33
11,598,036.82
12,345,544.34
12,936,793.78
13,199,004.76
13,739,586.12
14,261,693.56
14,816,802.97
15,218,353.13
15,704,513.56
16,219,130.28
16,557,169.70
17,083,913.87
17,590,004.11
17,849,717.60
18,321,945.63
18,642,805.40
18,937,254.34
19,362,831.97
19,820,071.55
20,851,260.02
21,861,251.60
22,831,640.84
23,763,980.57
24,659,762.74
25,520,420.79
26,347,331.95
27,141,819.47
27,905,154.68
28,638,559.09
29,343,206.30
30,020,223.91
30,670,695.27
31,295,661.28
31,896,122.02
32,473,038.37
33,027,333.50
33,559,894.40
34,071,573.30
34,563,188.98
779.27
829.50
869.22
886.84
923.16
958.24
995.54
1,022.52
1,055.18
1,089.76
1,112.47
1,147.87
1,181.87
1,199.32
1,231.05
1,252.61
1,272.39
1,300.99
1,331.71
1,400.99
1,468.85
1,534.06
1,596.70
1,656.89
1,714.71
1,770.27
1,823.66
1,874.94
1,924.22
1,971.57
2,017.06
2,060.76
2,102.75
2,143.10
2,181.86
2,219.10
2,254.89
2,289.26
2,322.30
3,868.81
4,118.16
4,315.38
4,402.85
4,583.17
4,757.33
4,942.50
5,076.45
5,238.62
5,410.28
5,523.04
5,698.75
5,867.57
5,954.21
6,111.73
6,218.76
6,316.98
6,458.94
6,611.46
6,955.44
7,292.35
7,616.05
7,927.05
8,225.86
8,512.95
8,788.79
9,053.81
9,308.44
9,553.08
9,788.14
10,013.97
10,230.95
10,439.43
10,639.72
10,832.17
11,017.07
11,194.71
11,365.40
11,529.39
5,799,018.41
6,172,772.17
6,468,396.89
6,599,502.38
6,869,793.06
7,130,846.78
7,408,401.49
7,609,176.57
7,852,256.78
8,109,565.14
8,278,584.85
8,541,956.94
8,795,002.06
8,924,858.80
9,160,972.82
9,321,402.70
9,468,627.17
9,681,415.99
9,910,035.77
10,425,630.01
10,930,625.80
11,415,820.42
11,881,990.29
12,329,881.37
12,760,210.40
13,173,665.98
13,570,909.73
13,952,577.34
14,319,279.55
14,671,603.15
15,010,111.95
15,335,347.63
15,647,830.64
15,948,061.01
16,236,519.18
16,513,666.75
16,779,947.20
17,035,786.65
17,281,594.49
389.64
414.75
434.61
443.42
461.58
479.12
497.77
511.26
527.59
544.88
556.24
573.93
590.94
599.66
615.52
626.30
636.20
650.49
665.85
700.50
734.43
767.03
798.35
828.44
857.36
885.14
911.83
937.47
962.11
985.78
1,008.53
1,030.38
1,051.38
1,071.55
1,090.93
1,109.55
1,127.44
1,144.63
1,161.15
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
43,753.19
44,319.93
44,864.45
45,387.62
45,890.27
46,373.21
46,837.22
47,049.20
35,035,528.13
35,489,346.60
35,925,370.59
36,344,297.84
36,746,798.71
37,133,517.30
37,505,072.44
37,674,814.81
2,354.03
2,384.52
2,413.82
2,441.97
2,469.01
2,495.00
2,519.96
2,531.37
11,686.95
11,838.33
11,983.78
12,123.52
12,257.78
12,386.78
12,510.72
12,567.35
17,517,764.06
17,744,673.30
17,962,685.30
18,172,148.92
18,373,399.36
18,566,758.65
18,752,536.22
18,837,407.40
1,177.02
1,192.26
1,206.91
1,220.98
1,234.51
1,247.50
1,259.98
1,265.68
2042 45,204.37 36,197,564.19 2,432.11 12,074.57 18,098,782.09 1,216.05

2043 43,431.88 34,778,237.39 2,336.75 11,601.12 17,389,118.70 1,168.37
2044 41,728.89 33,414,563.20 2,245.12 11,146.24 16,707,281.60 1,122.56
-1
GASES / POLLUTANTS SELECTED

Gas / Pollutant #1:
Total landfill gas
Gas / Pollutant #2:
Methane
Gas / Pollutant #3:
Carbon dioxide
Gas / Pollutant #4:
NMOC
Year
(m3/year)
541,654.34
1,062,070.11
1,562,080.09
2,042,484.40
2,504,051.78
2,947,520.85
3,373,601.24
3,782,974.79
4,176,296.57
5,003,198.92
5,797,677.97
6,472,368.98
7,315,431.45
8,290,323.22
8,503,944.51
8,905,019.02
9,383,153.97
9,651,928.58
9,943,597.23
10,233,678.99
1994 13,362.05 10,699,706.23 718.91 3,569.15 5,349,853.11 359.46
Landfill Name or Identifier: Town of Colonie Landfill - Area 7 Development
i = 1-year time increment

n = (year of the calculation) - (initial year of waste acceptance)
j = 0.1-year time increment
Totallandfillgas
(Mg/year)
676.43
1,326.34
1,950.76
2,550.70
3,127.12
3,680.93
4,213.03
4,724.27
5,215.46
6,248.11
7,240.28
8,082.85
9,135.68
10,353.15
10,619.93
11,120.80
11,717.90
12,053.56
12,417.80
12,780.06
(short tons)
0
68,932
137,864
206,796
275,728
344,660
413,592
482,524
551,456
620,388
746,461
872,534
987,327
1,126,914
1,287,485
1,356,039
1,449,516
1,554,800
1,635,827
75,825
151,650
227,476
303,301
379,126
454,951
530,776
606,602
682,427
821,107
959,787
1,086,060
1,239,605
1,416,233
1,491,643
1,594,467
1,710,280
1,799,410
435.00
Btu/ft3,T5Renewal
Aplication
85% LandfillgasCollectionSystemCollection%
35% Adjustmenttoaccountforsitespecificconditions
2,973.09 679,755.32
577,792.02
scfm,adjusted
1,796,139,226.97
mmBtu/yr,
adjusted
ft3/yr
2045 40,092.68 32,104,359.44 2,157.09 10,709.19 16,052,179.72 1,078.54

2046 38,520.62 30,845,529.50 2,072.51 10,289.27 15,422,764.75 1,036.25
2047 37,010.21 29,636,058.99 1,991.24 9,885.82 14,818,029.49 995.62
269,420,884.05ft3/yr,fugitive
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
234,398,386.00ft3/yr,fugitive
35,559.02
34,164.73
32,825.11
31,538.02
30,301.40
29,113.26
27,971.71
26,874.93
25,821.15
24,808.69
23,835.92
22,901.30
22,003.33
21,140.57
20,311.63
19,515.20
18,750.00
18,014.80
17,308.43
16,629.76
15,977.70
15,351.20
14,749.27
14,170.95
13,615.30
13,081.43
28,474,012.49
27,357,530.49
26,284,826.38
25,254,183.59
24,263,952.89
23,312,549.69
22,398,451.54
21,520,195.70
20,676,376.75
19,865,644.42
19,086,701.36
18,338,301.10
17,619,246.03
16,928,385.51
16,264,614.02
15,626,869.38
15,014,131.07
14,425,418.57
13,859,789.82
13,316,339.68
12,794,198.54
12,292,530.84
11,810,533.81
11,347,436.15
10,902,496.82
10,475,003.80
1,913.17
1,838.15
1,766.07
1,696.83
1,630.29
1,566.37
1,504.95
1,445.94
1,389.24
1,334.77
1,282.43
1,232.15
1,183.83
1,137.42
1,092.82
1,049.97
1,008.80
969.24
931.24
894.72
859.64
825.93
793.55
762.43
732.54
703.81
9,498.20
9,125.77
8,767.94
8,424.14
8,093.83
7,776.46
7,471.55
7,178.58
6,897.11
6,626.67
6,366.83
6,117.18
5,877.33
5,646.87
5,425.46
5,212.72
5,008.33
4,811.95
4,623.27
4,441.99
4,267.81
4,100.47
3,939.69
3,785.21
3,636.79
3,494.19
14,237,006.25
13,678,765.25
13,142,413.19
12,627,091.80
12,131,976.45
11,656,274.85
11,199,225.77
10,760,097.85
10,338,188.38
9,932,822.21
9,543,350.68
9,169,150.55
8,809,623.01
8,464,192.75
8,132,307.01
7,813,434.69
7,507,065.53
7,212,709.28
6,929,894.91
6,658,169.84
6,397,099.27
6,146,265.42
5,905,266.90
5,673,718.08
5,451,248.41
5,237,501.90
956.58
919.07
883.04
848.41
815.15
783.18
752.47
722.97
694.62
667.39
641.22
616.07
591.92
568.71
546.41
524.98
504.40
484.62
465.62
447.36
429.82
412.97
396.77
381.22
366.27
351.91
1,562,655,906.66
ft3/yr
mmBtu/yr,adjusted/
Collection% 2,527.13 scfm@435Btu/ft3,fu
3,417.31
scfm@50%
2,973.09
scfm@435Btu/ft3

February 17, 2015
Page 5
Fugitive Emission Estimates
Fugitive Landfill Gas

Colonie, NY
Landfill gas generation rateb
2823.5294 scfm
Landfill Gas Collection System Collection Efficiencyc

LFG fugitive flow d
85%
424 scfm
LFG Compound
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethanea
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane (1,1,2 TCA)
1,1 - Dichloroethane (ethylidene dichloride)
1,1 - Dichloroethene (vinylidene chloride)
1,2 - Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)
1,2 - Dichloropropane (propylene dichloride)
2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol)
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acrylonitrile (Propenenitrile)
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Butane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbonyl Sulfide
Chlorobenzene (monochlorobenzene)
Chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22, freon-22)a
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
1,4 Dichlorobenzene (p-dichlorobenzene)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12, freon-12)a
Dichlorofluoromethane (freon-21)
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
Dimethyl Sulfide (methyl sulfide)
Ethanea
Ethanol (ethyl alcohol)
Ethylbenzeneg
Ethyl Mercaptan (ethanethiol)
Ethylene dibromide (1,2 dibromoethane)a
Fluorotrichloromethane (CFC-11, freon-11)a
Hexane
Hydrogen Sulfide
Mercury (total)a
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-butanone)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (hexone)
Methyl Mercaptan
Pentane
Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene, -ethene)
Propane
Toluene (methylbenzene)
Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene)
t - 1,2 - Dichloroethene (1,2 dichloroethylene)
Vinyl Chloride (chloroethylene, VCM)
Xylenes (m, o, p)
Ammonia
methane
CO2
VOCe
H
A
P
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
--x
x
--x
x
x
x
-x
x
x
x
--x
---x
-x
-x
-x
x
x
--x
-x
x
-x
x
V
O
C
H
A
P
-x
x
x
x
x
x
--x
x
--x
x
x
x
-x
x
x
x
--x
---x
-x
-x
--x
x
--x
-x
x
-x
x
-- --- --- --
CAS
71-55-6
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-34-3
75-35-4
107-06-2
78-87-5
67-63-0
67-64-1
107-13-1
71-43-2
75-27-4
106-97-8
75-15-0
56-23-5
463-58-1
108-90-7
75-45-6
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
106-46-7
75-71-8
75-43-4
75-09-2
75-18-3
74-84-0
64-17-5
100-41-4
75-08-1
106-93-4
75-69-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
7439-97-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
74-93-1
109-66-0
127-18-4
74-98-6
108-88-3
79-01-6
156-60-5
75-01-4
1330-20-7
MW
(lb/lb-mol)
133.41
167.85
133.41
98.96
96.94
98.96
112.99
60.11
58.08
53.06
78.12
163.83
58.12
76.14
153.84
60.07
112.56
86.47
64.52
119.38
50.49
147
120.91
102.92
84.93
62.13
30.07
46.08
106.17
62.13
187.88
137.37
86.18
34.08
200.61
72.11
100.16
48.11
72.15
165.83
44.1
92.14
131.38
96.94
62.50
106.17
16.00
16.07
44.00
86.16
Landfill gas generation rateb
3417.31 scfm
Landfill Gas Collection System Collection Efficiencyc

LFG fugitive flow d
85%
513 scfm
2012 RENEWAL
223 mmft3/yr, fugitive
Conc
(ppmv)f
0.17
0.01
0.10
0.74
0.09
0.12
0.02
7.9
7.08
0.04
10.38
0.26
5.00
0.22
0.007
0.18
0.23
1.30
0.45
0.01
0.14
1.45
15.7
0.96
3.4
6.81
889
64.4
6.79
0.23
0.005
0.76
2.06
23.6
2.92E-04
12.69
0.75
1.27
3.29
1.19
19.6
37.5
0.68
0.68
1.08
16.6
7.30E-03
500000.00
400000.00
275.00
Total HAPs ..................................................................................................................................
LFG fugitive flow

Landfill Emissions
lb/hr
ton/yr
0.0015
0.0066
0.0001
0.0002
0.0009
0.0039
0.0049
0.0215
0.0006
0.0026
0.0008
0.0035
0.0002
0.0008
0.0318
0.1393
0.0275
0.1205
0.0001
0.0006
0.0542
0.2376
0.0029
0.0127
0.0195
0.0852
0.0011
0.0049
0.0001
0.0003
0.0007
0.0032
0.0017
0.0075
0.0075
0.0330
0.0019
0.0085
0.0001
0.0003
0.0005
0.0020
0.0142
0.0624
0.1270
0.5564
0.0066
0.0291
0.0193
0.0845
0.0283
0.1240
1.7891
7.8361
0.1987
0.8702
0.0482
0.2113
0.0009
0.0041
0.0001
0.0003
0.0070
0.0306
0.0119
0.0521
0.0538
0.2356
0.0000
0.0000
0.0613
0.2683
0.0050
0.0220
0.0041
0.0179
0.0159
0.0696
0.0132
0.0580
0.0578
0.2532
0.2310
1.0117
0.0060
0.0262
0.0044
0.0194
0.0045
0.0197
0.1178
0.5161
3.9084
17.1189
537.74
2,355.32
1,177.88
5,159.13
1.59
6.95
0.60
Total HAP, Lbs/hr
lbs/yr
13.14
0.49
7.82
42.99
5.23
6.96
1.52
278.68
240.91
1.12
475.21
25.36
170.47
9.87
0.63
6.44
14.98
65.90
16.95
0.70
4.03
124.79
1,112.90
58.17
169.04
248.02
15,672.16
1,740.45
422.57
8.23
0.55
61.21
104.23
471.13
0.03
536.65
44.04
35.71
139.16
115.98
506.36
2,023.31
52.45
38.70
39.46
1,032.13
34,237.86
4,710,637.02 lbs/yr
10,318,259.05 lbs/yr
13,890.96 lbs/yr
2.64
5260.15
Total HAPs, tpy Total HAPs, lbs/yr
1.01
Max. Individual
LFG Compound
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethanea
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane (1,1,2 TCA)
1,1 - Dichloroethane (ethylidene dichloride)
1,1 - Dichloroethene (vinylidene chloride)
1,2 - Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)
1,2 - Dichloropropane (propylene dichloride)
2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol)
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acrylonitrile (Propenenitrile)
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Butane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbonyl Sulfide
Chlorobenzene (monochlorobenzene)
Chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22, freon-22)a
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
1,4 Dichlorobenzene (p-dichlorobenzene)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12, freon-12)a
Dichlorofluoromethane (freon-21)
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
Dimethyl Sulfide (methyl sulfide)
Ethanea
Ethanol (ethyl alcohol)
Ethylbenzeneg
Ethyl Mercaptan (ethanethiol)
Ethylene dibromide (1,2 dibromoethane)a
Fluorotrichloromethane (CFC-11, freon-11)a
Hexane
Hydrogen Sulfide
Mercury (total)a
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-butanone)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (hexone)
Methyl Mercaptan
Pentane
Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene, -ethene)
Propane
Toluene (methylbenzene)
Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene)
t - 1,2 - Dichloroethene (1,2 dichloroethylene)
Vinyl Chloride (chloroethylene, VCM)
Xylenes (m, o, p)
Ammonia
methane
CO2
VOCe
----
VOC
H
A
P
-x
x
x
x
x
x
--x
x
--x
x
x
x
-x
x
x
x
--x
---x
-x
-x
--x
x
--x
-x
x
-x
x
----
MW
CAS
(lb/lb-mol)
71-55-6 133.41
79-34-5 167.85
79-00-5 133.41
75-34-3
98.96
75-35-4
96.94
107-06-2
98.96
78-87-5 112.99
67-63-0
60.11
67-64-1
58.08
107-13-1
53.06
71-43-2
78.12
75-27-4 163.83
106-97-8
58.12
75-15-0
76.14
56-23-5 153.84
463-58-1
60.07
108-90-7 112.56
75-45-6
86.47
75-00-3
64.52
67-66-3 119.38
74-87-3
50.49
106-46-7
147
75-71-8 120.91
75-43-4 102.92
75-09-2
84.93
75-18-3
62.13
74-84-0
30.07
64-17-5
46.08
100-41-4 106.17
75-08-1
62.13
106-93-4 187.88
75-69-4 137.37
110-54-3
86.18
7783-06-4
34.08
7439-97-6 200.61
78-93-3
72.11
108-10-1 100.16
74-93-1
48.11
109-66-0
72.15
127-18-4 165.83
74-98-6
44.1
108-88-3
92.14
79-01-6 131.38
156-60-5
96.94
75-01-4
62.50
1330-20-7 106.17
16.00
16.07
44.00
86.16
269.42
Conc
(ppmv)f
0.17
0.01
0.10
0.74
0.09
0.12
0.02
7.91
7.08
0.04
10.38
0.26
5.00
0.22
0.01
0.18
0.23
1.30
0.45
0.01
0.14
1.45
15.70
0.96
3.40
6.81
889.00
64.43
6.79
0.23
0.01
0.76
2.06
23.58
2.92E-04
12.69
0.75
1.27
3.29
1.19
19.59
37.46
0.68
0.68
1.08
16.58
7.30E-03
500000.00
400000.00
275.00
mmft3/yr, fugitive
Control
Eff
b, c
Total HAPs ..................................................................................................................................
LFG fugitive flow

Landfill Emissions
lb/hr
ton/yr
0.0018
0.0080
0.0001
0.0003
0.0011
0.0047
0.0059
0.0260
0.0007
0.0032
0.0010
0.0042
0.0002
0.0009
0.0385
0.1686
0.0333
0.1458
0.0002
0.0007
0.0657
0.2876
0.0035
0.0153
0.0236
0.1032
0.0014
0.0060
0.0001
0.0004
0.0009
0.0039
0.0021
0.0091
0.0091
0.0399
0.0023
0.0103
0.0001
0.0004
0.0006
0.0024
0.0172
0.0755
0.1538
0.6735
0.0080
0.0352
0.0234
0.1023
0.0343
0.1501
2.1653
9.4840
0.2405
1.0532
0.0584
0.2557
0.0011
0.0050
0.0001
0.0003
0.0085
0.0370
0.0144
0.0631
0.0651
0.2851
0.0000
0.0000
0.0741
0.3248
0.0061
0.0267
0.0049
0.0216
0.0192
0.0842
0.0160
0.0702
0.0700
0.3064
0.2795
1.2244
0.0072
0.0317
0.0053
0.0234
0.0055
0.0239
0.1426
0.6246
4.7304
20.7190
650.83
2850.64
1425.59
6244.08
1.92
8.41
0.73
Total HAP, Lbs/hr
lbs/yr
15.90
0.60
9.47
52.03
6.33
8.43
1.84
337.29
291.57
1.36
575.15
30.69
206.32
11.94
0.76
7.80
18.13
79.76
20.51
0.85
4.87
151.03
1,346.94
70.40
204.59
300.17
18,967.98
2,106.46
511.44
9.96
0.67
74.08
126.15
570.20
0.04
649.50
53.30
43.22
168.43
140.37
612.84
2,448.81
63.48
46.84
47.76
1,249.18
41,437.99
5,701,271.22
12,488,160.99
16,812.19
3.19
6366.35
Total HAPs, tpy Total HAPs, lbs/yr
1.22
Max. Individual
lbs/yr
lbs/yr
lbs/yr
lbs/yr
INCREASE
3.60
495.32
1084.95
1.46
tons/yr
tons/yr
tons/yr
tons/yr
2921.23 lbs/yr
1106.20 lbs/yr, TO
U.S. E.P.A., Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I. Stationary Point and Area Sources ("AP-42"), 5th Ed., November 1998.
Tables 2.4-1, 2.4-2, 2.4-3.
H
A
P
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
--x
x
--x
x
x
x
-x
x
x
x
--x
---x
-x
-x
-x
x
x
--x
-x
x
-x
x
2014 Area 7 Development
U.S. E.P.A., Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I. Stationary Point and Area Sources ("AP-42"), 5th Ed., November 1998.
Tables 2.4-1, 2.4-2, 2.4-3.
Landfill gas gas generation rate based on EPA LANDGEM Generation Model. This model is run separate from this sheet.
Landfill gas gas generation rate based on EPA LANDGEM Generation Model. This model is run separate from this sheet.
Average collection efficiency of a landfill gas collection system is 75% based on AP-42 Section 2.4-4.2. Collection efficiencies could range from 60->90%.
Average collection efficiency of a landfill gas collection system is 75% based on AP-42 Section 2.4-4.2. Collection efficiencies could range from 60->90%.
Fugitive landfill gas flow based on EPA LANDGEM Generation Model estimated landfill gas generation rate and the assumed collection efficiency of the GCCS.
Fugitive landfill gas flow based on EPA LANDGEM Generation Model estimated landfill gas generation rate and the assumed collection efficiency of the GCCS.
VOC concentration from 2012 Renewal Application Table 2A.
VOC concentration from 2012 Renewal Application Table 2A.
Fugitive LFG 1-27-15.xls, Landfill Gas Emissions

2/5/2015
APPENDIX I
NOISE SURVEY DATA
NOISE SURVEY FIELD NOTES
NOISE METER READINGS
CALCULATED SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL
Sound level distance damping decibel dB damping calculation calculator change distance versus sound level apps reduction drop dissipation SP... Page 3 of 15
Location 2 Crescent Terrace
Enter the three gray boxes and get the answer in the white box.
Sound is here the sound level in decibels, no matter if it is the sound
pressure level or the sound intensity level but not the sound power level.
Calculation of the sound level L2, which is found at the distance r2
Reference distance r1 Sound level L1
from sound source
at reference distance r1
Search for L2
50.00
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
300.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
at another distance r2
58.94
dBSPL
calculate
Sound level difference

L = L1 L2
15.56
dB
reset
Calculate the distance r2, where the sound level L2 is to find.

Reference distance r1
Sound level L1
at reference distance r1 from sound source
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm
Difference of distance
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/12/2015
Location 3 - Bay
Boulevard
from sound source
Search for L2
50.00
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
550.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
53.67
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
20.83
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/12/2015
Location 4 - Green
Mountain Drive &
Fonda Road
from sound source
Search for L2
50.00
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
2300.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
41.24
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
33.26
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/12/2015
Location 5 - New
Entrance on
Arrowhead Lane
from sound source
Search for L2
50.00
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
760.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
50.86
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
23.64
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/12/2015
Location 6 Church
from sound source
Search for L2
50.00
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
190.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
62.9
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
11.6
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/12/2015
Location 7 Current Entrance
from sound source
Search for L2
50.00
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
175.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
63.62
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
10.88
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/12/2015
Projected SPL from

Landfilling Activity Residential Property Line
Across From Current
Entrance
from sound source
Search for L2
50
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
240
m or ft
Sound level L2
60.88
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
13.62
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/26/2015
Location 8 Flightlock Road

Boat Launch
from sound source
Search for L2
50.00
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
3000.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
38.94
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
35.56
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/12/2015
Location 9 - 16
Tow Path Lane
from sound source
Search for L2
50.00
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
1900.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
42.9
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
31.6
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/12/2015
Scale projected SPL at 240 ft

1 truck
from sound source
Search for L2
50
m or ft
75
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
240
m or ft
Sound level L2
61.38
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
13.62
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/29/2015

2 trucks
from sound source
Search for L2
50
m or ft
81
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
240
m or ft
Sound level L2
67.38
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
13.62
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/29/2015

1 truck
from sound source
Search for L2
50
m or ft
75
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
320
m or ft
Sound level L2
58.88
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
16.12
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/29/2015

2 trucks
from sound source
Search for L2
50
m or ft
81
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
320
m or ft
Sound level L2
64.88
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
16.12
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/29/2015
projected SPL at southern

property line 165 ft from LF
operations Area 6
from sound source
Search for L2
50
m or ft
74.5
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
165
m or ft
Sound level L2
64.13
dBSPL
calculate

L = L1 L2
10.37
dB
reset

Sound level L1
Search for r2
100
dBSPL
1.00
m or ft
Sound level L2
94
dBSPL
Another distance r2
from sound source
m or ft
calculate
r = r2 r1
m or ft
reset
1/28/2015
APPENDIX J
PHASE IA LITERATURE SEARCH SEARCH/SENSITIVITY
ASSESSMENT AND PHASE IB ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor
Rose Harvey
Commissioner
Division for Historic Preservation

Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189
518-237-8643
www.nysparks.com
December 16, 2014

Curt Taylor
Cornerstone Environmental Group
542 State Route 29
Greenwich, NY 12834
Re:
CORPS PERMITS
Colonie Landfill Site Management and Development Alternatives
Route 9
12PR05392
Dear Curt Taylor:

Thank you for requesting the comments of the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We
have reviewed the submitted materials in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate only to Historic/Cultural
resources. They do not include other environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be
involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be considered as part of the environmental review of
the project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and/or the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 8).
Thank you for submitting additional information regarding this project (letter from Edward Curtin, 21
November 2014). Based on the information provided, SHPO has no further concerns regarding the
buried remains of the old Erie Canal. We also concur with the recommendation that archaeological
monitoring should be undertaken in the vicinity of the Fonda Cemetery. Should any indication of human
remains be encountered, SHPO recommends implementation of our Human Remains Discovery Protocol
(enclosed).
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Philip A. Perazio, Historic Preservation Program Analyst - Archeology Unit

Phone: 518-237-8643 x3276
e-mail: philip.perazio@parks.ny.gov
cc:
Edward Curtin, Curtin Archaeological Consulting
via e-mail only
PHASE 1A LITERATURE SEARCH/ SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

AND PHASE 1B ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
PROPOSED SITE MODIFICATIONS

COLONIE LANDFILL
TOWN OF COLONIE
ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK
Prepared for
90 Crystal Run Road, Suite 201,
Middletown, New York 10941
Prepared by
Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc.
61 Rowland Street
Ballston Spa, New York 12020
(518) 884-7105
Report Authors:
Edward V. Curtin, Ph.D.
Andrew Farry, Ph.D.
September 2012
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
SHPO Project Review Number:
Involved State and Federal Agencies:
Phase of Survey: Phase 1A/1B
Location Information
Location: Colonie Landfill
Minor Civil Division: Town of Colonie
County: Albany
APE Area
Length: Maximum 1,400 m
Width: Maximum 300 m
Number of Acres Surveyed: approx 94.3
USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map: Troy North
Archaeological Survey Overview
Number and Interval of Shovel Tests: 61; 15m/50ft and 30m/100ft
Number and Size of Units: n/a
Width of Plowed Strips: n/a
Surface Survey Transect Interval: n/a
Results of Archaeological Survey
Number and Name of Prehistoric Sites: 0
Number and Name of Historic Sites: 0
Number and Name of Sites Recommended for Ph2/Avoidance: 0
Results of Architectural Survey
Number of buildings/structures/cemeteries within Project Area: Numerous landfill-related
Number of Buildings/structures/cemeteries adjacent to Project Area: Numerous, incl. Fonda cemetery
Number of Previously Determined NR Listed or Eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts:
Godfrey Farm House (94NR00698; adjacent across US Route 9)
Number of Identified eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: Erie Canal (adjacent or within
APE)
Reports Authors: Edward V. Curtin, Ph.D. and Andrew Farry, Ph.D.
Report Date: September 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Location and Description .............................................................................................................. 1
Area of Potential Effect (APE) Description ............................................................................................... 1
Scope of Work and Report Format........................................................................................................... 1
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING....................................................................................................................... 1
SITE FILES RESEARCH .............................................................................................................................. 4
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ......................................................................................... 5
OTHER HISTORIC SITES ............................................................................................................................ 6
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ............................................................................................ 6
Analysis..................................................................................................................................................... 8
HISTORIC MAP RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................... 8
MAP-DOCUMENTED STRUCTURES........................................................................................................ 10
PRIOR DISTURBANCES AND ALTERATIONS......................................................................................... 11
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY............................................................................................................ 13
PHASE 1A RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................. 14
Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 14
PHASE 1B ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION........................................................................ 15
PHASE 1B ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................................. 15
Shovel Testing ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Site Stratigraphy ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Precontact Artifact Assemblage.............................................................................................................. 16
Historic Artifact Assemblage................................................................................................................... 16
PHASE 1B FIELD SURVEY SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................... 17
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 18
APPENDIX A: FIGURES............................................................................................................................. 19
APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................................................................ 56
APPENDIX C: STP RECORDS .................................................................................................................. 76
ii
INTRODUCTION
Project Location and Description
Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc. has been retained by Cornerstone Environmental Group,
LLC to conduct a Phase 1A literature search/sensitivity assessment and a Phase 1B archaeological
survey of the proposed Town of Colonie Landfill modifications. The project area lies between Route 9
and Cohoes Crescent Road in the northern part of the Town of Colonie, Albany County, New York. The
project location, existing conditions, and study area are shown on Figures 1-3. (The study area is
referred to as Area of Interest, the shaded area on Figure 3).
This Phase 1A/1B archaeological survey was conducted to meet the procedures and information
requirements of all federal, state and local regulatory processes. The report content and format follow the
standards adopted by the New York Archaeological Council (April 1994) and the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (May 2005).
Area of Potential Effect (APE) Description
The APE is taken to be the area shaded gray and labeled Area of Interest on Figure 3. This
being said, the following is noted:
(1) the area of reduced slope in the eastern side of the project area, along Cohoes Crescent
Road and south and east of the leachate storage lagoons, is within a deed-restricted area (shown
on Figure 3), and thus was not included within the Phase 1B shovel testing program;
(2) the low-lying area in the extreme north of the project area contains wetlands and presumably
wetland buffers, and thus was not included in the Phase 1B shovel-testing program;
(3) portions of the study area, including portions of the old Erie Canal vicinity contain old landfill
areas, and were not subjected to shovel testing;
(4) large portions of the western section of the APE have been developed for landfill facilities, and
are determined to be previously disturbed; and
(5) the southern lots along Arrowhead Lane have been previously developed.
In the cases of items 3, 4, and 5 information was gathered from landfill personnel, aerial
photographs, and field visits, and shovel testing strategies were developed to target undisturbed areas, or
to judiciously shovel test to confirm or disconfirm prior disturbance.
Scope of Work and Report Format
The purpose of the Phase 1A/1B archaeological survey is to identify the presence or absence of
cultural resources within the project area. The scope of work for this undertaking includes: (1)
assessment of the environmental setting and indications of prior disturbance; (2) compilation and
interpretation of background information including a site file search, map research and documentary
sources; (3) appropriate archaeological fieldwork; and (4) a report of findings with recommendations.
This Phase 1A/1B archaeological survey was conducted to meet the procedures and information
requirements of all federal, state and local regulatory processes. The report content and format follow the
standards adopted by the New York Archaeological Council (NYAC 1994) and the New York State Office
of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP 2005).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project area is located on a prominent peninsula at a great bend in the Mohawk River. Here
the elevated landforms are dominated by glacial till. In low areas glacial lake clay occurs above the till.
Glacial till dominates the southwestern sections of the APE, while in the north, lake clay underlies the
landfill.
The western project area is dominated topographically by a long, north-south oriented till ridge
which rises some 130 feet above the nearby lake plain. Elevations range from approximately 330 feet
above mean sea level (amsl) on the top of the ridge to about 200 feet amsl on the lake plain north of the
filled area. Two generic cross-sections of soils at the landfill prepared ca. 1980 are shown in Figures 4
and 5. Figure 6 shows the locations of the cross-sections. Notable in these figures are the high ground
composed of glacial till in the south, which underlies lacustrine clay in the north, as well as the thick
landfill deposit (marked as fill) in the section of the APE (since some of the areas marked fill occur east
of Cohoes Crescent Road, it is not clear that all fills are landfills).
Figure 7 is a 2007 aerial image that closely approximates presently existing conditions, including
administration and landfill activity buildings, roads and parking areas, the storm water pond (under
construction at that time), landfill cells, capped grassy areas, the compost facility, leachate lagoons, and
wooded or scrub areas. The proximity of the Mohawk River on the east and west is also apparent, as is
the hydroelectric dam that has impounded water and flooded the lowland to the edge of Cohoes Crescent
Road (the original river bank, now submerged, is well east of the present-day rivers edge, as several of
the historic maps reproduced later in this report show).
In terms of native vegetation, the state as a whole consists of a complex of northern hardwood
species (excepting the Adirondacks and southeast) that can be divided into a typology of 5 specific forest
zones (De Laubenfels 1977). The Colonie Landfill project APE lies within the Oak-Northern Hardwood
subdivision of this typology. The Oak-Northern Hardwood zone is described primarily as a transition zone
where oaks and the northern hardwood species alternate or intermingle, particularly on the moister and
deeper soils along the Hudson Valley. This suggests that the prehistoric forested landscape of the
project parcel would have been covered primarily with beech and sugar maple species and considerable
oaks, with associated ash, basswood, cherry, birch, and white pine.
In terms of general soil properties, the project APE lies within an area dominated by soils that
formed in glacial lake deposits along the eastern and northeastern margins of Albany County (USDA
1992). These soil types are broadly mapped from Guilderland in the north to Ravena in the south, with
predominantly glacial till deposits mapped for the remainder of the county to the west. The ColonieElnora soil complex encompasses the Colonie Landfill project APE, and this complex stretches along the
northern edge of the county between Dunnsville and the Hudson River at Cohoes. The complex is
described as a dominantly nearly level to steep, somewhat excessively drained to moderately well
drained, coarse-textured soil found on lowland deltas and lake plains (USDA 1992).
Table 1: Descriptions of Mapped Soils (USDA 1992)
Name
(symbol)
Dumps (Du)
Soil Horizon Depth

cm (in)
n/a
n/a
Hudson silt loam

(HuB)
A 0-28 (0-11)
B 28-78 (11-31)
C 78-152 (31-60)
dk br
br
br
Hudson silt loam

(HuC)
A 0-28 (0-11)
B 28-78 (11-31)
C 78-152 (31-60)
Hudson silt loam

(HuD)
A 0-28 (0-11)
B 28-78 (11-31)
C 78-152 (31-60)
Color
Texture,
Inclusions
Slope
5-25%
n/a
si lo
si cl lo
var si cl
3-8%
moderately well
drained
dk br
br
br
si lo
si cl lo
var si cl
8-15%
moderately well
drained
dk br
br
br
si lo
si cl lo
var si cl
15-25%
moderately well
drained
n/a
Drainage
Landform
Sanitary landfill
glacial lake
plains and
slightly convex
hills
glacial lake
plains-hillsides
bordering
streams and
gullies
glacial lake
plains-hillsides
bordering
streams and
gullies
Name
(symbol)
Soil Horizon Depth

cm (in)
Texture,
Inclusions
Color
Hudson silt loam

(HuE)
A 0-28 (0-11)
B 28-78 (11-31)
C 78-152 (31-60)
dk br
br
br
si lo
si cl lo
var si cl
Nassau
channery silt
loam (NaB)
A 0-20 (0-8)
B 20-40 (8-16)
Bedrock 40 (16)
dk gr br
ye br
ch si lo
ch si lo
Nassau very
channery silt
loam (NrC)
A 0-20 (0-8)
B 20-40 (8-16)
Bedrock 40 (16)
dk gr br
ye br
very ch si lo
very ch si lo
Nunda silt loam

(NuB)
A 0-40 (0-16)
B 40-111 (16-44)
C 111-163 (44-64)
dk br ye br
pl br dk gy br
dk gy br
si lo
si cl lo
cl lo
3/8%
moderately well
drained
Nunda silt loam

(NuC)
A 0-40 (0-16)
B 40-111 (16-44)
C 111-163 (44-64)
dk br ye br
pl br dk gy br
dk gy br
si lo
si cl lo
cl lo
8-15%
moderately well
drained
A 0-40 (0-16)
B 40-111 (16-44)
C 111-163 (44-64)
A 0-18 (0-7)
B 18-86 (7-34)
C 86-163 (34-64+)
A 0-20 (0-8)
B 20-74 (8-29)
C 74-152 (29-60)
dk br ye br
pl br dk gy br
dk gy br
dk br
dk ye br
dk ye br/dk gr br
v. dk gr br
dk gr br to gr br
gr br to dk gr br
si lo
si cl lo
cl lo
si cl lo
si cl
si cl
si lo
si lo
fi sa lo
15-25
moderately well
drained
Landform
glacial lake
plains-hillsides
bordering
streams and
gullies
glacial tillbedrock
controlled ridges
and plains
glacial tillbedrock
controlled ridges
and hills
formed over
glacial till-tops of
ridges and hills
in rolling plains
formed over
glacial till-tops of
ridges and hills
in rolling plains
Formed over
glacial till-side
slopes of rolling
hills in uplands
and on
dissected till
plains
3-8%
somewhat
poorly drained
lake plains
A 0-13 (0-5)
B 13-152 (5-60+)
dk br
br and ye br
si lo
si lo, lo, rock
A 0-13 (0-5)
B 13-152 (5-60+)
dk br
br and ye br
si lo
si lo, lo, rock
A 0-13 (0-5)
B 13-152 (5-60+)
dk br
br and ol br
si lo
si lo & si cl lo
Nunda silt loam

(NuD)
Rhinebeck si cl
lo (RhB)
Teel silt loam
(Te)
Udorthents,
loamy (Ug)
Udorthents,
loamy-Urban
land complex
(Uk)
Udorthents,
clayey-Urban
land complex
(Uh)
Water (W)
Slope
Drainage
25-45%
moderately well
drained
3-8%
Somewhat
excessively well
drained
3-8%
Somewhat
excessively well
drained
nearly
level
0-8%
moderately well
drained
Well drained
and moderately
well drained
0-8%
Well drained
and moderately
well drained
0-8%
Well drained
and moderately
well drained
floodplains
manmade cuts
and fills
disturbed land
covered by
asphalt,
buildings, etc.
disturbed land
covered by
asphalt,
buildings, etc.
Key: dk:dark; pl:pale; br:brown; ye:yellow; lo:loam; fi:fine; sa:sand; cl:clay; si:silt; lo:loam; v:very; gy:gray;
ol:olive; grv:gravel; dk:dark
Specific soil types within the landfill property are shown in Table 1. Although the single largest
mapped soil in the APE is Dumps (Figure 8), the variety of soil types in the vicinity indicate the soil types
in the dump area before the landfill was created. Most notable are areas of Hudson silt loam of varying
degrees of slope occupying the southern and presumably the central portions of the landfill. Nunda silt
loam borders the Hudson soils on the west and probably represents the soil referred to as glacial till in the
Dunn Geoscience generic profile. Small areas of Rhinebeck and Teel soils represent lake plain and
floodplain, respectively, while small areas of Nassau channery silt loam or very channery silt loam are thin
till soils overlying bedrock. Udorthents (highly disturbed soils) are mapped in the general area of the of
the landfill buildings, and extensively along Arrowhead Lane in the southern part of the APE. The pre-
existing soil types before the formation of udorthents seem to include Hudson and Nunda silt loams,
based upon soil distributions outside of the udorthents. The field visit to the southern project area along
Arrowhead Lane indicates extensive prior disturbance through down-cutting for leveling in the location of
the udorthents in this section of the APE.
SITE FILES RESEARCH
The archaeological site files of the New York State Museum (NYSM) and the Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), both maintained by OPRHP, were reviewed in order to
identify whether archaeological resources have been reported previously within or adjacent to the project
boundaries (Table 2). This site file search was conducted to cover an approximate one-mile radius
around the project area.
Table 2: Site File Search Results
NYSOPRHP Site #
00104.000356
00104.000357
09110.000046
Additional Site #
NYSM 6521
NYSM 6526, ACP
ALBY 29
NYSM 6348
NYSM 6349, ACP
ALBY 29
Distance to
APE m(ft)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1406 (4613)
No info
Unidentified
precontact
Unidentified
precontact
Middle Archaic and
Middle Woodland
Mid-Late Archaic,
Middle Woodland
Unidentified
precontact
Unidentified
precontact
Unidentified
precontact
Unidentified
precontact
1028 (3373)
1850s
1049 (3442)
Late 18th-early 20th

centuries
NYSM 4731*
NYSM 4717, ACP
SARA 23
1017 (3337)
00104.000511
P1-CA7
452 (1483)
00104.000512
P2-CA8
465 (1526)
NYSM 4731*
NYSM 4716, ACP
SARA 22
903 (2963)
1067 (3501)
NYSM 6565*
1103 (3619)
NYSM 6565*
Site of Crescent
Aqueduct
09110.000004
NYSM 11059,
Crescent-Erie Canal
09110.000189
Business Complex site
*Denotes sites with multiple locations
Time Period
Unidentified
precontact
Unidentified
precontact
No info
447 (1467)
Site Type
Traces of
occupation
Camps
No info
No info
Traces of
occupation
Camps
Camp
Camp
Traces of
occupation
Camps
Village
Village
Canal
aqueduct
Canal-related
business
complex
Two of the archaeological sites, OPRHP Nos. 00104.356 and 00104.357 are recorded as being
within the Colonie Landfill property. OPRHP No. 00104.356 is shown within an area that has become
part of the landfill and is considered to have been previously disturbed. OPRHP No. 00104.357 is shown
in an area where high slopes within the landfill border a deed-restricted area containing wetlands. This
site-- if still extant and if the locational information is close to accurate-- is presumed to be below the
slopes and in the deed-restricted area. These sites as currently mapped in the NYS archaeological site
inventory are shown in Figure 9 of the present report (with the scale changed to protect confidential
OPRHP information).
However, these two sites were originally recorded as Albany County Site 29, camp sites by
early 20th century archaeologist Arthur C. Parker. Little is known about these sites, but they are
presumed to date to the prehistoric period. Parker (1922:483) referred to these sites vaguely as Camp
sites in the bend of the Mohawk northwest of Cohoes. The Werner Archaeological Consulting (1993:5)
report on the southern part of the Colonie landfill refers to these same sites as being located
(respectively) northeast of the Project Area along the Mohawk River and east of the Project Area along
the Mohawk River. Given these descriptions from 1993, it is possible that the precision of the site
inventory information has changed over time (if data were transferred from one format or set of maps to
another), making the actual site locations unsure. For example, the present-day information places Site
00104.357 in or immediately adjacent to the 1993 survey area. However, this placement is described
otherwise by Werner Archaeological Consulting 1993:4), who state that No prehistoric sites or historic
sites, historic properties or places are recorded with the Project Area.
In addition, 2 more diffuse prehistoric sites are recorded as overlapping with the Colonie landfill.
These are New York State Museum site numbers 6521 and 6526. Both of these sites are depicted in the
site files as extensive areas bordering the Mohawk River, and do not necessarily indicate that
archaeological sites occur within the Colonie Landfill. One is referred to as traces of occupation while
the other is called campsites in the bend of the Mohawk River northwest of Cohoes, an entry seeming to
provide redundant information with Parkers Albany County Site 29.
radius.
Six other prehistoric/precontact period and 2 historic period sites are recorded within the one-mile
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Table 3 shows National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed and eligible sites within one
mile of the APE. The NRHP-listed sites are shown in Figure 10. Site 94NR00698, the Godfrey
Farmhouse, is directly across Route 9 from the landfill. The enlarged Erie Canal route from Watervliet to
the Crescent Aqueduct is not shown on Figure 10, but passes by or within the APE next to the label on
Figure 7 stating Old Erie Canal (aband). It is eligible for NRHP-inclusion as part of a historic district.
Other listed or eligible sites occur north of the Mohawk in Halfmoon (or crossing into Halfmoon, in the
case of the Aqueduct site), or east of the landfill at the Crescent Dam.
Table 3: National Register of Historic Places Listed or Eligible Sites within One Mile
USN
NR #
Description
Address
Determination
00104.000208
94NR00698
Godfrey Farm House
00104.000045
n/a
00104.000046
n/a
00104.000224
96NR01103
Erie Canal (Enlarged): Crescent

Aqueduct Piers
Erie Canal (Enlarged): Crossover
Bridge Abutment
1866 Cohoes Company
Headgate House
00104.000400
96NR01103
Cohoes Company Dam
00104.000401
96NR01103
Cohoes Company Headrace
1313 Loudon
Road Colonie
East of Mohawk
Bridge
Crescent Dam
Cohoes
Crescent
Road/North
Mohawk Street
Cohoes
Crescent
Road/North
Mohawk Street
Cohoes
Crescent
Road/North
Mohawk Street
Listed
Eligible as part
of a district
Eligible as part
of a district
Listed
Listed
Listed
USN
NR #
Description
Address
Determination
From City of
Watervliet to
Crescent
Aqueduct
9 Terminal
Road,
Halfmoon
78 Church Hill
Road,
Halfmoon
Terminal Road,
Halfmoon
93 Church Hill
Road,
Halfmoon
Along north
side of Mohawk
River from
Crescent to
Clifton Park
Eligible as part
of a district
00104.000592
n/a
Erie Canal (Enlarged) route from

City of Watervliet to Crescent
Aqueduct
09110.000003
03NR05136
09110.000006
93NR00446
09110.000011
n/a
c. 1842 Noxon Bank Building,

AKA Farmers Bank of Saratoga
County
Oakcliff-c. 1835 High Style Greek
Revival house overlooking
Mohawk River
c. 1840s Crescent Hotel
09110.000179
97NR01245
Crescent Methodist Church

(building gone)
09110.0000292
n/a
Erie Canal (Enlarged) Route
Listed
Listed
Individually
eligible
Listed
Eligible as part
of a district
The following photos show National Register-listed buildings: Photo 1 (Godfrey Farmhouse),
Photos 2 and 3 (Oakcliff, including house and barn), Photo 4 (the Noxon building), and Photo 5 (a
remnant of the Crescent Aqueduct). Photo 6 shows the former Crescent Hotel, determined NRHP eligible
but not listed. Photo 7 shows the view across the river from the general vicinity of the Noxon building and
the Crescent Aqueduct. An historic marker in this area notes the Crescent Aqueduct, while another
commemorates a former Mohawk River bridge and an Indian portage to the Hudson River. Photos 8 and
9 show different views of the Colonie Landfill from positions near the Godfrey farmhouse. The photo
angles for these illustrations are shown in Figure 35.
OTHER HISTORIC SITES
Two other identified historic sites are located in close proximity to the Colonie Landfill. Both sites
have historic markers. These include the marker commemorating Loudens Ford, a revolutionary war
crossing of the Mohawk River (Photo 10). The other site is the Fonda Cemetery, the location where the
original Fonda family cemetery was relocated to in the 1930s (due to road construction along Route 9).
The present-day Fonda Cemetery site is on the west side of Route 9 near the intersection with Crescent
Terrace. The reported original location is the curb lane of Route 9 across from the Crescent Terrace
intersection (blog.fonda.org/archives/1030). This information indicates that the original cemetery location
is under the highway adjacent to the Colonie Landfill. Route 9 has been cut down here below the level of
an original, gently sloping surface. A portion of this surface (possibly somewhat filled over) remains
beyond the ditch east of Route 9. The apparent original landform of the cemetery was a ridge with steep
slopes facing the east.
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Several previous archaeological surveys have been performed in the vicinity, including 3 within
the Colonie Landfill. The following surveys have been recorded at OPRHP:
Collamer & Associates, Inc.
1988 Cultural Resource Survey, SEQR Literature Review, Riverbend, Town of Waterford, Saratoga
County, New York.
1988
SEQR Parts 2 and 3, Riverbend, Town of Waterford, Saratoga County, New York.
2002
Phase II Cultural Resource Investigations for Columbia Executive Park, Town of Colonie, Albany
County, New York.
Fisher, Charles L., J. Scott Cardinal and Mark S. LoRusso

2000 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey Report, PIN 1043.19.121: Realignment of CrescentVischer Ferry Road, Town of Halfmoon, Saratoga County, New York.
Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc.
1995 Report of Archeological Potential and Field Reconnaissance, SEQR Parts 1 & 3, Proposed
Water Line, Tow Path, Clam Steam and Beach Roads, Town of Halfmoon, Saratoga County, New
York.
1995
Report for Archeological Potential and Field Reconnaissance, SEQR Parts 1A, 1B & 3, Proposed
Church Hill Road Sewer District, Town of Halfmoon, Saratoga County, New York.
1999
Phase 1A Literature Review and Phase 1B Archeological Field Reconnaissance, Sprint

Communications Tower AL03C013, Colonie Landfill Route 9, Town of Colonie, Albany County,
New York.
2006
Phase 1A/1B Archeological Investigation, Mohawk River Estates, Town of Colonie, Albany
County, New York.
Werner Archaeological Consulting

1993 Town of Colonie Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project, Cultural Resource Investigation Reports,
Stage 1A Literature Search and Sensitivity Study, Stage 1B Archaeological Field Investigation.
Of these, the Hartgen 1999 survey and the Werner 1993 survey were performed within Colonie
Landfill. The Werner survey was performed in the southern section of the landfill property before the
expansion into Area 6 (Figures 3 and 8). This survey found a stray chert biface tip and fragments of 2
stoneware vessels, but no evidence of actual archaeological sites. It also identified that the Fonda
farmstead was located north of the 1993 survey area.
The Hartgen 1999 survey was performed for a cellular phone transmission tower, yard, and
associated right-of-way to Route 9. The cell tower and yard locations were not shovel tested due to the
prior disturbance caused by the razing of the larger site for the construction of the Colonie landfill facilities
and the installation of below ground utilities. The Hartgen survey shovel tested the right-of-way from the
cell tower to Route 9, noting a small stone foundation, but not finding potentially significant archaeological
deposits.
In addition to reports that are held at OPRHP, Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist
conducted Phase 1 archaeological surveys for Snyders Best-Rate Self-Storage and Seymours
Motorized Sports (both located across Route 9 from the Colonie Landfill). The reference information on
these reports is
Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist
1997 Stage 1A/1B Archaeological Survey, Proposed Snyders Best Rate Self Storage, Town of
Colonie, Albany County, New York.
1999
Phase 1A and Phase 1B Archaeological Surveys, Proposed Seymours Motorized Sports, Route
9 (New Loudon Road), Town of Colonie, Albany County, New York.
The survey for Snyders Best Rate Self Storage was performed on a long ridge similar and
parallel to the prominent ridge in the western section of the Colonie Landfill. The survey for Seymours
Motorized Sports was performed on level ground adjacent to the Mohawk River Estates survey performed
by Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. (but farther from the river). Neither the survey of Snyders Best
Rate nor of Seymours Motorized Sports identified the presence of archaeological sites within the survey
areas.
In addition, Werner Archaeological Consulting (1993:25-26) refers to another previous
archaeological survey report not held at OPRHP. The title and exact date of completion are unknown,
but this reportedly was a full Phase 1A/1B survey of a lot along Arrowhead Lane performed by Bagdon
Environmental Associates about 1989. This lot, located within the present APE and clearly identified by
Werner Archaeological Consulting, reportedly produced no evidence of the presence of archaeological
sites. Since the report is not available, its assessment by Werner Archaeological Consulting is quoted
here: Stage IA & B archaeological survey conducted for the site approximately 4 years ago; no
archaeological or historical resources identified. Survey conducted by Bagdon Associates [evidently
never filed with OPRHP because building permit process never finished]. This lot is revisited later in the
present report, where limited shovel testing to confirm prior disturbance is reported.
Figure 11 shows the locations of previous archaeological surveys within the Colonie Landfill,
including those by Werner Archeological Consulting, Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc., and Bagdon
Environmental Associates.
Analysis
The numerous previous surveys within the vicinity provide considerable information on the
distribution of prehistoric archaeological sites in the area, and the potential for undisturbed areas within
the Colonie Landfill to contain prehistoric archaeological sites. Most notably, the extensive survey
conducted by Werner Archaeological Consulting found only one stray prehistoric artifact, while the
smaller survey by Hartgen Archeological Associates (1999) and the surveys of Snyders Best Rate and
Seymours Motorized Sports found no evidence of prehistoric archaeological sites. These surveys were
all performed in upland areas in the interior of the great peninsula. The reported survey by Bagdon
Environmental Associates also found no archaeological sites.
The Hartgen Archaeological Associates 2006 survey of Mohawk Estates was performed on lowlying, relatively level ground closer to the river. This survey found three cracked rocks, possibly not of
cultural origin. At most, this survey indicates a low artifact density within a small part of the total survey
area. The Hartgen (2006:7) report notes: The results of the Phase IB survey reflect that many of the
archaeological sites mapped in the vicinity of the project area represent relatively small precontact camps
and stray finds scattered over a large area.
In contrast to the other four reports, the Collamer 1989-2002 surveys of Columbia Executive Park
identified two sites overlooking the river that may have been more substantial than small camps.
Temporally diagnostic projectile point types indicate a long period of recurrent occupation. The important
difference with this survey is that archaeological sites occurred overlooking the river, not in the interior of
the peninsula.
In summary, based upon systematic archaeological surveys, prehistoric archaeological sites are
in this area closely associated with locations near the Mohawk River, while archaeological surveys within
or adjacent to the Colonie Landfill found little evidence of prehistoric land use. The two sites identified in
OPRHP records as fully within the Colonie Landfill are referred to as near the Mohawk River by Werner
Archaeological Consulting. Apparently conflicting information makes their actual locations obscure.
However, if actually located near the Mohawk River, their situations would conform to the pattern of
settlement along the river and low intensity use of the peninsula interior revealed by more systematic data
recorded by the various archaeological surveys.
HISTORIC MAP RESEARCH
The following maps were reviewed for the locations of standing structures or other cultural
features such as the Erie Canal.
Table 4: Historic Maps Consulted

Date Figure
Author
Title
1758
1767
12
13
1772
1829
14
15
Bleeker
H. I. Becker, The
Boght (complied
1951)
Burr
Force Collection
1850
16
Witbeck
Map of Albany County
1854
17
Gould
Map of Albany County
1866
18
Beers
Atlas of Albany County
1898
19
USGS
1920
20
USACOE
Albany 15 quad
New York State
Canals: Chart No.2
1929
21
USGS
1929
22
USACOE
1931
23
USACOE
Albany 15 quad
New York State
Canals: Chart No.2
New York State
Canals: Chart No.2
1937
24
USACOE
New York State

Canals: Chart No.182
1941
25
USACOE
New York State

1947
26
USACOE
New York State

1949
27
USGS
Albany 15 quad
Listing
1 house shown east of the road-unclear
relationship to APE
Information similar to 1758 map
Shows Isaac Fonda house west of Mohawk
River, probably east of the APE
Shows Erie Canal in the project vicinity
Very schematic map-shows a Fonda just
west of the Mohawk River and east of the
Erie canal (out of APE) and another Fonda
close to the Albany and Mohawk Plank
Road (apparently within the APE)
Shows I.C. Fonda (possibly 2 closely
adjoining structures) within the APE
Shows I. Fonda within APE (a second I.
Fonda continues to be shown east of the
canal)
Continues to show a structure within the
APE and the Erie Canal in or adjacent to
the APE
Shows old Erie canal in relation to barge
Canal/Crescent Dam impoundment
the APE-also shows ponds and a dirt road
in the north section of the landfill, including
a large pond in the north section of the APE
Canal/Crescent Dam impoundmentshows
water features or Mohawk River overflow in
the old Erie Canal
Shows old Erie Canal in relation to barge
Canal/Crescent Dam impoundment-shows
a relict pond in the old Erie Canal and
seems to depict the old Erie canal as
otherwise filled in
Shows old Erie Canal in relation to barge
Canal/Crescent Dam impoundment-shows
a relict pond in the old Erie Canal and
seems to depict the old Erie canal as
otherwise filled in
the APE-also shows ponds and a dirt road
in the north section of the landfill, including
a large pond in the north section of the APE
MAP-DOCUMENTED STRUCTURES
The 18th century maps depict house sites in the general area of the Colonie Landfill; however,
these maps are not drawn with the scale or precision needed to identify whether or not 18th century sites
occur within the APE. Nonetheless, the 1772 map shows the site of Isaac Fonda in a position just to the
west of the Mohawk River. The 1993 report by Werner Archaeological Consulting (p. 8) interprets this
depiction to indicate that the Isaac Fonda house was in or near the Northeast part of the Project Area
and the ownership of the surrounding land by Daniel Van Olinda.
The Erie Canal (fully opened in 1825) first appears on the 1829 Burr Atlas, and appears on the
subsequent 1850s-1866 maps. The route of the canal closely parallels Cohoes Crescent Road, and may
occur, at least in part within the project APE.
The 1850s-1866 maps show a site labeled Fonda, just west of the Mohawk River, and another
labeled Fonda, I. Fonda, or I.C. Fonda farther to the west, near the Albany and Mohawk Plank Road (now
Route 9). On the 1850 Witbeck map a thin line suggests that the Fonda site may have sat along a lane
east of the plank road; the depiction of a lane passing along the Fonda site is present and drawn more
th
boldly on the 1854 Gould and 1866 Beers maps. On the mid 19 century maps, the eastern Fonda site is
actually east of the Erie Canal (i.e., in the area flooded by the early 20th century impoundment of the
Mohawk). The western Fonda site is within the APE, and may post-date the Isaac Fonda house shown on
the 1772 map (and interpreted here as the site located east of the Erie Canal on later maps). Werner
Archaeological Consulting (1993:21) inferred that by the mid-19th century, the Fonda farm had migrated
west to be closer to the main road (now Route 9). Alternatively, the western Fonda site could have been
a more recent farmstead developed in addition to the original Fonda site, which seems to appear
consistently to the east on the 1772, 1850s, and 1866 maps.
The 15 and 7.5 USGS maps (1898, 1929, 1949, ca. 1950) continue to show a structure within
the APE in the location of the 19th century Fonda site. The 7.5 minute map (Figure 2) also shows an
outbuilding (a barn, based upon information from Colonie Landfill personnel). The Fonda site grounds
and both building locations are within the area that has now been developed as facilities for the landfill, as
discussed below in the section on prior disturbance (also see Figure 28).
The 1929 and 1949 USGS maps also show two structures in the eastern section of the APE in
the vicinity of Cohoes Crescent Road. The southern of these disappears on the 1949 map, but another
appears on the 12949 map near the northern structure depicted in 1929. The northern structure is
accessed by a lane from Route 9 on the 1929 map.
A series of maps beginning in 1829 shows the route of the old Erie Canal. Notable among these
depictions is the USGS 7.5 map (Figure 2), which depicts the old Erie Canal following the route of
Cohoes Crescent Road, and to some extent, its occasional minor departure form the road. Topography
and map labeling indicate that one such departure is within the APE in the area reportedly deed-restricted
for the protection of wetlands. The route of the old Erie Canal is also shown in some detail on the 1898
15 quad (Figure 16), and is considered reasonably accurate. This route is shown as a dashed line on the
1929 and 1949 USGS 15 quads also, although by this time the old Erie had been abandoned. The
impoundment behind the Crescent Dam had become part of the Barge Canal by 1920 (as shown on
Figure 17 and later depictions). Several maps prepared in the 1920s, 1930 and 1940s by the Army Corps
of Engineers (Figures 20, 22-26) show a variety of Barge Canal details, including relict features of the old
Erie Canal. Considering the disappearance of Erie Canal open water depictions over time, this series
may chronicle in a rough way the infilling of the Erie Canal, which appears (except for a large open-water
feature) to be extensive by 1947.
The 1920-1931 Army Corps of Engineers maps (Figures 20, 22, and 23) also show the Fonda
site as a structure. In addition, these maps show a road (probably a dirt road or lane) from Route 9 to
Cohoes Crescent Road, where it terminates at a large, unlabeled feature, possibly a structure, located at
a prominent bend in Cohoes Crescent Road. Another short road is shown along the northwest edge of
this feature. On the subsequent 1937 map (Figure 24), the connector road from Route 9 to Cohoes
10
Crescent Road is shown, but the Fonda site and the possible building on Cohoes Crescent Road have
disappeared (in fact, the convention of representing buildings has largely disappeared). Finally, the
connecting road has disappeared on the 1941 and 1947 maps (Figures 25-26). The structure and road
shown on some of the ACOE maps corresponds to some of the information on the 1929 and 1949 USGS
maps. The general location of the possible structure on the ACOE maps and the northern structure on
the USGS maps is the location of the present-day leachate lagoons and adjoining graded parking area.
PRIOR DISTURBANCES AND ALTERATIONS
Over time the development of the Colonie Landfill and the development along Arrowhead Lane
south of the existing landfill have resulted in extensive prior disturbance. Previously, Hartgen
Archaeological Associates, Inc. (1999:2) has reported extensive prior disturbance due to cutting, leveling,
grading, landscaping and utilities in the area of the Landfill administration building and nearby facilities,
including the area between the administration building and the cell tower. Citing landfill personnel, their
report states that a farm complex occupied the area of the landfill office as recently as the 1960-1970s.
Their survey omitted shovel testing of the cell tower lease area due to prior disturbance. During the
present survey, landfill engineer Matthew McGeary confirmed that the house and barn sites of the former
farmstead had been disturbed and built over when the current landfill facilities were constructed (this
farmstead would have been the former Fonda farmstead). Much of the area within the landfill property
has been filled with deep deposits of landfill over time (currently, the active landfill is in Areas 5 and 6 on
Figure 3). In this section of the report, prior disturbance and areas covered with deep landfill are
discussed beginning with the administration area, and moving to the northern and the southern parts of
the APE.
Photos 11-15 show the graded and landscaped area of the cell tower, administration building,
and material recovery-recycling building. Figure 28 shows the relationship of map-documented structures
to the landfill, including the location of the Fonda house site within this area of prior disturbance. During
the Phase 1B survey, shovel tests were placed in potentially undisturbed areas just beyond the edges of
the graded, leveled, or cut down areas (including Transects 10 and 11). Similarly, Hartgens shovel
testing in 1999 was placed on the edge of this area (and then extended downslope in narrow corridor to
Route 9).
Photo 16 shows an area just west of the stormwater pond that has been scraped and leveled.
During the Phase 1B survey, shovel testing was conducted where possible on the undisturbed western
edge of this area.
Old landfill occurs extensively across the northern section of the APE (north of Area 1 on Figure
3), forming the current landscape that is elevated above the mapped wetland in the far north of the APE.
The series of USGS topographic maps indicates that an elevated point of land in the northwest may have
been an exception, while another elevation at the northeast corner was considered probably disturbed,
but subject to confirmatory testing. During the Phase 1B survey, Transects 1-3 were placed on the
northwest elevation, as shown in Photo 17. Photo 18 shows the slopes of old landfill rising to the south of
these transects, and dropping to the west. The old landfill south of transects 1-3 appears to be about 2530 feet thick (or more if buried below the 220 foot elevation).
Photos 19-20 show the slopes of the old land fill in the northeast section of the APE. The slopes
are at elevations of about 220 +/- feet above mean sea level (amsl). Earlier maps, however (such as the
1949 USGS map) indicate that formerly this was a lowland about 200 feet amsl. Photos 19-20 were
taken part way down the slopes, which rise somewhat higher to the west.
Photo 21 shows the slopes overlooking the wetland in the far northern section of the APE. These
slopes demarcate thick landfill deposits to the south (to the left in the photo). The 1949 USGS map
shows a pond immediately to the north (where the wetland is now), suggesting that some filling may also
have extended north of these slopes. The elevation from which this photo was taken was subjected to
broad interval shovel testing to confirm/disconfirm prior disturbance or landfill deposits.
11
Photo 22 shows the graded and leveled area adjacent to the leachate storage lagoons. Referring
to Figure 28, which depicts the locations of map-documented structures, this is the location of a map
documented structure depicted as a large building or other facility on the 1920-1931 USACOE maps, but
simply as a building on the 1929 and 1949 USGS maps. This location has been heavily modified by the
construction of the leachate storage lagoons and the parking area, and has otherwise been covered by
deep landfill. Figure 29 shows a broad inflection of the ground contour just north of the leachate lagoons,
to correspond to the cutting and leveling of the parking area.
Figure 29 also indicates the abandonment of the landfill in the north, while Figure 28 shows the
northward relocation of the ca. 2001 composting facility shown on Figure 29 (the composting facility was
relocated to a portion of the abandoned landfill). Figure 29 also appears to show drainage down the
slope that is shown in Photo 21, and a depression or possibly open water in the northern wetland area.
Photo 23 shows the slope of the landfill down to Cohoes Crescent Road, covering the old Erie
Canal (now long-filled). Based upon the 1954 USGS mapping, the canal ran immediately to the west of
this section of the road (as depicted on Figure 28).
Photo 24 shows the transfer station, which was built on a cut-down surface, disturbing the Fonda
barn site. Figure 28 shows the relationship of the Fonda structure and outbuilding (barn) as interpolated
from the 7.5 minute USGS map (Figure 2) to the exiting land fill facilities. The outbuilding (barn) falls in
the area of the ridge that has been cut down and leveled for the transfer station. The Fonda house site
falls in the area of the Administration Building, Material Recovery/Recycling Building, and the intervening
parking area and roadway. As noted earlier, this area has been cut down and leveled to remove the
slopes of the pre-exiting ridge in the vicinity of these present-day structures. This area also contains a
variety of underground utilities, and has been subjected over time to alterations of driving, parking and
lawn areas (cf. Werner Archaeological Consulting, Inc. 1993).
The background of Photos 25 and 26 shows one of the undisturbed parts of the landfill, the
northern section of the long ridge that parallels Route 9. The top of this ridge was shovel tested during
the Phase 1B survey (the slopes, not tested, are greater than 12-15% slope). The foreground of Photos
25 and 26 shows the area of a filled-in swale, identified by comparison between 2001 (Figure 29) and
current (Figure 3) topo-mapping.
Photos 27-29 show the cut banks bounding the southwest lot around Arrowhead Lane. These
are deep cuts that extend to steep slopes and the perimeter road in the southern section of the landfill.
Werner Archaeological Consulting (1993) estimates that this propertys development was not recent, but
did occur after World War II; the ca. 1980 version of the USGS topo map shows the buildings as post1954 photorevisions. Photo 30 shows the leveled area looking east toward the next property (10
Arrowhead Lane), which has been cut down to about the same level (there was no permission to enter
10 Arrowhead Lane for a photo).
Photo 31 shows a pond-wetland area spanning the north sections of the next two lots to the east
(i.e., Arrowhead Commons and an undeveloped property). Photos 32-33 show the cut-down and
landscaped front of the Arrowhead Commons property. Photo 34 shows the cut bank along the west side
of the property to the east, illustrating the extent to which the ground at Arrowhead Commons has been
cut down, and complementing the cut banks shown in Photos 27-29.
Photo 35 shows the undeveloped lot on Arrowhead Lane at the southeast corner of the APE.
This is the area reportedly surveyed by Bagdon Environmental Associates about 1989. This lot appeared
to have been graded to remove the topsoil, and limited shovel testing was deployed here during the
Phase 1B survey confirming prior disturbance. Photo 36 shows the cut bank adjacent to the road on the
east side of this lot. Figure 39 shows the steep slope of a spoil pile between the wetland and the road. It
is suspected that the wetland may fill an old borrow pit, since its depression is not mapped as a pond on
the historic maps that show several ponds in the vicinity, such as the 1929 and 1949 USGS maps.
12
That the landfill has changed significantly over time is apparent in a comparison of figures in the
present report, such as Figure 3, which shows existing conditions; Figure 7, an aerial photograph that
shows this general plan but on-going activity circa 2007; and Figure 29, which depicts the landfill circa
2001, when an application for an Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permit was made by the Town of
Colonie; as well as the series of USGS topo maps (Figures 2, 19,21, and 27) that record a variety of
information, such as changes in ground contours and the presence of ponds in the northern section of the
landfill.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
A large amount of information is available with which to evaluate archaeological sensitivity with
respect to the likelihood that prehistoric (precontact) or historic period archaeological sites will occur
within the APE.
The general location of the project site on a peninsular landform surrounded on three sides by the
Mohawk River suggests some level of sensitivity for the occurrence of prehistoric sites. While this
sensitivity may be considered to be relatively high due to proximity to the river, numerous archaeological
surveys at the Colonie Landfill and in its immediate vicinity have not identified prehistoric artifacts
(Bagdon Environmental Associates ca. 1989; Curtin 1997, 1999; Hartgen Archaeological Associates, Inc.
1999); or have identified only a stray biface fragment (Werner Archaeological Consulting 1993), or
cracked rocks that could not be confirmed as cultural (Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. 2006). This
may indicate that proximity to the river may be a relative factor, and that the Colonie Landfill is too far
from the original river shoreline to have a high potential for archaeological site occurrence. Based on the
empirical results, the occurrence of prehistoric archaeological sites is considered possible but not likely to
occur within the present project APE.
In contrast, archaeological sites have been identified closer to the river by present-day
archaeologists (Collamer and Associates 1990, 2002), or have been reported to be close to the river in
older reports such as Parkers (Werner Archeological Consulting 1993:5 refers to these sites as along
the Mohawk River, although current site files mapping places them in or adjacent to the APE).
The prehistoric artifacts or possible artifacts that have been recovered within the landfill property
or nearby sites indicate that these till ridge and lake plain areas were used for off-site activities such as
resource procurement or processing at some low level of intensity. Thus, the project area is considered
to have a degree of sensitivity for the occurrence of isolated prehistoric artifacts or small groups of
artifacts. However, based upon previous archaeological survey results, this evidence is expected to be
scarce, if present at all.
With respect to historic period archaeological resources, the likelihood of occurrence is
addressed in terms of each map-documented or reported case:
The old Erie Canal: there is a high probability that remnants of the old Erie Canal occur below
landfill in the canals route along Cohoes Crescent Road.
The Fonda Cemetery: there is a possibility for the occurrence of human burials or gravestone
fragments from this cemetery in the area opposite of the intersection with Crescent Terrace. This
assessment is made on the following basis: Although the cemetery was moved in the 1930s, it is
often the case that not all burials in a graveyard can be identified after many years, and thus be
moved with the others. Therefore some sensitivity remains for the occurrence of human remains
on the east side of Route 9 opposite Crescent Terrace. Such remains may occur under the road,
under the shoulder, or adjacent to the shoulder.
The Fonda site: all indications are that the farmhouse and barn sites and the grounds around
them have been destroyed by the construction of the landfill facilities. There is some sensitivity
for the occurrence of artifact deposits in limited undisturbed or possibly undisturbed areas
peripheral to these sites.
13
20th century structures near Cohoes Crescent Road: Starting with the southern-most of these
map documented structures, there is a 1929 mapped structure within the deed-restricted area.
Structures occurring to the north on the USGS or ACOE maps (shown in Figure 28) are in areas
where grading and leveling for parking has occurred, or where leachate lagoons have been
constructed. Or, if located adjacent to these facilities, any remnant of these sites would be below
deep landfill. Given these factors, archaeological sensitivity is assessed as low.
PHASE 1A RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the foregoing information, much of the project APE (otherwise referred to as the area
of interest) is adjudged to have been previously disturbed. In addition, much of the APE contains deep
landfill deposits. The APE is considered to have a low sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological sites,
although the possibility is recognized that isolated prehistoric artifacts, or overlapping patterns of isolated
artifacts (i.e., low artifact density in off-site-- a.k.a. non-site-- locations) may occur.
This assessment of prehistoric archaeological site sensitivity is based upon the results of two
previous archaeological surveys conducted within the Colonie Landfill; one other archaeological survey
conducted on Arrowhead Lane on property acquired for the present project (and within the area of
interest); and three other archaeological surveys performed immediately to the west on the other side of
Route 9, in terrain and settings similar to those within the APE.
In addition, with two exceptions, the APE is considered to have low sensitivity for the occurrence
of historic period archaeological sites. This assessment is based upon the disturbance that has occurred
at the sites of the Fonda farmhouse and barn, and the grounds surrounding these structure sites; and
th
later leveling and construction of land filling over the sites of 20 century structures in the western section
of the project site.
The two historic sites that present exceptions to the assessment of low archaeological sensitivity
are the Erie Canal and the Fonda cemetery. The Erie Canal probably still exists under fill within the APE
on the west side of Cohoes Crescent Road. Based upon terrain in this vicinity, landfill overlapping the
canal in this location is probably relatively thin, especially along its eastern margin. The Fonda Cemetery
may have been entirely moved in the 1930s to its current location on the west side of Route 9, but if this
move was not completely successful-- especially if the cemetery extended east of the highway
construction zone-- undiscovered graves or gravestones may still remain in the area on the east side of
Route opposite Crescent Terrace. While the likelihood that such remains are present is difficult to
assess, sensitivity is assessed as high due to the sensitivity associated with human remains and burial
places.
Recommendations
Given these results and assessments, the following is recommended:
If construction or ground-surface alteration is proposed in areas that may affect the Erie Canal or
a remnant of the Fonda cemetery, consultation with the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation is recommended in order to design survey, protection, or
monitoring plans as appropriate to the nature of the archaeological resource, existing site
conditions, and the potential project effect.
Otherwise, a Phase 1B archaeological survey is recommended in areas with less than 12%
slope, and adjudged to be undisturbed or possibly undisturbed. These areas are limited and
include all of the areas covered by shovel testing in the following Phase 1B survey. Typically,
these are locations on possibly undisturbed landforms in the north and west sections of the APE.
One goal of this testing is to document, if possible, additional information on patterns of isolated
prehistoric artifact occurrence, and to discover any other information that may pertain to the
prehistoric use of these locations. The other goal is to discover whether there are undisturbed
traces of the Fonda farmstead remaining outside the areas of prior disturbance.
14
PHASE 1B ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION

The Phase 1B field survey was conducted over the course of 4 days during July and August
2012. Weather conditions were sunny and seasonably warm. The survey was conducted by a field
director and 2 field technicians.
The Phase 1B field methodology was guided by Section 2.3 of the New York Archaeological
Council Standards (NYAC 1994) as well as guidelines provided by the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP 2005). In areas that were not characterized by high slope
or obvious disturbance, parallel transects of shovel test pits (STPs) were placed at a 15m (50ft) interval
within the project APE; along these transects, shovel tests were also deployed every 15 meters. All soils
were screened through -inch mesh hardware cloth, with artifacts bagged per stratum. In one case,
survey transects (but not STPs) were deployed at a 30m (100ft) spread because ground conditions
appeared disturbed on circa 2007 aerial imagery, and confirmatory evidence was sought (Figure 30;
Transects 4-6). Confirmation of prior disturbance also was sought on the southern periphery of the
Landfill administration and recycling areas (Transect 11), and in a lot in the southeast section of the
project (along Arrowhead Lane; Transect 15).
Photographs were taken of the project APE to demonstrate current conditions (Figure 36).
Following the completion of fieldwork, all field data were brought to the Curtin Archaeology labs for
processing and analysis.
PHASE 1B ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Shovel Testing
A total of 61 STPs were deployed across the testable areas within the project APE (see Figures
30-34). Of this total, 6 shovel tests were not excavated due to immediate conditions. Shovel test 2/3 was
not dug given the presence of slope from the adjoining the landfill; STPs 8/7-8/10 were not dug given
disturbed ground; and STP 10/2 was not excavated given the proximal cell-tower survey by Hartgen in
1999 (see above). Shovel test field data are tabulated and presented in Appendix C.
Site Stratigraphy
The stratigraphic data encountered during the field reconnaissance is best considered in terms of
the various areas tested. At Transects 1-3, both intact and disturbed soils were encountered. STPs 1/1,
1/2, 1/3, and 2/1 recorded a profile described as a dark grayish-brown gravelly clay loam topsoil above a
yellowish-brown gravelly clay loam subsoil. No cultural material was recovered from either the A or B
horizons. At STP 2/2, a B horizon subsoil described as a light grayish-brown clay was recorded below an
11cm-thick dark brown compost layer, while at STP 3/1 mottled disturbed layers were recorded to a depth
of 31cm below ground surface. Based on the Transect 1-3 data, it appears that between the 214-220ft
contour elevation and along the western fringe of the slope leading down towards Route 9 there remains
a sliver of intact ground surface that borders disturbed, landfill-related soils immediately to the east
(Figure 31). However, no archaeological sites were identified.
Farther to the east Transects 4-6 were placed where the 7.5 USGS quad (Figure 2) suggested
possible undisturbed land overlooking the northern wetland (but where differences with earlier maps
suggested the extension of landfill over the lake plain). During excavation, these STPs recorded
apparently disturbed or landfill-related stratigraphy. These transects were deployed at a 30m (100ft)
spread, with individual STPs deployed every 15m (50ft). A basal yellow and gray gravelly clay was
recorded at STPs 4/3, 4/4, 5/1 and 5/2. This basal clay deposit may represent a clay cap placed on top of
landfill deposits. At STPs 4/2, 5/3 and 6/2 a basal light grayish brown gravelly clay was recorded as a
possible remaining B horizon soil. This was found beneath an approximately 10cm-thick layer of dark
brown compost. However, given stratigraphic variation at other nearby STPs and the possibility of deep
th
filling suggested by early 20 century topographic maps, soils here are likely to be fill. Shovel test 4/1
recorded compost above layers of grayish-brown and yellowish-brown gravelly silty clay and cobbles. At
STP 6/1, compost was recorded above a compact layer of gray, yellow and brown gravelly silty clay with
cobbles. This varied set of soil conditions seems to represent fill or landfill cap. Based upon soil mapping
15
west and south of the recorded landfill (Figure 8), a Hudson silt loam, essentially a silty or loamy lake
plain clay is expected in this area; 15 USGS quads reviewed during the Phase 1A indicate that this area
was in the landfill (which is probably is 20+ feet deep here).
Transects 12-14 were deployed along the top of the (drumlin-like) ridge formation paralleling US
Route 9, just to the north of the landfill facility buildings (Figure 33). Shovel tests here recorded a rather
consistent profile across what appears to be an intact area bordering the landfill. The topsoil was
described as a 14 to 24 cm-thick light grayish-brown gravelly silt and loam A horizon atop a yellowishbrown gravelly silt, clay and loam B horizon subsoil. No cultural material was recovered from either
stratum. A single sherd of Albany-slip stoneware was observed on the surface a few meters west of STP
14/1. The compact gravel content of the soils prevented deeper subsoil excavations at STPs 12/1, 12/3
and 13/1.
Transects 7-9 border the west and south sides of a large, artificial stormwater detention pond.
Transects 7 and 9, spaced 15 m (50 ft) apart, were deployed within the wooded section bordering the
detention pond to the south, while Transect 8 was deployed near the tree line to the west (Figure 32).
Transects 7 and 9 recorded a rather consistent soil profile suggesting the presence of intact soils. This
included a 15 to 28cm-thick grayish-brown gravelly silty clay loam A horizon lying above a yellowishbrown gravelly clay and loam subsoil. No cultural material was recovered from either stratum. Transect 8
recorded more variability among the soils, and STPs 8/7 through 8/10 were not excavated due to obvious
ground disturbance (Photo 16). Reference to the 2007 orthoimagery (Figure 30) shows the creation of
the large stormwater pond underway, and the imagery suggests ground disturbance extending west from
the pond almost up to the parcel/APE boundary parallel to US Route 9. It thus was possible to excavate
shovel tests close to the western edge of the property at STPs 8/1-8/6, and more centrally placed at STPs
11-12. Transect 8 excavations recorded a 14 to 38cm-thick topsoil variably described as a mottled light
brown and gray gravelly silty clay loam lying above a mottled light gray, yellow and brown gravelly silty
clay loam. No cultural material was recovered from Transect 8 STPs.
Transects 10 and 11 were placed to the north of the stormwater pond but south of the landfill
administration buildings (Figure 32). Shovel Test 10/1 (7.5 m/25 ft northeast of STP 8/12) encountered a
rock impasse at 15cm below ground surface. STP 10/2 was not excavated given the proximity of the
cell-tower survey by Hartgen in 1999 (see above). Hartgen Archaeological Associates Shovel Tests 1
and 2 were excavated in this vicinity, finding 25-28 cm of gravelly silt topsoil over silt or gravely silt subsoil
excavated for an additional 10-12 cm. No artifacts were found here by the Hartgen survey. In the
present survey, STP 10/3 recorded a 17cm-thick light grayish-brown gravelly loam A horizon lying above
a yellowish-brown gravelly loam subsoil. No cultural material was recovered from either stratum at STP
10/3 (Including the Hartgen STPs, the mean shovel test interval from STP 8/12 to STP 10/3 is about 13
m/43 ft) The single STP along Transect 11 was deployed east of Transect 10 in an apparently disturbed
area. Excavation of STP 11/1 confirmed disturbance in the form of a very dark brown silty clay topsoil
infused with gravel and cobbles lying above a mixed basal stratum of yellowish-brown and brown silty
clay.
Transect 15 was deployed towards the southern part of the parcel near Arrowhead Lane (Figure
34), and also confirmed prior disturbance. STP 15/1 recorded a 6cm-thick crushed stone pavement layer
lying above a truncated yellowish-brown gravelly compact loam subsoil, with no cultural material
recovered. Proximal STP 15/2 also recorded crushed stone pavement, but here it was mixed with a dark
grayish-brown gravelly loam. Below this lay a grayish-brown gravelly loam, with a stone or bedrock
impasse encountered at 27cm below ground surface. No cultural material was recovered.
Precontact Artifact Assemblage
No precontact artifacts or features were recovered during the Phase 1B reconnaissance.
Historic Artifact Assemblage
No historic or modern-era artifacts or features were recovered during the Phase 1B shovel;
testing. A single sherd of Albany-slip stoneware was observed at ground surface a few meters north of
shovel test 14/1. Presence of the Albany glaze broadly dates the ceramic sherd to sometime from 1805-
16
1920 (Miller et al. 2000), but the provenience of the sherd is spatially unassociated with map documented
structures due to lack of proximity. A number of shovel tests noted but discarded obviously modern
materials, including paper fragments, plastic and rubber tire fragments (see Appendix C).
PHASE 1B FIELD SURVEY SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Phase 1B archaeological survey proceeded under the strategy of shovel testing apparently
undisturbed areas at standard 15 m (50 ft) intervals, as well as confirming apparent disturbance or
resolving questions about the possible survival of pre-landfill, pre-Arrowhead Land development through
additional, but less intensive shovel-testing. In addition to the areas shovel tested, it is assumed that the
Erie Canal is extant along the west side of Cohoes Crescent Road, while the possibility that graves from
the Fonda Cemetery may be present along the east side of Route 9 across from Crescent Terrace is
recognized.
The shovel testing did not find evidence of archaeological sites. This result is consistent with the
findings of Werner Archaeological Consulting, Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc., and Bagdon
Environmental Associates, who also conducted or reportedly conducted archaeological surveys within the
or immediately adjacent to the present APE.
Prior disturbance was confirmed in the northeast section of the APE (Transects 4-6), near the
stormwater pond (Transect 11), and in the southeast section of the project site (Transect 15). Other
survey transects found evidence of prior disturbance bordering or interspersed among undisturbed
locations. Transects 12-14, excavated on the ridge along Route 9 (immediately north of the Transfer
Station) found no evidence of prior disturbance.
Given these results, the results of the other archaeological surveys performed in or adjacent to
the project APE, the extent of prior disturbance in the vicinity of the Fonda farm site and elsewhere, and
other disturbances noted in the APE, the following recommendations are made:
1. No additional archaeological consideration is recommended except in locations that would involve
the old Erie Canal or the proximity of the reported Fonda Cemetery site;
2. For project activities or future construction that could involve the old Erie Canal or the Fonda
Cemetery sites, consultation with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation is recommended. This consultation would consider the nature of the proposed
activity, possible fill conditions, and the proximity of the construction activity to the reported
archaeological/historic sites in order to consider whether an impact could occur, and whether an
additional archaeological survey focused on the area of possible impact; or an archaeological site
protection plan; or an archaeological monitoring plan is necessary to avoid impacts.
17
REFERENCES
Collamer & Associates, Inc.
1988 Cultural Resource Survey, SEQR Literature Review, Riverbend, Town of Waterford, Saratoga
County, New York.
1988
SEQR Parts 2 and 3, Riverbend, Town of Waterford, Saratoga County, New York.
2002
Phase II Cultural Resource Investigations for Columbia Executive Park, Town of Colonie, Albany
County, New York.
Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist

1997 Stage 1A/1B Archaeological Survey, Proposed Snyders Best Rate Self Storage, Town of
Colonie, Albany County, New York.
1999
Phase 1A and Phase 1B Archaeological Surveys, Proposed Seymours Motorized Sports, Route
9 (New Loudon Road), Town of Colonie, Albany County, New York.
De Laubenfels, David J.
1977 Vegetation. In Geography of New York State, John H. Thompson, editor. Syracuse University
Press, New York.
Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc.
1999 Phase 1A Literature Review and Phase 1B Archeological Field Reconnaissance, Sprint
Communications Tower AL03C013, Colonie Landfill Route 9, Town of Colonie, Albany County,
New York.
2006
Phase 1A/1B Archeological Investigation, Mohawk River Estates, Town of Colonie, Albany
County, New York.
Miller, George, L., with contributions by Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen
2002 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29:1-22.
New York Archaeological Council (NYAC)
1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections in
New York State
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
2005 Phase I Archaeological Report Format Requirements.
Parker, Arthur C.
1922 The Archeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 237-238.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1992 Soil Survey of Albany County, New York.
Werner Archaeological Consulting
1993 Town of Colonie Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project, Cultural Resource Investigation Reports,
Stage 1A Literature Search and Sensitivity Study, Stage 1B Archaeological Field Investigation.
18
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
19
APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHS
56
Photo 1: Godfrey Farmhouse looking west/southwest.
Photo 2: Oakcliff, looking south.
Photo 3: Oakcliff barn, looking southwest.
Photo 4: The Noxon building looking northwest.
Photo 5: A remnant of the Crescent Aqueduct, looking west.
Photo 6: The former Crescent Hotel looking east/northeast.
Photo 7: The view south toward the Colonie Landfill (background) from near the Crescent
Aqueduct site.
Photo 8: A view of the Colonie Landfill from near the Godfrey Farmhouse.
Photo 9: An alternative view of the Colonie Landfill from near the Godfrey Farmhouse.
Photo 10: The Loudens Ford monument looking southwest from the intersection of Route 9 and
Cohoes Crescent Road.
Photo 11: Disturbed, landscaped area looking southwest toward the cell tower.
Photo 12: Adjoining, disturbed, landscaped area looking west.
Photo 13: Disturbed landscaped area looking northwest toward the administration building.
Photo 14: Disturbed, landscaped and paved area looking north (edge of recycling building on
right side of photo).
Photo 15: Looking northeast across part of the disturbed area toward the recycling building.
Photo 16: Looking south at the disturbed area west of the stormwater pond
Photo 17: Looking northeast at shovel testing on Transects 1-3, a partly disturbed, partly
undisturbed area.
Photo 18: Looking south at the tall hill composed of landfill in Landfill Area 1.
Photo 19: Looking east/northeast down slopes of landfill in the northeast section of the Landfill.
Cohoes Crescent Road and the old Erie Canal route are at the foot of the slope.
Photo 20: Another view of the landfill slopes in the northeast section of the landfill, looking north.
Photo 21: Looking west across abandoned landfill slopes in the northern section of the project.
Photo 22: Looking east/southeast at the graded and paved area near the leachate storage
lagoons; the berm of a leachate storage lagoon is visible on the right side of the photo.
Photo 23: Looking northwest at the buried route of the old Erie Canal along Cohoes Crescent
Road; landfill deposits are on the left and presumably fill the canal prism.
Photo 24: Looking northwest at the transfer station area, cut down and landscaped from the
original surface of the prominent, drumlin-like ridge in the western part of the Colonie Landfill.
Photo 25: Looking west at the undisturbed portion of the ridge. The foreground is a filled area,
based upon comparisons of topo maps of different ages.
Photo 26: Looking northwest at the north end of the ridge, and more of the filled area in the
foreground.
Photo 27: Looking northwest at cut banks along the western edge of the Arrowhead Lane
properties.
Photo 28: An alternative view looking north, including a view of the cut banks at the back of the 4
Arrowhead Lane lot.
Photo 29: A closer view of the cut bank at the back of the 4 Arrowhead Lane lot.
Photo 30: Looking east across the cut down and paved area at 4 Arrowhead Lane, toward the
similar degree of prior disturbance at 10 Arrowhead Lane (background),
Photo 31: Looking north across the mapped wetland toward the berm containing the Landfills
perimeter road (and screens to catch wind-blown objects).
Photo 32: Looking northwest at the cut-down and landscaped grounds of Arrowhead Commons.
Photo 33: An alternative view of the graded and landscaped grounds of Arrowhead Commons,
looking north.
Photo 34: Looking east at the cut bank just east of Arrowhead Commons.
Photo 35: Looking west at the area reportedly surveyed by Bagdon Environmental Associates
(BEA) in 1989 (now graded with truncated upper stratigraphy).
Photo 36: A view looking west at the cut bank along the road south of the Landfill, and bordering
the parcel surveyed by BEA.
Photo 37: Looking east/northeast up the slope of a large spoil pile located between the wetland
and the road south of the Landfill.
APPENDIX C: STP RECORDS
76
Colonie Landfill
Ph1B STP Records
STP
1/1
1/1
1/2
1/2
Depth (cm)
0-19
19-30
0-18
18-29
Soil Description
dk gy br grv sa lo
ye br grv cl lo
dk gy br grv sa lo
ye br grv cl lo
Artifacts
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
1/3
1/3
2/1
2/1
2/2
2/2
2/3
3/1
3/1
3/1
3/1
4/1
4/1
4/1
4/2
4/2
0-8
8-30
0-17
17-27
0-11
11-34
0-6
6-11
11-17
17-31
0-5
5-13
13-20
0-9
9-32
dk br grv si cl
ye br grv si cl
dk gy br grv sa lo
ye br grv cl lo
dk br compost
lt gy br cl
no dig
v dk br si sa
mott gy br & v dk br si sa
or br grv cl
mott v dk br, or br cl
v dk br lo compost
gy br grv si cl w/ cobs
ye br grv si cl w/ cobs
dk br compost
lt gy br grv cl
4/3
4/3
4/4
0-18
18-30
0-20
v dk br lo compost
mott ye br & gy cl
dk br sa lo compost
4/4
5/1
20-30
0-6
grv gy cl
dk br sa lo compost
5/1
5/2
6-12
0-12
gy cl
dk br sa lo compost
5/2
5/3
5/3
5/3
6/1
6/1
6/2
6/2
12-30
0-10
10-22
22-30
0-10
10-32
0-15
15-32
7/1
7/1
7/2
7/2
7/3
7/3
7/4
7/4
7/5
7/5
7/6
7/6
8/1
8/1
8/2
0-15
15-23
0-18
18-30
0-20
20-36
0-19
19-30
0-19
19-34
0-28
28-38
0-19
19-37
0-15
grv gy cl
dk br compost
lt gy br grv cl
lt gy br cl
v dk br lo compost
gy ye br grv si cl w/ cobs
dk br compost
lt gy br grv cl
gy br grv si cl mott w/ gy cl &
cobs
ye br si cl w/ grv & cobs
gy br grv sa lo
ye br grv si lo
gy br si cl w/ grv & cobs
gy br grv sa lo
ye br grv si lo
br si cl w/ grv & cobs
gy br grv sa lo
ye br grv sa lo
lt gy br si cl w/ grv & cobs
gy br grv si lo
D: plastic shopping bag

ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
B soil, v. compact
slope from landfill
D: plastic
D: plastic
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
v. compact
D: plastic, paper
ncm
B horizon
D: plastic, rubber tire
fragments
ncm
likely clay cap over landfill
D: plastic
basal clay is likely the clay
ncm
cap over landfill
ncm
ncm
cap over landfill
ncm
ncm
cap over landfill
ncm
ncm
B soil, compact
ncm
B soil, v. compact
D: plastic
ncm
v. compact
D: paper
ncm
B soil, v. compact
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
Comments
root impasse
Colonie Landfill
Ph1B STP Records
Artifacts
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
0-15
15-32
Soil Description
ye br grv si cl lo
mott br gy & ye grv si lo
lt br si cl w/ grv & cobs
lt ye br si cl w/ grv & cobs
gy br grv si lo
ye br si cl lo
mott gy br si cl w/ grv, cobs &
rust inclusions
lt ye br si cl w/grv & cobs
no dig
no dig
no dig
no dig
lt br si cl w/ grv & cobs
lt ye br si cl w/grv & cobs
8/12
8/12
9/1
9/1
0-17
17-30
0-27
27-40
gy br grv si lo
mott ye br & gy br si cl lo
lt gy br grv si lo
ye br grv si lo
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
9/2
0-20
gy br si cl & cobs
ncm
9/2
9/3
9/3
9/4
9/4
9/5
9/5
9/6
9/6
10/1
20-30
0-26
26-40
0-26
26-36
0-26
26-40
0-17
17-29
0-15
ye br si cl
lt gy br grv si lo
ye br grv si lo
gy br si cl w/ grv & cobs
lt gy br grv si lo
ye br grv si lo
med br grv lo
ye br grv lo
dk br grv sa lo
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
D: plastic, iron bolt
10/2
10/3
10/3
11/1
0-17
17-30
0-8
11/1
12/1
STP
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/4
8/5
8/5
8/6
Depth (cm)
15-25
0-38
0-18
18-36
0-26
26-30
0-14
8/6
8/6
8/7
8/8
8/9
8/10
8/11
8/11
14-24
24-30
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
8-22
0-16
no dig
lt gy br grv lo
ye br grv lo
v dk br si cl w/ grv & cobs
mott ye br & br si cl w/ grv &
cobs
lt gy br grv si
ncm
ncm
12/1
12/2
12/2
12/3
16-19
0-15
15-30
0-18
ye br grv cl si
gy br grv si lo
ye br grv si lo
lt gy br grv si
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
12/3
12/4
12/4
12/5
12/5
12/6
12/6
13/1
18-27
0-23
23-33
0-19
19-31
0-23
23-40
0-24
ye br grv cl si
gy br grv si lo
ye br grv si lo
lt gy br grv si
ye br grv cl si
gy br grv si lo
ye br grv si lo
gy br grv si lo
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
Comments
rock impasse
disturbed
disturbed
disturbed
disturbed
next to dirt road
very hard packed gravel, not
clear if intact soils
less gravelly than other STPs

in this area
less gravelly than other STPs
in this area
rock impasse
previously surveyed by
Hartgen
next to dirt road
v. compact
v. compact, rocky; rock
impasse
v. compact, rocky; rock

impasse
v. compact
rock impasse
Colonie Landfill
Ph1B STP Records
STP
13/2
13/2
13/3
13/3
13/4
13/4
13/5
13/5
13/6
13/6
14/1
14/1
14/2
14/2
14/3
14/3
15/1
15/1
Depth (cm)
0-21
21-32
0-23
23-37
0-14
14-26
0-18
18-29
0-20
20-40
0-22
22-33
0-14
14-30
0-19
19-33
0-6
6-26
15/2
15/2
0-10
10-27
Soil Description
lt gy br grv si
ye br grv si
lt gy br grv si
ye br grv cl si
gy br grv si lo
ye br grv si lo
lt gy br grv si
ye br gy cl si
gy br grv si lo
ye br grv si lo
lt gy br grv si
ye br grv cl si
gy br grv si lo
ye br grv si lo
lt gy br grv si
ye br grv cl si
crushed stone pavement
compact ye br grv lo
crushed stone pavement
mixed w/ dk gy br grv lo
gy br grv lo
Artifacts
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
ncm
Comments
v. compact
v. compact, rocky
v. compact, rocky
v. compact
v. compact
A and upper B missing
stone/bedrock impasse
State Historic Preservation Office/

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Human Remains Discovery Protocol
(August 2014)
In the event that human remains are encountered during construction or archaeological investigations, the
New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommends that the following protocol is implemented:
At all times human remains must be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. Should human remains
or suspected human remains be encountered, work in the general area of the discovery will stop
immediately and the location will be immediately secured and protected from damage and disturbance.
If the services of a skeletal biologist are necessary to determine if the remains are human, we recommend
that this work take place on site and no bone leave the site.
Human remains or associated artifacts will be left in place and not disturbed. No skeletal remains or
materials associated with the remains will be collected or removed until appropriate consultation has
taken place and a plan of action has been developed.
The county coroner/medical examiner, local law enforcement, the SHPO, the appropriate Indian Nations,
and the involved agency will be notified immediately. The coroner and local law enforcement will make
the official ruling on the nature of the remains, being either forensic or archaeological.
If human remains are determined to be Native American, the remains will be left in place and protected
from further disturbance until a plan for their avoidance or removal can be generated. Please note that
avoidance is the preferred choice of the SHPO and the Indian Nations. The involved agency will consult
SHPO and appropriate Indian Nations to develop a plan of action that is consistent with the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) guidance. Photographs of Native American
human remains and associated funerary objects should not be taken without consulting with the involved
Indian Nations.
If human remains are determined to be non-Native American, the remains will be left in place and
protected from further disturbance until a plan for their avoidance or removal can be generated. Please
note that avoidance is the preferred choice of the SHPO. Consultation with the SHPO and other
appropriate parties will be required to determine a plan of action.

DEIS Town of Colonie LF Area 7

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

DEIS Town of Colonie LF Area 7

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Building lifetime relationships with our

clients and employees.

Proposed Area 7 Development

1319 Loudon Road

100 Crystal Run Road, Suite 101

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 8

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................8

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

TOPOGRAPHY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................15

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ............................................................................. 82

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................. 85

NATURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................90

CUMULATIVE & GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ........................................................ 92

NO-ACTION/WASTE EXPORTATION (OFF-SITE DISPOSAL) ..............................................85

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .................... 90

TOPOGRAPHY & SOILS ........................................................................................................82

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................................92

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Odor Complaint Statistics (2012-2014)

Site Location Plan

Army Corps of Engineers

Above mean sea level

Area of Potential Effect

Construction and Demolition

Code of Federal Regulations

Capital Region Landfills, Inc.

Best Management Practices

A-weighted decibel scale

Diameter at Breast Height

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Assessment Form

Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Monitoring Program

Emergency Medical Service

Environmental Monitoring and Site Analytical Plan

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Existing Water Quality Values

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Flood Rate Insurance Map

Gas Collection and Control System

Ground Water Quality Standards

High Density Polyethylene

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Innovative Energy Systems, Inc.

Equivalent Continuous Sound Level

Local Solid Waste Management Plan

Miles per hour

Multi-sector General Permit

Municipal Solid Waste

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Nonmethane Organic Compounds

Non-attainment New Source Review

Natural Resources Conservation Service

New Source Performance Standards

New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations

New York Natural Heritage Program

New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual

Office of the New York State Comptroller

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Refuse Derived Fuel