==> picture [262 x 698] intentionally omitted <==

Engineering Report

WWTP Upgrade DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

VILLAGE OF RED HOOK

Dutchess County, New York

JANUARY 30, 2026

SPDES #NY0271420

CWSRF #C3-5387-03-00

==> picture [11 x 10] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [80 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [61 x 36] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [10 x 12] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [14 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [612 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ........................................................................... 4 II. Project Background and History ................................................. 5 2.1 SITE INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Location .....................................................................................................................5 2.1.2 Geologic Conditions .................................................................................................7 2.1.3 Environmental Resources ..........................................................................................8 2.1.4 Floodplain Considerations ...................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 Impacts to Environmental Justice Areas and Disadvantaged Communities ...... 13 2.2 OWNERSHIP AND SERVICE AREA ...................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Outside Users ........................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Industrial Discharges ............................................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Hauled Waste .......................................................................................................... 14 2.2.4 Population Trends and Growth ............................................................................... 14 2.3 EXISTING FACILITIES AND PRESENT CONDITION ............................................... 16 2.3.1 General Description and History of Major System Components .......................... 16 2.3.2 Significant Operations, and Maintenance History and Preventative Maintenance History ........................................................................................................ 19 2.3.3 Failure History and Component Limitations ........................................................... 20 2.3.4 Ability to Meet Current Design Standards for Treatment ...................................... 21 2.3.5 Planned, Current, or Future Improvements Outside Project Scope ..................... 21 2.3.6 Security and Cybersecurity ..................................................................................... 21 2.3.7 Hydraulic Capacity Analysis of Existing Sewers where Expansion or Increased Flow is Proposed ............................................................................................................... 21 2.3.8 Current or Future Projects on the Same Site .......................................................... 22 2.3.9 SPDES Permit Conditions and Effluent Discharge Limits ........................................ 22 2.3.10 Publicly Owned Sewer System Identification Number ........................................ 23 2.3.11 Documented Compliance Issues ......................................................................... 23 2.3.12 Design Flows and Waste Loads ............................................................................. 23 2.3.13 Analyses of Production Rates for Processing or Manufacturing Operations ...... 24 2.3.14 Existing Energy Consumption ................................................................................ 24 2.3.15 Photographs .......................................................................................................... 24 2.3.16 History of Damage due to Storm or Flood Impacts ............................................. 24

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

1

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

Appendix B NY Heritage Program Determination/Environmental Resource Mapper

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

2

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

Appendix C IPaC Consultation Appendix D FEMA Flood Maps Appendix E Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis Appendix F SPDES Permit Appendix G 2015 Monitoring Well Sampling Results Appendix H Photographs Appendix I EDU Count and Charges Appendix J Operation and Maintenance Budget Appendix K Septic Tank Technical Data Sheets Appendix L Cost Estimates Appendix M WWTP Upgrade Alternative Drawings Appendix N Proposed Service Area and Collection System Map Appendix O Consent Order (Case No. R3-20250610-54) Appendix P Engineering Report Certification

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

3

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

I. Executive Summary

The Village of Red Hook is a community located in northern Dutchess County, along the eastern shore of the Hudson River, in the Central Hudson region of New York State. The entire Village and portions of the surrounding Town are currently served by a municipal water supply; however, public wastewater treatment has only just been established within portions of the Village. The remaining properties within the Village are served by on-site treatment systems that are known to be substandard or failing, which has the potential to pollute the Village’s water supply.

In late 2024 and through May of 2025, the existing wastewater plant lost its ability to treat the wastewater due to mechanical failures, operator negligence, and improperly sized treatment equipment. This led to the WWTP exceeding all its treatment limits for several months. Due to this treatment failure, the NYSDEC issued the Village an Order-on-Consent (Case No R3-20250610-54) requiring this report and a plan to improve the WWTP to provide reliable treatment that will consistently meet all the discharge limits.

The multiple treatment violations also generated a Notice of Violations from NYSDEC and a notice of significant non-compliance from USEPA.

The Village is considered a Potential Environmental Justice Area, and as such, its citizens can be disproportionally impacted by failing septic systems and polluted public water supplies. The Village has recognized the need to protect the environment, potable water supply and the health and safety of its citizens.

This engineering report covers the upgrades needed to improve the existing WWTP at its current capacity (75,000 gpd).

The recommended upgrades include a larger surge tank for the existing EQ tank and new headworks. These upgrades are needed in addition to repairs to the existing WWTP. For the facility to avoid overflows and to meet its discharge limits.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

4

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

II. Project Background and History

2.1 SITE INFORMATION

2.1.1 Location

The Village of Red Hook (Village) is in the Town of Red Hook and northern Dutchess County, New York along the eastern shore of the Hudson River, in the Central Hudson Region of New York State. The Village is just over 1 square mile in size and is bisected by Route 9 running north and south and Route 199 running east and west.

The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), owned, operated, and maintained by the Village, is in the southwestern portion of the Village, off US Route 9 and O’Callaghan Lane. The WWTP discharges to a sub tributary of the Saw Kill, a NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Class C(T) stream, through Outfall 001 (41° 59’ 29” N, 73° 53’ 05” W). A USGS topographic location map depicting the WWTP location is included below ( Figure 2 ).

According to 2021 Census data estimates, the community has a median household income (MHI) of $88,482, population of 1,921 and a family poverty rate of 4.3%. The WWTP currently serves approximately 127 developed properties (150 hook-ups) and an additional 15 undeveloped lots within the Village.

==> picture [346 x 224] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Village of Red Hook Existing Sewer Service Area

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

5

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

==> picture [471 x 609] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Village of Red Hook USGS Quadrangle Location Map

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

6

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

2.1.2 Geologic Conditions

There are no unique geologic features within the Village. The area has gently rolling to moderately hilly topography with fast draining coarse sand and gravel. According to the NRCS Custom Soil Resource Report for the WWTP site, the land is comprised of Canandaigua silt loam (Ca) and Haven-Urban land complex (Hf). The Village is made up of over 10 different soil types, summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains the NRCS Soil Surveys for the WWTP site and the entire Village.

Table 1. Village of Red Hook Soil Characteristics

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

7

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

Bedrock Geology of the Village is Austin Glen Formation (Oag). More information on the composition of the area is shown in the table below.

Surficial Geology of the Village includes the following:

• Kame Deposits (k), including coarse to fine gravel and sand, kames, eskers, kame terraces kame deltas, ice contact or ice cored deposition, with lateral variability in sorting, texture and permeability, it may be firmly cemented with calcareous cement.

• Till (t), including Glacial till, is the dominant overburden throughout. It also contains variable texture and usually poorly sorted sand-rich diamect which was deposited beneath glacier ice.

It is not anticipated that geologic conditions will be negatively impacted by the WWTP upgrade project. The elimination of existing substandard septic systems and seepage pits will have many environmental, health and safety benefits.

2.1.3 Environmental Resources

Waterbodies: Several streams/rivers are located in and around the Village which is in the Lower and Middle Hudson River Drainage Basin. The WWTP discharges to a Tributary of the Saw Kill Creek (PWL 1301-0085), a NYSDEC Class C(T) stream at the point of discharge. There are no other classified waterbodies within the Village. The Saw Kill as a whole is a NYSDEC Class B(T), C(T) and C stream with no use impairments.

The Rhinebeck Kill and tributaries (1301-0210) are located just south of the Village along Old Farm Road. The Rhinebeck Kill is a NYSDEC Class C stream. It is best used for fishing, which is considered stressed due to pH.

According to the Environmental Resource Mapper, there are no Mussel Screening Streams or Ponded Waters within the Village. The Saw Kill Creek, located in the Town of Red Hook

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

8

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

is a NYSDEC Mussel Screening Stream and a classified as Class B(T) in that section of the waterbody.

There are no Coastal Areas or Designated Inland Waterways near the Village. The project is not located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers program.

The Village is located within the Lakes Kill-Saw Kill (020200061104) NYS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)12. Dutchess County is part of the Hudson River Basin and also the Housatonic River basin in Connecticut. Most surface drainage in the area flows to the Hudson River through creeks and streams. The Saw Kill and Stony Creek drain the majority of the Town and Village of Red Hook.

The presence of elevated levels of fecal coliform in the groundwater surrounding the Village indicates that nearby surface waterbodies may also be impacted. Groundwater in and around the Village ultimately flows to surface waters with in Hudson River Estuary although, testing should be conducted to confirm this statement.

It is not anticipated that nearby waterbodies will be negatively impacted by the WWTP upgrade project. The elimination of existing substandard septic systems and seepage pits will have many environmental, health and safety benefits. The Village of Red Hook will work closely with NYSDEC and other applicable agencies to ensure that waterbodies are protected throughout the life of the project.

Wetlands: There are no Regulatory Tidal Wetlands near the Village. NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands and Check Zones can be found throughout the Village, including on the existing WWTP parcel. NWI Classified Wetlands can also be found throughout the Village, including the existing WWTP parcel.

It is not anticipated that nearby wetlands will be negatively impacted by the WWTP upgrade project. The elimination of existingl substandard septic systems and seepage pits will have many environmental, health and safety benefits. The Village of Red Hook will work closely with NYSDEC, US Army Corps. Of Engineers (ACOE) and other applicable agencies to ensure that wetlands are protected throughout the life of the project.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

9

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

==> picture [450 x 319] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. Village of Red Hook Wetlands Map

Aquifers: According to NYSDEC data, there are no Primary Aquifers near the Village. The Village is located over a principal aquifer. This sole source aquifer has been shown to be negatively impacted by substandard septic tanks located throughout the Village. Water supply for the Village comes from two groundwater sources: a shallow unconfined gravel aquifer and a deeper bedrock aquifer underlying the unconfined system.

It is not anticipated that aquifers will be negatively impacted by the WWTP upgrade project. The elimination of existing substandard septic systems and seepage pits will have many environmental, health and safety benefits. The Village will work closely with NYSDEC and other applicable agencies to ensure that aquifers are protected throughout the life of the project.

Endangered Species: There are no Critical Environmental Areas, Significant Natural Communities or National Natural Landmarks near the Village. Rare Plants and/or Rare

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

10

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

Animals may occur in the northern portion of the Village. A NY Heritage Program Determination for the project areas is included as Appendix B .

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online application ( Appendix C ), the following species may be found in the Village:

• Indiana Bat (E)

• Northern Long-Eared Bat (E)

• Monarch Butterfly (C)

• Bald Eagle

• Golden Eagle

It is not anticipated that endangered or threatened species will be negatively impacted by the WWTP upgrade project. The elimination of existing substandard septic systems and seepage pits will have many environmental, health and safety benefits. The Village of Red Hook will work closely with NYSDEC, US FWS, ACOE and other applicable agencies to ensure that species are protected throughout the life of the project.

Archeologically Sensitive Areas: According to NY SHPO CRIS online mapping application, there are no Historic Districts or Building Districts within the Village. While the WWTP is located outside of Archaeologically Sensitive Areas, the majority of the Village is located within those sensitive areas. The WWTP site and sewer service area went through a consultation with NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 2016 (16PR00149) and many of the Village streets were included in a Phase 1A/1B archaeological survey when the water system was installed in 2012 (12SR61052).

It is not anticipated that archaeological resources will be negatively impacted by the WWTP upgrade project. The Village will work closely with NY SHPO to ensure that archaeological resources are protected throughout the life of the project.

Agricultural Districts: According to the Dutchess County Agricultural District Viewer, small portions of the Village are in an agricultural district (DUTC020). These areas occur on the outskirts of the Village. The WWTP site is not located in the vicinity of any agricultural districts or agricultural resources.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

11

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

It is not anticipated that agricultural lands will be negatively impacted by the WWTP upgrade project. The elimination of existing substandard septic systems and seepage pits will have many environmental, health and safety benefits. The Village of Red Hook will work closely with Dutchess County and other applicable agencies to ensure that important agricultural resources are protected throughout the life of the project.

2.1.4 Floodplain Considerations

The WWTP site is not subject to flooding and is located outside of flood prone areas as shown in Figure 4 below. There is a small area in the northern portion of the Village that is located in Zone AE and the Regulatory Floodway. Base Flood Elevations (BFE) in that area are 183 feet. Appendix D contains FEMA flood maps for the entire Village.

==> picture [451 x 349] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4. Village of Red Hook WWTP FEMA Flood Map

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

12

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

It is not anticipated that flood prone areas will be impacted by the WWTP upgrade project. The Village will work closely with FEMA and other applicable agencies to ensure that infrastructure is protected throughout the life of the project and all project aspects meet NYS Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA) guidance where applicable.

2.1.5 Impacts to Environmental Justice Areas and Disadvantaged Communities

The Village of Red Hook is comprised of a large Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA), as shown in Figure 5 below. There are no Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) in the immediate vicinity. The proposed project will not have adverse impacts on any PEJAs or DACs. The elimination of existing substandard septic systems and seepage pits will have many environmental, health and safety benefits, especially to the low income and minority populations found in PEJAs.

==> picture [469 x 362] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5. Village of Red Hook PEJA and DAC Map

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

13

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

2.2 OWNERSHIP AND SERVICE AREA

2.2.1 Outside Users

There are no existing/required inter-municipal or industrial agreements. The WWTP serves only sewer users within the Village of Red Hook sewer service area.

2.2.2 Industrial Discharges

There are no industrial discharges associated with the WWTP.

2.2.3 Hauled Waste

The Village is responsible for sludge removal at the WWTP and in each individual septic tank and grease trap. Sludge is trucked off-site by a sludge pumping and hauling contractor.

2.2.4 Population Trends and Growth

According to 2021 Census data estimates, the Village of Red Hook has an MHI of $88,482, population of 1,921 and a family poverty rate of 4.3%. Dutchess County has an MHI of $87,112, population of 296,012 and a family poverty rate of 5.8%. The following population trends and growth were compiled using data obtained from the US Census Bureau for the Village of Red Hook and Dutchess County. Population data from 1970 to 2020 was analyzed to estimate the population for each year up to the year 2060, or an approximate period of probable usefulness (PPU) of 30 years.

Table 3. Village of Red Hook Population Growth

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

14

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

The sewer system does not serve the entire Village. There are currently 150 sewer hook-ups, which include 127 developed properties and 15 undeveloped properties. A map of the current sewer service area is included above ( Figure 1 ). The project proposed herein would expand on the existing sewer service area and increase treatment capacity at the WWTP.

Anderson Commons Development: The Anderson Commons project has been in development for about 10 years. It includes 51 residences and one commercial building. The residences would include a mix of multifamily and single-family homes on traditional lots. The area is located in the southeastern corner of the Village, below Fisk Street. Any plans for development will be subject to review by the Village Planning Board. Population growth has been estimated for the Anderson Commons Development and is shown in the table below.

• 1.Assumes average household size of 2.36 persons for the Village of Red Hook

38 Cookingham Lane Development: This parcel has been cleared for the development of much needed affordable housing. About 90% of the land will be set aside into a conservation easement. Around 12 acres will be set aside for a 40-unit affordable/workforce housing development. This land will be purchased by a private developer. Any plans for development will be subject to review by the Village Planning Board. Population growth has been estimated for the Cookingham Lane Development and is shown in the table below.

Table 5. Cookingham Lane Population Growth

• 1.Assumes average household size of 2.36 persons for the Village of Red Hook

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

15

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

Ross Development: This infill development project is anticipated to create 40 market rate apartment units.

2.3 EXISTING FACILITIES AND PRESENT CONDITION

2.3.1 General Description and History of Major System Components

WWTP: The original WWTP was built in 2006 to serve the Red Hook Commons, a senior housing complex, located within the Village. The original plant was a 25,000 gpd package activated sludge plant with flow equalization, sand filtration and UV disinfection, although, it was only treating between 6,000 to 13,000 gpd. The original WWTP still serves Red Hook Commons and only receives flow from Red Hook Commons. The WWTP is operated by a third-party operating company.

During evaluations of the original WWTP, it was found that treatment is inefficient and although it is only 18 years old, many of the processes and equipment do not work to the fullest extent and most have reached the end of their useful life early. The following deficiencies have been noted:

• Sand filters are original and need to be re-built or rehabbed. The sand media has reached the end of its useful life. The underdrains no longer drain properly.

• One of the two aeration trains has a dead spot in the corner. The diffusers have reached the end of their useful life and require replacement.

• The equalization pumps clog with rags frequently.

• Grease build-up is often found at the pump station and there are no mixers or other equipment employed to eradicate the problem. Grease build-up interferes with the floats.

• The anoxic tank mixers have been out of service for at least 10 years. Currently, potable/movable mixers are used.

• The UV units were out of service

• Neighboring property owners complain about sewage odors from the WWTP parcel. Mitigation may be needed at the outfall and surrounding area.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

16

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

==> picture [466 x 203] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6. SPDES Permit Process Flow Diagram (applies to both existing WWTPs)

The 10-acre WWTP parcel was purchased/conveyed by/to the Village in 2018 and a 50,000 gpd activated sludge package plant was added to the site, directly adjacent to the original WWTP. The 50,000 gpd WWTP contains the following:

• EQ Tank (9,500 gallons)

• Surge Tank (4,500 gallons)

• Extended Air Activated Sludge Treatment

• Secondary Clarification

• Sand Filtration Treatment

• Flow Meter

• UV Disinfection

• Post Aeration

• Sludge Holding Tank (5,000 gallons)

• Back-Up Generator

• Odor Control

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

17

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

==> picture [471 x 306] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7. WWTP Design Drawings

Because the collection system is a septic tank effluent pump (STEP) low pressure sewer system, there is no need for headworks or primary treatment at the WWTP. Both WWTPs are currently in service and discharge to the same Outfall.

Sanitary Sewer Collection System: There are currently 150 sewer hook-ups, which include 127 developed properties and 15 undeveloped properties. The sanitary sewer collection system is a STEP low pressure sewer system. Each customer has a separate septic tank with pump and individual electric service. The tanks collect solids while the liquid waste is pumped into the sewer main and eventually ends up at the WWTP. Small diameter HDPE force main piping is installed at each site and throughout the Village.

The septic tanks are pumped out on a regular basis by a private sludge hauler, coordinated and paid for by the Village. The Village owns all the infrastructure and holds an easement for maintenance of each septic tank and grease trap.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

18

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

The STEP system was designed to accommodate the current service area with the ability for expansion to the rest of the Village in the future. Village restaurants also have grease traps to intercept cooking grease from entering the STEP system.

==> picture [223 x 166] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [224 x 166] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8. Pictures of STEP Tank and Electric Panel (Source: Red Hook STEP Poster/Flyer)

The Red Hook Commons, part of the original private sewer service area, is connected to the WWTP via gravity sewers and does not contain STEP systems or force mains. All flow from this community enters a pump station that serves as the influent pump station to the WWTP. This area discharges to the original 25,000 gpd WWTP.

2.3.2 Significant Operations, and Maintenance History and Preventative Maintenance History

The original 25,000 gpd package plant has deteriorated and causes significant operational issues. The maintenance issues with the UV units, sand filter, pumps, mixers, and diffusers are beyond repair and need to be replaced.

The 25,000 gpd plant has significant operational issues that cause MLSS “washouts.” These washouts are a result of the equalization tank being too small and the equalization pumps not currently working. Additionally, the return pumps from the sand filter mud well are oversized and hydraulically overload the aeration system which also causes MLSS washouts that result in discharge violations including TSS, BOD, ammonia, fecal and settable solids.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

19

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

To address the operational failures, the Village had to divert all flow to the 50,000 gpd plant, empty the package plant, replace the main isolation valves in the aeration tanks, replace the sand and underdrains in the sand filters, and replace the UV system.

The recently installed 50,000 gpd package plant is the same type (Purestream BESST) as the original and has the same operational problems as noted above. Additionally, the 50,000 gpd plant has equalization pumps that pump more flow than the clarifiers can treat and further contribute to the MLSS washout problems.

The controls of both UV units had failed and did not allow the UV units to turn on or stay on.

2.3.3 Failure History and Component Limitations

The WWTP (both the new and old sides) had a significant prolonged treatment failure that led to NYSDEC issuing the Village a Consent Order (Case No. R3-20250610-54) in June 2025. See Appendix O for a copy of the Order.

As documented in the Consent Order, the facility did not properly treat the wastewater and had multiple discharge violations in all its discharge parameters. The treatment failure was due to a combination of equipment malfunctions, operator negligence, and improperly sized treatment components.

The investigations and corrective actions taken between April 2025 and June 2025 have revealed that the treatment plant has the following component limitations:

• the equalization tank is too small

• the equalization pumps are too large

• the aeration blowers are too small

• the clarifiers are too shallow and cannot handle peak flows

• the sand filter cannot backwash automatically

• the sand filter mud well return pumps overload the clarifiers

• the UV reactors controls do not keep the units on

• the plant does not have any automated alarms

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

20

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

2.3.4 Ability to Meet Current Design Standards for Treatment

The existing treatment plant needs to be upgraded to reliably meet its discharge limits.

The 10-foot hopper clarifiers (four in total) do not meet Ten States Standards for clarifiers and lead to many of the operational issues that have resulted in the multiple permit violations (TSS, BOD, NH4, Fecal). The shallow clarifiers combined with the up-flow design leads to the MLSS being washed out during various operational events such as sand filter back wash and EQ pumps running at maximum capacity.

The undersized clarifiers and the continuous washing out of the MLSS was the primary reason the treatment plant did not maintain a sufficient MLSS population to treat the influent wastewater.

The constant MLSS washouts overloaded the sand filters and the UV units will not function with and effluent of such high TSS.

2.3.5 Planned, Current, or Future Improvements Outside Project Scope

The Village plans to expand sewer service the whole village in the future and is currently working on Phase 2 of the Village’s plan to provide sewer service to the whole Village.

2.3.6 Security and Cybersecurity

Not Applicable. There are no security or cyber security concerns for the WWTP or collection at this time, since the WWTP is not connected to the internet.

2.3.7 Hydraulic Capacity Analysis of Existing Sewers where Expansion or Increased Flow is Proposed

The existing low pressure sewer system was designed for a flow of 50,000 gpd but is readily expandable for this next phase of the project. The collection system consists of a network of low pressure 2-inch, 3-inch, and 4-inch mains that ultimately connect to a common 6- inch that reaches the WWTP. The network is expandable and additional 6-inch mains can be connected to the WWTP as part of this and future phases.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

21

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

A Preliminary Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis of the sewer system was performed in 2021 and is attached to this report ( Appendix E ). The analysis included current flows and future flows.

2.3.8 Current or Future Projects on the Same Site

The Village is planning Phase 2 of the Village’s WWTP and sewer collection system. Ultimately, the WWTP site will be expanded to treat the flows from the whole Village.

2.3.9 SPDES Permit Conditions and Effluent Discharge Limits

The WWTP is governed by SPDES Permit NY0271420 ( Appendix F ). Historic and Current Permit limits are summarized in the tables below. The WWTP discharges to a tributary of the Saw Kill. The facility is permitted to discharge 75,000 gpd via Outfall 001, which is divided in subOutfalls 01A (50,000 gpd) and 01B (25,000 gpd). Effluent disinfection has been required all year at this facility. There are currently no phosphorus limits.

Table 6. SPDES Effluent Discharge Limits

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

22

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

2.3.10 Publicly Owned Sewer System Identification Number

The Publicly Owned Sewer System (POSS) number for the Village of Red Hook is NY0027073 (NYCDEP).

2.3.11 Documented Compliance Issues

In late 2024 and through May of 2025, the existing wastewater plant lost its ability to treat the wastewater due to mechanical failures, operator negligence, and improperly sized treatment equipment. This led to the WWTP exceeding all its treatment limits for several months. Due to this treatment failure, the NYSDEC issued the Village an Order-on-Consent (Case No R3-20250610-54) requiring this report and a plan to improve the WWTP to provide reliable treatment that will consistently meet all the discharge limits. See Appendix O.

The multiple treatment violations also generated a Notice of Violations from NYSDEC and a notice of significant non-compliance from USEPA.

Additionally, because of the dense development within the Village and the presence of substandard seepage pits and septic systems, the Village’s water supply is at risk of contamination.

As noted on the Village’s soils map, most of the Village is located in Type B soils. In Type B soils, the average Village lot would have to be 1.9 acres to provide proper treatment and avoid ground water contamination but most lots are 0.25 acre lots.

Groundwater sampling (2015) documented the presence of nitrates and fecal coliform in the groundwater monitoring wells near the Village’s core business district. This is indicative of pollution due to the presence of sub-standard septic systems discharging to the surrounding environment and groundwater. Sampling results are included in Appendix G .

2.3.12 Design Flows and Waste Loads

The WWTP discharges to a tributary of the Saw Kill. The facility is permitted to discharge 75,000 gpd via Outfall 001, which is divided in sub outfalls 01A (50,000 gpd) and 01B (25,000 gpd). Effluent disinfection has been required all year at this facility.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

23

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

2.3.13 Analyses of Production Rates for Processing or Manufacturing Operations

Not Applicable.

2.3.14 Existing Energy Consumption

The WWTP budgets $36,000 per year for electric utility cost.

2.3.15 Photographs

Photographs of the current facilities are included in Appendix H .

2.3.16 History of Damage due to Storm or Flood Impacts

There has been no damage to the system due to storm or flood impacts. The facility is located outside of flood-prone areas. The STEP sewer collection system and proposed service areas are also located outside of flood-prone areas.

The septic tank pumps have experienced freezing when temperatures are in the teens and below.

2.3.17 Historic Water Quality Investigations

The following sections were derived from the Village of Red Hook Wastewater Study, dated June 2015, by C.T. Male Associates.

The water quality investigation program was established by the Village of Red Hook to sample groundwater monitoring wells and nearby surface waters to assess the environment for constituents associated with failing septic systems, such as fecal coliform, ammonia, nitrates and caffeine. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed at 11 locations throughout the Village, generally at locations downhill (from a groundwater perspective) of the Village's central business corridor, where a high concentration of substandard septic systems occur.

Surface samples were taken at three locations:

1. Saw Kill;

2. Tributary to the Saw Kill; and,

3. Small pond at the heart of the core business district.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

24

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

Six rounds of samples were taken, with the results summarized below:

1. June 25 and 26, 2014: The majority of groundwater sampling locations were tested for fecal coliform, nitrates and caffeine. Fecal coliform was seen in wells G-1, G-2, G-4 and G-5. Nitrates were detected in wells G-1 to G-10. The sample taken at G-5 exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrates (10 mg/L), as defined in Part 5 of the NYS Department of Health (NYSDOH) drinking water regulations. No caffeine was encountered in any of the wells that were sampled.

2. July 7, 2014: Sampling was done at well G-11 (only nitrates and fecal coliform). Nitrate concentrations did not exceed the MCL. Fecal coliform was detected and mat growth was observed.

3. July 16, 2014: Caffeine, nitrates and fecal coliform were sampled at most of the wells and the surface water locations. Nitrates were detected in wells G-1 to G-11. Only monitoring well G-5 exceeded the MCL. At the surface water sampling locations, nitrate concentrations were very low and/or not detected. Fecal coliform was encountered in all three of surface water samples and in monitoring wells G-1, G-3, G-6, G-7 and G-8. Mat growth of fecal and/or non-fecal coliforms was observed in samples G-2, G-4, G-5 and G-11. No caffeine was encountered in any of the wells that were sampled at this time.

4. August 4, 2014: Nitrates were sampled for at groundwater monitoring wells G-1 through G-10 and fecal coliform was sampled for at G1-G11; both nitrates and fecal coliform were sampled for at all three surface water locations. Nitrate concentrations were below the 10 mg/L MCL at all sampling locations; fecal coliform was present only at monitoring well G-11 and at all three surface water

locations.

5. August 6, 2014: Ammonia was sampled for at groundwater monitoring wells G-1 through G-7. Concentrations in the samples were <1.0 mg/L, with the exception of G-1, which had ammonia concentration of 1.2 mg/L.

6. August 15, 2014: Fecal coliform was sampled for at groundwater monitoring wells G-1 through G-7. Fecal coliforms were present in samples G-1, G-2, G-4, G-5, G-6 and G-7; These results represent estimated counts since heavy sedimentation may have inhibited bacterial growth.

Elevated fecal coliform levels were discovered in the majority of the groundwater samples taken during this study. Additional results are summarized below:

• Monitoring well G-1 (of Church Street and Fraleigh Street, immediately downhill of the core business district) recorded samples of more than 1,600 CFU/mL on three occasions, with one reading at 29,000 CFU/mL.

• Higher levels of fecal coliform were found at G-3 and G-11. G-3 and G-11 are located at the periphery of the core business district.

• Monitoring well G-5 (Prince Street and Route 9 in the core business district) saw two samples of nitrates exceed the 10 mg/L MCL.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

25

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

==> picture [360 x 572] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9. Sampling Locations Map (Source : C.T. Male Engineering Report, 2015)

All of the groundwater monitoring wells that saw elevated levels of fecal coliform or nitrogen are within the Village's Wellhead Protection Area, which was established to protect the Village ' s public

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

26

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

water supply wells from contamination. The soil within the Village are generally coarse sands and gravels, which are not suitable to providing treatment to sanitary wastes since flows from the substandard septic systems travel through the soil too fast for the soil to provide any substantial pollutant removal.

The results from the groundwater sampling indicate that the substandard and failing septic systems within the Village of Red Hook are impacting underlying groundwater resources. In addition to impacting groundwater within the Village's Wellhead Protection Area, the groundwater ultimately flows to surface waterbodies that are located with the Hudson River Estuary where wastewater could be impacting the surface water environment.

Sampling results from the Phase I engineering report are included in Appendix G .

2.4 DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM & NEED FOR THE PROJECT

2.4.1 Health, Sanitation, Security and Cybersecurity

Upgrades are needed to protect public health (drinking water supply) and improve the water quality of the discharge stream and adjacent wetland.

The Village of Red Hook water system sources water from a shallow unconfined gravel aquifer and a deeper bedrock aquifer underlying the unconfined system. Because of the very dense development found throughout the Village, failing and substandard septic systems can be a very large threat to groundwater quality as they can introduce nitrates, viruses and bacteria into local waterways. Some of the buildings in the Village core business district are served by seepage pits only.

Groundwater sampling (2015) documented the presence of nitrates and fecal coliform the groundwater monitoring wells near the Village’s core business district. This is indicative of pollution due to the presence of sub-standard septic systems discharging to the surrounding environment and groundwater.

In order to protect the drinking water supply further, a sanitary sewer collection system was established. Phase 1 of the plan to eliminate the failing septic systems was completed in 2023 and it provides municipal sewers to the core center of the Village. Now, the Village is

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

27

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

proposing to proceed with Phase 2 of the sewer project and provide sewer service to additional areas.

Additionally, the flow capacity of the WWTP that was constructed in Phase 1 has reached its limits due to infill development. Additional treatment capacity is needed to prevent discharge violations and water quality issues in the receiving stream.

The original 25,000 gpd package treatment plant built in 2006 has reached the end of its useful life and replacement or significant repair is needed to prevent discharge violations and water quality issues in the receiving stream.

Because of the type of package wastewater plant with shallow hoper up-flow clarifiers, both the new and old side can exceed TSS with dry weather peak flows and with return flows from the sand filter back wash.

The high TSS discharges from the aeration tanks has lead to blinding the sand filters and increasing the effluent turbidity which makes the UV systems ineffective at disinfection.

Thus, to improve water quality upgrades are needed to the existing WWTP and the WWTP needs to be increased in capacity.

2.4.2 Short-term Asset Needs as supported by a Capital Improvement Plan or Asset Management Plan

Not Applicable.

2.4.3 Aging Infrastructure

The original WWTP was built in 2006 and the new WWTP was built in 2023. The original WWTP has reached the end of its useful life. It has many mechanical components that are not functioning such as pumps, mixers and diffusers. The 2023 WWTP does not have any mechanical deficiencies, however, it is at its flow capacity.

The existing septic systems and seepage pits throughout the Village (located outside of the current sewer service area) are over 50-years old and were built before the modern

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

28

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

standards for on-site subsurface systems. Many systems are seepage pits without any septic tank or leach fields. The public water supply ais being impacted by these systems and needs to be protected from further contamination from fecal coliform and ammonia.

2.4.4 Need for Redundancy

The WWTP does not have the required redundancy. The original WWTP is at capacity and the plant needs some additional treatment units for redundancy.

Unit process that need additional redundancy are the aeration blowers and secondary clarifiers.

2.4.5 Infiltration and Inflow, CSOs and SSOs

Not Applicable. The sewer system is new and there are no CSOs or SSOs. There is limited infiltration and inflow (I&I) within the system. Rain gutters and storm drains are prohibited by Village Ordinance from being connected to any STEP systems within the service area as these connections reduce the tank capacity as well as a capacity of the collection system and WWTP.

2.4.6 Reasonable Growth

As shown in section 2.2.4 above, the population of the Village, Town and County as a whole has been increasing steadily. three new developments could add over 300 persons to the already growing population. Only a portion of the Village is currently sewered and the long-term plan is to provide sewer service to the whole Village. If additional septic systems are built within the Village, which has poor soils for these types of septic systems, the groundwater and surface water in the area will continue to degrade and may impact human health and safety.

2.4.7 County-Wide or Regional Planning Efforts

The Joint Town and Village Comprehensive Plan (1969) specifies the extremely serious situation that dense development poses to the environment when it comes to private septic systems. The Comprehensive Plan recommends establishing a sewer district that could serve both the Village and densely developed areas in the Town of Red Hook.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

29

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

The 2009 Intermunicipal Task Force Centers and Greenspaces report also specifies the need for a municipal sewer system to serve the dense development in Red Hook, discussing the need for sewers in terms of cost effectiveness and economic development.

In general, buildings within the Village’s core business district have seepage pits with and without septic tanks. The soils are fast-draining coarse sand and gravel and the Village's water supply is located on the same aquifer without any confining layer and the raw or partially-treated sewage is a direct threat to the Villages public drinking water supply. This direct threat was identified in the report titled Dutchess County Aquifer Recharge Rates & Sustainable Septic System Density Recommendations . The report addressed the minimum septic system densities to prevent drinking water contamination in Dutchess County, including the Village of Red Hook.

The proposed sanitary sewer project is consistent with ITF's Centers and Greenspaces Plan, the NYS Non-point Source Management Plan's recommended water quality policies, and both the County's and the State ' s Open Space Conservation Plans. The Centers and Greenspaces Plan proposes to preserve the prime farmland left in Dutchess County by providing infrastructure in the Village of Red Hook. With a central sewer service area and proper zoning, development can continue in the sewer service area and farmland can be saved from the pressures of suburbanstyle residential development.

In addition, multiple engineering reports and studies have been conducted which all conclude that the Village would benefit from a municipal sewer collection and treatment system.

The Town of Red Hook has created a new sewer district for the developed area adjacent to the Village. The Town has determined that it would be more efficient for their sewer to be connected to the Village’s system and treated at the Village’s WWTP. 50,000 gpd is expected from the town’s sewer system.

2.4.8 Water, Energy and Waste Considerations

No audits are available at this time.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

30

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

2.4.9 Suitability for Continued Use

The facility needs to be upgraded for continued use with the current extent of the service area. If the service area were to expand, the facility would require upgrades to accommodate the increased flows.

2.4.10 Physical Risk due to Climate Change

The facility and site as a whole is not subject to sea level rise, storm surge, potential for flooding impacts or other extreme weather events.

Extreme cold does affect the STEP system with freezing at some of the pump sites.

2.4.11 Compliance with Current Standards

The WWTP is not in compliance with current standards in the following unit process:

• Equalization tanks are too small

• The secondary clarifiers are too shallow (10-foot vs 14-foot)

• Aeration blowers are at capacity with no back up blower

The WWTP was issued a Notice of Violation on April 14, 2025 for multiple effluent violations

The WWTP was issued a Consent Order due to its multiple effluent violations. See Appendix O for a copy of the Order.

The WWTP EQ tank has overflowed on several occasions. Additionally, the Village has had to haul the wastewater under emergency conditions to avoid overflowing the EQ tank.

2.5 FINANCIAL STATUS

Most sewer users in the current service area are single family homes. Typical sewer usage for this system is 150 gpd per EDU. Cost per property is based on annual debt service plus operation and maintenance costs to run the system. Sewer bills are sent out quarterly along with the water bills. Current sewer use area fees per parcel and EDU counts are included in Appendix I .

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

31

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

The sewer system is supported by sewer utility bills of the residential and business customers.

The 2025/2026 annual budget for the sewer system is included in Appendix J .

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

32

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

III. Alternative Analysis

Existing conditions, service life and data review were considered when developing the alternatives described below. Priority was given to components which have the highest potential impact on the WWTP ability to provide adequate service to existing and future users. Material longevity, process importance, system capacity and cost analyses were considered.

3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - UPGRADE EXISTING WWTP AND CONVERT TO ONE MBR PLANT

3.1.1 DESCRIPTION

Proposed Preliminary Design: short-term upgrades needed to address the current treatment capacity issues and long-term upgrades to increase the treatment capacity. The short-term upgrades are as follows:

• Add a headworks with a mechanical fine screen

• Increasing the EQ capacity from 14,000 gallons to 34,000 gallons by adding additional surge tanks

• Add a remote EQ tank high level alarm

• Reducing the EQ pumps capacity from 30 gpm to 20 gpm until the MBR plant is built

• • Combine the inflow of both sides of the WWTP into one EQ Tank system

• Add the ability to process the flow to either treatment train as needed to balance the flows from the upgraded EQ Tank system

• Adding a blower to the aeration system until the MBR plant upgrade is built

• Use enhanced chemical settling in the clarifiers when needed to reduce TSS overflow until the MBR plant is built

• Redirect the backwash from all sand filters to the EQ Tank system

• Modify the controls of the sand filters to allow automatic backwash

The Long-Term upgrades are as follows:

• Convert the WWTP to a 300,000 gpd MBR plant

• Converting to an MBR process will solve the issue with shallow clarifiers

• Converting to an MBR process will solve the issue of insufficient aeration air capacity

• adding UV reactors rated for peak flows

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

33

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

This would allow the Village to treat up to 300,000 gpd max monthly average.

Impact on Existing Facility: The existing treatment tanks would be converted to anoxic and aerated tanks, and a new membrane tank would be installed on the Village-owned parcel. There is no expected negative impacts on the existing facilities.

Outfall Configuration Concerns: The existing outfall would be increase from 8-inch to 15inch.

Land Requirements: The project will be situated on the 10-acre site that houses the current WWTPs. Expansion of the WWTP will result in some land disturbance. Construction of laterals and collection system pipes and appurtenances will take place in streets, right of ways and previously disturbed areas.

Meeting Discharge Permit Requirements: The new facility will be designed to reliable y meet all discharge permit requirements.

Water and Energy Efficiency Measures: This Alternative is aimed at creating a sustainable system for wastewater conveyance and treatment. The project benefits include considerations for high efficiency systems to mitigate energy use.

3.1.2 Cost Estimate

Table below shows a summary of the cost estimate for Alternative 1 . Expanded cost estimates for each alternative are included in Appendix L and drawings for each WWTP alternative are included in Appendix M .

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

34

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

3.1.3 Non-Monetary Factors

The lot where the current facilities are located has been studied and is suitable for continued use as a WWTP site. Additionally, there is ample room on the 10-acre parcel for expansion. The parcel has been previously surveyed for wetlands, endangered species and archaeologically significant areas. There is already an existing SPDES Permit for the facility.

SEQRA has been completed for the project. It is a Type I Action and coordinated review was conducted. The Village as lead agency issued a negative declaration for the project.

Noise levels may increase during construction, but only during normal business hours. Traffic levels may also increase during construction due to the presence of construction vehicles and equipment.

All WWTPs have the ability to produce odors. The design includes odor control measures to help mitigate impacts from odors.

The project will have a beneficial impact on groundwater. Additional substandard septic systems and seepage pits will be eliminated and replaced by the Village-owned system, ensuring that the community’s water supply is protected.

3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - ADD A 250,000 GPG MBR PLANT, CONVERT 1B SIDE TO SLUDGE HOLDING TANK

3.2.1 DESCRIPTION

Proposed Preliminary Design: short-term upgrades needed to address the current treatment capacity issues and long-term upgrades to increase the treatment capacity. The short-term upgrades are as follows:

• Add a headworks with a mechanical fine screen

• Increasing the EQ capacity from 14,000 gallons to 34,000 gallons by adding additional surge tanks

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

35

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

• Add a remote EQ tank high level alarm

• Reducing the EQ pumps capacity from 30 gpm to 20 gpm until the MBR plant is built

• Combine the inflow of both sides of the WWTP into one EQ Tank system

• Add the ability to process the flow to either treatment train as needed to balance the flows from the upgraded EQ Tank system

• Adding a blower to the aeration system until the MBR plant upgrade is built

• Use enhanced chemical settling in the clarifiers when needed to reduce TSS overflow until the MBR plant is built

• Redirect the backwash from all sand filters to the EQ Tank system

• Modify the controls of the sand filters to allow automatic backwash

The Long-Term upgrades are as follows:

• Convert the 25,000 gpd (1B side) to a sludge holding tank

• Add aeration blower capacity to the 1A side

• Limit peak flow to 50,000 gpd to the 1A side to address the shallow clarifiers

• Keep the existing 50,000 gpd (1A side) as is

• adding UV reactors rated for peak flows

This would allow the Village to treat up to 300,000 gpd max monthly average.

Impact on Existing Facility: The new activated sludge package plant will be located adjacent to the existing WWTPs on the Village-owned parcel. There is no expected negative impacts on the existing facilities.

Outfall Configuration Concerns: The existing outfall would be increase from 8-inch to 15inch.

Land Requirements: The project will be situated on the 10-acre site that houses the current WWTPs. Expansion of the WWTP will result in some land disturbance. Construction of laterals and collection system pipes and appurtenances will take place in streets, right of ways and previously disturbed areas.

Meeting Discharge Permit Requirements: The new facility will be designed to reliable y meet all discharge permit requirements.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

36

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

Water and Energy Efficiency Measures: This Alternative is aimed at creating a sustainable system for wastewater conveyance and treatment. The project benefits include considerations for high efficiency systems to mitigate energy use.

3.2.2 Cost Estimate

Table below shows a summary of the cost estimate for Alternative 2 . Expanded cost estimates for each alternative are included in Appendix L and drawings for each WWTP alternative are included in Appendix M .

3.2.3 Non-Monetary Factors

The lot where the current facilities are located has been studied and is suitable for continued use as a WWTP site. Additionally, there is ample room on the 10-acre parcel for expansion. The parcel has been previously surveyed for wetlands, endangered species and archaeologically significant areas. There is already an existing SPDES Permit for the facility.

SEQRA has been completed for the project. It is a Type I Action and coordinated review was conducted. The Village as lead agency issued a negative declaration for the project.

Noise levels may increase during construction, but only during normal business hours. Traffic levels may also increase during construction due to the presence of construction vehicles and equipment.

All WWTPs have the ability to produce odors. The design includes odor control measures to help mitigate impacts from odors.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

37

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

The project will have a beneficial impact on groundwater. Additional substandard septic systems and seepage pits will be eliminated and replaced by the Village-owned system, ensuring that the community’s water supply is protected.

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

38

Village of Red Hook WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report DEC Case No. R3-20250610-54

V. Recommended Alternative

5.1 BASIS OF SELECTION

Alternative 1 has been selected as the preferred alternative for WWTP upgrades. It meets the current operational and regulatory needs of the community and provides the most value in terms of regulatory compliance, operational efficiency, growth and longevity. This alternative is readily implementable and utilizes common construction equipment, techniques and technologies.

5.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

The timeline below summarizes the action dates for the recommendations identified:

Delaware Engineering, D.P.C.

39

Appendix A NRCS Soil Reports

==> picture [37 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

United States Department of Agriculture

==> picture [54 x 24] intentionally omitted <==

Natural Resources Conservation Service

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource

Report for Dutchess County, New York

Village of Red Hook WWTP

==> picture [470 x 361] intentionally omitted <==

February 9, 2024

Preface

Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

2

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3

Contents

Preface .................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made ..................................................................................5 Soil Map .................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Dutchess County, New York............................................................................13 Ca—Canandaigua silt loam, neutral substratum.........................................13 Hf—Haven-Urban land complex..................................................................14 References ............................................................................................................16

4

How Soil Surveys Are Made

Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil

5

Custom Soil Resource Report

scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

6

Custom Soil Resource Report

identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

7

Soil Map

The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

8

==> picture [715 x 535] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 592280 592320 592360 592400 592440 592480 592520 592560 592600 592640 41° 59' 35'' N 41° 59' 35'' N Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 41° 59' 27'' N 41° 59' 27'' N 592280 592320 592360 592400 592440 592480 592520 592560 592600 592640 Map Scale: 1:1,770 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters N 0 25 50 100 150 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 73° 53' 9'' W 73° 52' 53'' W 4649610 4649610 4649570 4649570 4649530 4649530 4649490 4649490 4649450 4649450 4649410 4649410 4649370 4649370 73° 53' 9'' W 73° 52' 53'' W ----- End of picture text -----

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84

9

Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND

MAP INFORMATION

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

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 map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Dutchess County, New York Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 5, 2023

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 21, 2022—Oct 27, 2022

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.

10

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Descriptions

The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,

11

Custom Soil Resource Report

onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series . Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases . Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas . Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

12

Custom Soil Resource Report

Dutchess County, New York

Ca—Canandaigua silt loam, neutral substratum

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rds Elevation: 100 to 1,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance

Map Unit Composition

Canandaigua and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Canandaigua

Setting

Landform: Depressions Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Silty and clayey glaciolacustrine deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam H2 - 6 to 40 inches: silt loam H3 - 40 to 72 inches: silt loam

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: Frequent Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 12.0 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: F101XY010NY - Wet Lake Plain Depression Hydric soil rating: Yes

Minor Components

Sun

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions

13

Custom Soil Resource Report

Hydric soil rating: Yes

Raynham

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Livingston

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Kingsbury

Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Punsit

Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Hf—Haven-Urban land complex

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rgc Elevation: 160 to 230 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Haven and similar soils: 40 percent Urban land: 35 percent Minor components: 25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Haven

Setting

Landform: Outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex

Parent material: Loamy glaciofluvial deposits over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 23 inches: gravelly loam

H3 - 23 to 72 inches: stratified very gravelly sand

14

Custom Soil Resource Report

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 1 Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F144AY023CT - Well Drained Outwash Hydric soil rating: No

Description of Urban Land

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 6 inches: variable

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydric soil rating: Unranked

Minor Components

Udorthents

Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Hoosic

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Knickerbocker

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Fredon

Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Halsey

Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

15

References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577

Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

16

Custom Soil Resource Report

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

17

==> picture [37 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

United States Department of Agriculture

==> picture [54 x 24] intentionally omitted <==

Natural Resources Conservation Service

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource

Report for Dutchess County, New York

Village of Red Hook

==> picture [470 x 361] intentionally omitted <==

February 9, 2024

Preface

Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

2

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3

Contents

Preface .................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made ..................................................................................5 Soil Map .................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Dutchess County, New York............................................................................14 Ca—Canandaigua silt loam, neutral substratum.........................................14 DwB—Dutchess-Cardigan complex, undulating, rocky...............................15 Fr—Fredon silt loam....................................................................................17 Ha—Halsey mucky silt loam........................................................................18 HeA—Haven loam, nearly level.................................................................. 20 HeB—Haven loam, undulating....................................................................21 Hf—Haven-Urban land complex..................................................................22 HsA—Hoosic gravelly loam, nearly level.....................................................24 HsB—Hoosic gravelly loam, undulating...................................................... 25 NwC—Nassau-Cardigan complex, rolling, very rocky.................................27 NwD—Nassau-Cardigan complex, hilly, very rocky.................................... 29 W—Water....................................................................................................31 Wy—Wayland silt loam................................................................................31 References ............................................................................................................33

4

How Soil Surveys Are Made

Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil

5

Custom Soil Resource Report

scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

6

Custom Soil Resource Report

identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

7

Soil Map

The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

8

==> picture [535 x 726] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 592000 592300 592600 592900 593200 593500 593800 594100 42° 0' 32'' N 42° 0' 32'' N 41° 58' 54'' N 41° 58' 54'' N 592000 592300 592600 592900 593200 593500 593800 594100 Map Scale: 1:14,900 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Meters N 0 200 400 800 1200 Feet 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 9 73° 53' 25'' W 73° 51' 45'' W 4651400 4651100 4651100 4650800 4650800 4650500 4650500 4650200 4650200 4649900 4649900 4649600 4649600 4649300 4649300 4649000 4649000 4648700 4648700 4648400 4648400 73° 53' 25'' W 73° 51' 45'' W ----- End of picture text -----

Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND

MAP INFORMATION

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Dutchess County, New York Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 5, 2023

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 21, 2022—Oct 27, 2022

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.

10

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Descriptions

The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a

11

Custom Soil Resource Report

particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series . Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases . Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

12

Custom Soil Resource Report

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas . Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

13

Custom Soil Resource Report

Dutchess County, New York

Ca—Canandaigua silt loam, neutral substratum

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rds Elevation: 100 to 1,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance

Map Unit Composition

Canandaigua and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Canandaigua

Setting

Landform: Depressions Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Silty and clayey glaciolacustrine deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam H2 - 6 to 40 inches: silt loam H3 - 40 to 72 inches: silt loam

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: Frequent Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 12.0 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: F101XY010NY - Wet Lake Plain Depression Hydric soil rating: Yes

Minor Components

Sun

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions

14

Custom Soil Resource Report

Hydric soil rating: Yes

Raynham

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Livingston

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Kingsbury

Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Punsit

Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No

DwB—Dutchess-Cardigan complex, undulating, rocky

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rfn Elevation: 0 to 1,330 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Dutchess and similar soils: 40 percent Cardigan and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 30 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Dutchess

Setting

Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loamy till derived mainly from phyllite, slate, schist, and shale

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam H2 - 8 to 28 inches: silt loam H3 - 28 to 86 inches: channery silt loam

15

Custom Soil Resource Report

Properties and qualities

Slope: 1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F144AY034CT - Well Drained Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No

Description of Cardigan

Setting

Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loamy till or colluvium derived from phyllite, slate, shale, and schist

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 8 inches: channery silt loam H2 - 8 to 20 inches: channery loam H3 - 20 to 30 inches: channery silt loam H4 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock

Properties and qualities

Slope: 1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.1 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: F144AY034CT - Well Drained Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

Georgia

Percent of map unit: 10 percent

16

Custom Soil Resource Report

Hydric soil rating: No

Massena

Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Nassau

Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Sun

Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Rock outcrop

Percent of map unit: 1 percent Hydric soil rating: Unranked

Fr—Fredon silt loam

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rfz Elevation: 250 to 1,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained

Map Unit Composition

Fredon and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Fredon

Setting

Landform: Depressions Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Loamy over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 9 inches: silt loam H2 - 9 to 31 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 31 to 70 inches: stratified very gravelly sand to loamy fine sand

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 3 percent

17

Custom Soil Resource Report

Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.1 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: F144AY029NY - Semi-Rich Wet Outwash Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

Fredon, poorly drained

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Unnamed soils, glacial outwash

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Halsey

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Ha—Halsey mucky silt loam

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rg8 Elevation: 30 to 930 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Halsey and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

18

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Halsey

Setting

Landform: Depressions Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Loamy glaciofluvial deposits over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 9 inches: mucky silt loam H2 - 9 to 33 inches: gravelly loam H3 - 33 to 60 inches: stratified very gravelly loamy sand

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 6 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.2 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: F144AY030NY - Semi-Rich Very Wet Outwash Hydric soil rating: Yes

Minor Components

Fredon

Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: No

Palms

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Swamps, marshes Hydric soil rating: Yes

Carlisle

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Marshes, swamps Hydric soil rating: Yes

19

Custom Soil Resource Report

HeA—Haven loam, nearly level

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rg9 Elevation: 80 to 410 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Haven and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Haven

Setting

Landform: Outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex

Parent material: Loamy glaciofluvial deposits over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 23 inches: gravelly loam H3 - 23 to 72 inches: stratified very gravelly sand

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 1 Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F144AY023CT - Well Drained Outwash Hydric soil rating: No

20

Custom Soil Resource Report

Minor Components

Hoosic

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Knickerbocker

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Fredon

Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Halsey

Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

HeB—Haven loam, undulating

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rgb Elevation: 50 to 890 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Haven and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Haven

Setting

Landform: Outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loamy glaciofluvial deposits over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 23 inches: gravelly loam

H3 - 23 to 72 inches: stratified very gravelly sand

21

Custom Soil Resource Report

Properties and qualities

Slope: 3 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F144AY023CT - Well Drained Outwash Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

Hoosic

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Knickerbocker

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Fredon

Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Halsey

Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Hf—Haven-Urban land complex

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rgc Elevation: 160 to 230 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Haven and similar soils: 40 percent Urban land: 35 percent

22

Custom Soil Resource Report

Minor components: 25 percent

Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Haven

Setting

Landform: Outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loamy glaciofluvial deposits over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 23 inches: gravelly loam H3 - 23 to 72 inches: stratified very gravelly sand

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 1 Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F144AY023CT - Well Drained Outwash Hydric soil rating: No

Description of Urban Land

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 6 inches: variable

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydric soil rating: Unranked

Minor Components

Udorthents

Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Hoosic

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Knickerbocker

Percent of map unit: 5 percent

23

Custom Soil Resource Report

Hydric soil rating: No

Fredon

Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Halsey

Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

HsA—Hoosic gravelly loam, nearly level

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rgj Elevation: 100 to 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance

Map Unit Composition

Hoosic and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hoosic

Setting

Landform: Terraces, outwash plains, deltas Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 9 inches: gravelly loam H2 - 9 to 24 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H3 - 24 to 70 inches: extremely gravelly loamy sand

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (1.98 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None

24

Custom Soil Resource Report

Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.1 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F144AY022MA - Dry Outwash Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

Haven

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Knickerbocker

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Copake

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Fredon

Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Halsey

Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

HsB—Hoosic gravelly loam, undulating

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rgk Elevation: 100 to 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance

Map Unit Composition

Hoosic and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

25

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Hoosic

Setting

Landform: Terraces, outwash plains, deltas Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 9 inches: gravelly loam H2 - 9 to 24 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H3 - 24 to 70 inches: extremely gravelly loamy sand

Properties and qualities

Slope: 1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (1.98 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.1 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F144AY022MA - Dry Outwash Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

Knickerbocker

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Copake

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Haven

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Fredon

Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Halsey

Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

26

Custom Soil Resource Report

NwC—Nassau-Cardigan complex, rolling, very rocky

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rhd Elevation: 0 to 1,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Nassau and similar soils: 45 percent Cardigan and similar soils: 35 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Nassau

Setting

Landform: Till plains, ridges, benches Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Channery loamy till derived mainly from local slate or shale

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 5 inches: channery silt loam

H2 - 5 to 16 inches: very channery silt loam

H3 - 16 to 20 inches: unweathered bedrock

Properties and qualities

Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.7 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: F144AY033MA - Shallow Dry Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No

27

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Cardigan

Setting

Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loamy till or colluvium derived from phyllite, slate, shale, and schist

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 8 inches: channery silt loam H2 - 8 to 20 inches: channery loam H3 - 20 to 30 inches: channery silt loam H4 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock

Properties and qualities

Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.1 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: F144AY034CT - Well Drained Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

Dutchess

Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Unnamed soils, very shallow

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Rock outcrop

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: Unranked

Sun

Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

28

Custom Soil Resource Report

NwD—Nassau-Cardigan complex, hilly, very rocky

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rhf Elevation: 0 to 1,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Nassau and similar soils: 45 percent Cardigan and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Nassau

Setting

Landform: Till plains, ridges, benches Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Channery loamy till derived mainly from local slate or shale

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 5 inches: channery silt loam

H2 - 5 to 16 inches: very channery silt loam

H3 - 16 to 20 inches: unweathered bedrock

Properties and qualities

Slope: 15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)

Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.7 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: F144AY033MA - Shallow Dry Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No

29

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Cardigan

Setting

Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loamy till or colluvium derived from phyllite, slate, shale, and schist

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 8 inches: channery silt loam

H2 - 8 to 20 inches: channery loam H3 - 20 to 30 inches: channery silt loam H4 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock

Properties and qualities

Slope: 15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.1 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: F144AY034CT - Well Drained Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

Dutchess

Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Sun

Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

Rock outcrop

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: Unranked

30

Custom Soil Resource Report

W—Water

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rjc Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Water: 100 percent

Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Wy—Wayland silt loam

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 9rjf Elevation: 200 to 1,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 41 to 47 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 195 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Wayland and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Wayland

Setting

Landform: Flood plains

Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave

Parent material: Silty and clayey alluvium washed from uplands that contain some calcareous drift

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 9 inches: silt loam

H2 - 9 to 80 inches: silt loam

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 3 percent

31

Custom Soil Resource Report

Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 inches Frequency of flooding: Frequent Frequency of ponding: Frequent Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.0 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: F144AY016MA - Very Wet Low Floodplain Hydric soil rating: Yes

Minor Components

Linlithgo

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No

Pawling

Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: No

Palms

Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Swamps, marshes Hydric soil rating: Yes

Fluvaquents

Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flood plains Hydric soil rating: Yes

Carlisle

Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Marshes, swamps Hydric soil rating: Yes

Udifluvents

Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No

32

References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577

Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

33

Custom Soil Resource Report

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

34

Appendix B NY Heritage Program Determination/Environmental Resource Mapper

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Division of Fish and Wildlife, New York Heritage Program

625 Broadway, Fi�h Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 | Fax: (518) 402-8925 www.dec.ny.gov

02/09/2024

The a�ached report from the Environmental Resource Mapper includes informa�on from the New York Natural Heritage Program database with respect to the loca�on indicated on the map below. This le�er, together with the a�ached report from the Environmental Resource Mapper, is equivalent to, and carries the same validity, as a le�er from the New York Natural Heritage Program, including for projects where a Natural Heritage le�er is required.

If your loca�on of interest does not fall within an area covered by the Rare Plants and Rare Animals layer or in the Significant Natural Communi�es layer, then New York Natural Heritage has no records to report in the vicinity of your project site. Submi�ng a project screening request to NY Natural Heritage is not necessary.

If the a�ached report lists that your loca�on of interest is in the vicinity of state-listed animals, including state-listed bats, please consult the EAF Mapper to obtain a list of the species involved. (You do not have to be filling out an Environmental Assessment Form in order to use the EAF Mapper). Then consult the appropriate NYSDEC Regional Ofce for informa�on on any project requirements or permit condi�ons.

If the a�ached report lists unlisted animals, rare plants, or significant natural communi�es, and if you would like more informa�on on these, please submit a project screening request to New York Natural Heritage . For more informa�on, please see the DEC webpage Request Natural Heritage Informa�on for Project Screening .

The absence of data does not necessarily mean that rare or state-listed species, significant natural communi�es, or other significant habitats do not exist on or adjacent to the proposed site. Rather, NYNHP files currently do not contain informa�on that indicates their presence. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted. NYNHP cannot provide a defini�ve statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communi�es. Depending on the nature of the project and the condi�ons at the project site, further informa�on from on-site surveys or other resources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resources from a proposed project.

This response applies only to known occurrences of rare or state-listed animals and plants, significant natural communi�es, and other significant habitats maintained in the NYNHP database.

New York Natural Heritage Program

h�ps://www.nynhp.org/ .

Environmental Resource Mapper

==> picture [550 x 276] intentionally omitted <==

The coordinates of the point you clicked on are:

UTM 18 Eas�ng: 592457.0518879837 Northing: 4649472.497003812 Longitude/La�tude Longitude: -73.88375820790581 La�tude: 41.991845653808404

The approximate address of the point you clicked on is:

Red Hook, New York

County: Dutchess Town: Red Hook Village: Red Hook USGS Quad: KINGSTON EAST

Freshwater Wetlands Checkzone

This loca�on is in the vicinity of one or more Regulated Freshwater Wetlands.

If your project or ac�on is within or near an area with a rare animal, a permit may be required if the species is listed as endangered or threatened and the department determines the ac�on may be harmful to the species or its habitat.

If your project or ac�on is within or near an area with rare plants and/or significant natural communi�es, the environmental impacts may need to be addressed.

The presence of a unique geological feature or landform near a project, unto itself, does not trigger a requirement for a NYS DEC permit. Readers are advised, however, that there is the chance that a unique feature may also show in another data layer (ie. a wetland) and thus be subject to permit jurisdic�on.

Please refer to the "Need a Permit?" tab for permit informa�on or other authoriza�ons regarding these natural resources.

Disclaimer: If you are considering a project or ac�on in, or near, a wetland or a stream, a NYS DEC permit may be required. The Environmental Resources Mapper does not show all natural resources which are regulated by NYS DEC, and for which permits from NYS DEC are required. For example, Regulated Tidal Wetlands, and Wild, Scenic, and Recrea�onal Rivers, are currently not included on the maps.

Print Preview

Appendix C IPaC Consultation

==> picture [517 x 79] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [111 x 69] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [516 x 147] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [459 x 90] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [492 x 47] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [411 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [159 x 87] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [56 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [112 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [508 x 107] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [48 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [247 x 88] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [514 x 183] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [501 x 193] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [513 x 132] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [333 x 124] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [74 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [189 x 95] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [519 x 151] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [478 x 174] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [208 x 58] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [193 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [243 x 44] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [213 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [221 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [181 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [514 x 183] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [501 x 193] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [513 x 132] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [32 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [365 x 173] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [503 x 117] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [517 x 181] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [468 x 110] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [90 x 61] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [270 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [515 x 169] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [442 x 81] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [46 x 69] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [510 x 184] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [557 x 358] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix D FEMA Flood Maps

Appendix E Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis

Preliminary Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis of an Orenco[®] Effluent Sewer S stem y

==> picture [263 x 213] intentionally omitted <==

Project Name Village of Red Hook Red Hook, NY

Prepared for Kathryn Serra, P.E. C.T. Male Associates

Prepared by Garry-Lee Espinosa Orenco Systems, Inc. Date September 13, 2021

==> picture [279 x 82] intentionally omitted <==

Table Of Contents

Table Of Contents ................................................................................................................................. 2 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 SECTION 2: DESIGN PARAMETERS AND HYDRAULIC MODEL ................................................ 4 Design Assumptions: ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Flow Rate .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Head Loss ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Velocity .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 General Comments: ........................................................................................................................................ 5 SECTION 3: ANALYSIS RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 7 Outputs ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 4: HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE GRAPHS – CURRENT FLOWS .................................. 13 SECTION 5: HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE GRAPHS – FUTURE FLOWS ..................................... 28

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Small communities are often confronted with major costs to repair or replace wastewater treatment plants or failing septic systems. Traditional technologies such as conventional gravity sewers and activated sludge treatment facilities are generally unaffordable for small communities. Because of their low density and small user base, small communities are unable to afford the high per capita construction costs, nor are they able to pay for the wastewater professionals needed to operate, manage, and update such complex facilities.

This report contains information related to a STEP-STEG (effluent sewer) collection system. STEP-STEG systems use small diameter – typically 2”-4” – pipe that follows the contour of the land, to significantly reduce construction costs.

Unlike conventional approaches, such as gravity or grinder systems, STEP-STEG systems provides a modular solution that can be incrementally installed, resulting in lower up-front capital costs that do not unfairly burden initial users.

With an Orenco Effluent Sewer, raw sewage flows from the building to a watertight underground tank, where primary treatment occurs via settling and natural biological processes. Solids remain in the tank, decreasing in volume, which reduces biosolids treatment costs. Filtered liquid effluent is then discharged (by high-head pump or gravity) through small-diameter service lines to small-diameter collection lines. These service and collection lines are shallowly buried and follow the contour of the land. The entire system is watertight, reducing costs from infiltration. No expensive manholes or lift station are required and energy consumption is minimal.

The specified collection system is an Orenco Effluent Sewer, a technology that the company has been optimizing for more than 25 years. It is the only sewer technology that provides primary treatment.

==> picture [313 x 186] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Typical STEP Systems Components

SECTION 2: DESIGN PARAMETERS AND HYDRAULIC MODEL

The purpose of this analysis is to determine the delivery method (pump or gravity) and line size necessary for a successful STEP-STEG collection system.

Orenco Systems, Inc. (“Orenco”) has received the proposed layout from the designer, flow parameters based on internal assumptions (see below) for the Red Hook project. A preliminary hydraulic grade line (HGL) was produced to analyze the proposed effluent sewer to determine effluent line diameters and pumps/ packages required. Please review the enclosed results to ensure the assumptions and conclusions are accurate.

Design Assumptions:

Flow Rate

A population density of (3.0) capita per EDU has been used in all calculations. Flow rates for each line were determined using the following equation:

==> picture [120 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

Where:

Q = peak flow in gpm. PC = population density per EDU EDU = the number of dwelling units

*15 = the constant to establish a minimum flow rate when number EDUs is < 15

*When the number of EDUs exceeds 50 per line, the constant is no longer used.

Head Loss

The friction head loss calculations were done using HDPE SDR11 pipe with a Hazen-Williams coefficient of 150.

==> picture [131 x 33] intentionally omitted <==

Where:

HL = Head loss due to pipe friction, ft

L = Forcemain line length, ft

d = Inside diameter of pipe, in

Q = Flow rate through forcemain, gpm

Velocity

Since effluent sewers convey effluent and not solid waste, minimum velocities are not required like that of a gravity sewer system. However, many regulatory agencies may require velocity calculations to be included in a design. Velocities were calculated using the following equation:

==> picture [96 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

Where:

V = Velocity in pipe, ft/s

d = Inside diameter of pipe, in

• Q = Flow rate through pipe, gpm

General Comments:

The line sizes indicated on the graphs have been chosen based upon the use of Orenco’s standard STEP pump, Model PF1005, which will achieve 5-9 gpm at 150 ft of TDH, depending upon whether the 1/4” flow control orifice disk is used. This pump should be adequate for all connections in this system, although this determination should be made after the final site analysis is completed.

Individual interceptor tanks that have a liquid level that remains 2 feet or more above the HGL should work with an effluent filter (no pump is required), while systems that fall below the HGL will require pumping. The HGL will fluctuate with the number of pumps running concurrently, so systems that fall within this range will alternately be above and below the HGL. Any pumping system above the static grade line (typically the highest point within the system) will require anti-siphon valves on their pumping discharge assemblies. The service line between the interceptor tank and the main line should be laid at a constant grade to eliminate high points where gasses may collect.

The following are critical components that ensure a successful effluent sewer system design. They are not included in this analysis, but we recommend that they are incorporated in the design when needed:

• a) Properly sized and watertight interceptor tanks with effluent filters or screened pumps and control panels

• b) Service connection assemblies (ball valve and check valve) just off the main lines for all service lines

• c) Isolation valves and check valves at main line intersections

• d) Proper cleanout accessibility, including launching ports and catching methods for “pigging” the main lines (especially for construction debris). The exact location and number of automatic air release valve (AARV) assemblies should be analyzed in the field and specified as needed. Manual air release valves could be installed at questionable locations, and replaced later with automatic valves if necessary.

For more information about effluent sewer design, please refer to the Orenco Systems Effluent Sewer Design Manual, which can be found at the Orenco website:

http://www.orenco.com/doclib/documents/nda-efs-1.pdf

SECTION 3: ANALYSIS RESULTS

Outputs

The following tables represents the HDPE SDR 11 line sizes, demand and pump requirements for different sections of pressure sewer pipe.

Table 1. Current Flows HGL Analysis Results

|Pipe ID|Diameter (inches)|Outgoing EDUs|Flow Demand (gpm)|Velocity (ft/s)| |---|---|---|---|---| |A|6|279|*139.5|2.0| |B|4|100|50.0|1.5| |C|2|16|23.0|2.6| |D|4|42|36.0|1.1| |E|2|12|21.0|2.3| |F|3|30|30.0|1.5| |G|4|179|89.5|2.8| |H|2|22|26.0|2.6| |I|4|157|78.5|2.4| |J|3|128|64.0|3.3| |K|3|98|49.0|2.5| |L|2|26|28.0|3.1| |M|2|23|26.5|2.9| |N|3|28|29.0|1.5| |O|2|47|38.5|4.3|

• Denotes peak hourly flow rate to the treatment plant

Pipe Length Headloss

Hydraulic

Pipe

Pressure Pressure

|Pipe ID|Diameter (inches)|(ft)|(ft)|Grade (ft)|Elevation (ft)|Head (ft)|Head (psi)| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |A|6|550|1.4|207.4|206.0|1.4|0.6| |B|4|2,500|6.5|223.8|210.0|13.8|5.9| |C|2|1,500|20.7|244.5|214.0|30.5|13.2| |D|4|230|0.3|224.1|210.0|14.1|6.1| |E|2|750|8.8|233.4|211.0|22.4|9.6| |F|3|950|0.5|227.0|216.0|11.0|4.7| |G|4|500|3.8|211.2|214.0|-2.8|-1.2| |H|2|800|13.9|229.9|206.0|23.9|10.3| |I|4|2,100|12.5|226.5|213.0|13.5|5.8| |J|3|250|3.5|230.0|214.0|16.0|2.9| |K|3|300|2.5|232.5|212.0|20.5|8.8| |L|2|1,500|29.8|259.8|236.0|23.8|10.3| |M|2|300|5.4|237.9|207.8|30.1|13.0| |N|3|1,200|0.3|242.0|223.0|19.0|8.2| |O|2|1,900|68.1|300.9|214.0|*86.9|37.6|

Table 2. Current Flows Total Dynamic Head Loss Summary

• Maximum Head Pressure

Table 3. Future Flows HGL Analysis Results

|Pipe ID|Diameter (inches)|Outgoing EDUs|Flow Demand (gpm)|Velocity (ft/s)| |---|---|---|---|---| |A|6|776|*388.0|5.5| |B|4|342|171.0|5.3| |C|2|16|23.0|2.6| |D|4|114|57.0|1.8| |E|2|12|21.0|2.3| |F|3|114|57.0|2.9| |G|4|435|217.5|6.7| |H|2|22|26.0|2.9| |I|4|270|135.0|4.2| |J|3|211|105.5|5.4| |K|3|155|77.5|4.0| |L|2|52|26.0|2.9| |M|2|23|26.5|2.9| |N|3|132|66.0|3.4| |O|2|47|38.5|4.3|

• Denotes peak hourly flow rate to the treatment plant

Table 4. Future Flows Total Dynamic Head Loss Summary

|Pipe ID|Diameter (inches)|Pipe Length (ft)| Headloss (ft)|Hydraulic Grade (ft)|Pipe Elevation (ft)|Pressure Head (ft)|Pressure Head (psi)| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |A|6|550|9.6|215.6|206.0|9.6|4.1| |B|4|2,500|62.8|272.2|210.0|62.2|27.0| |C|2|1,500|20.7|286.7|214.0|72.7|31.5| |D|4|230|0.8|273.0|210.0|63.0|27.3| |E|2|750|8.8|283.5|211.0|72.5|31.3| |F|3|950|8.7|281.7|216.0|65.7|28.4| |G|4|500|19.6|235.2|214.0|21.2|9.2| |H|2|800|13.9|238.0|206.0|32.0|13.8| |I|4|2,100|34.1|269.3|213.0|56.3|24.4| |J|3|250|8.7|276.3|214.0|62.3|27.0| |K|3|300|5.9|282.2|212.0|70.2|30.4| |L|2|1,500|26.0|302.3|236.0|66.3|28.7| |M|2|300|5.4|283.4|207.8|75.6|32.7| |N|3|1,200|8.7|290.9|223.0|67.9|29.4| |O|2|1,900|68.1|311.0|214.0|*97.0|42.0|

• Maximum Head Pressure

Pump Information

The line sizes indicated on the graphs have been chosen based upon the use of Orenco’s standard STEP pump, Model PF1005, which will achieve 10 gpm at 141 ft of TDH. This pump should be adequate for all residential and small commercial connections in this system, although this determination should be made after the final site analysis is completed. Pump information can be seen below.

==> picture [414 x 479] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. PF1005 Pump Performance Curve

For large flow commercial connections, Model PF3005 is recommended, which will achieve 30 gpm at 56.7 ft of TDH. This pump should be adequate for most large flow commercial connections in this system, although this determination should be made after the final site analysis is completed. Pump information can be seen below.

==> picture [439 x 517] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. PF3005 Pump Performance Curve

SECTION 4: HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE GRAPHS – CURRENT FLOWS

==> picture [469 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe A

==> picture [469 x 345] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe B

==> picture [469 x 344] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [211 x 12] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 6. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe C ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [469 x 344] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe D

==> picture [469 x 347] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe E

==> picture [469 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [210 x 13] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 9. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe F ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [469 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe G

==> picture [469 x 346] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe H

==> picture [469 x 346] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe I

==> picture [469 x 345] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [215 x 12] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 11. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe J ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [469 x 343] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [216 x 13] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 12. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe K ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [469 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 13. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe L

==> picture [469 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 14. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe M

==> picture [469 x 347] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 15. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe N

==> picture [469 x 345] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 16. HGL Graph - Current Flows, Pipe O

SECTION 5: HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE GRAPHS – FUTURE FLOWS

==> picture [469 x 347] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 17. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe A

==> picture [469 x 342] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [212 x 12] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 18. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe B ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [469 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 19. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe C

==> picture [469 x 350] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 19. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe D

==> picture [469 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 20. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe E

==> picture [469 x 346] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [210 x 12] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 21. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe F ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [469 x 346] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 22. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe G

==> picture [469 x 346] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [212 x 13] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 23. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe H ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [469 x 346] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [207 x 12] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 24. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe I ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [469 x 344] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 25. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe J

==> picture [469 x 344] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 26. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe L

==> picture [469 x 346] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 27. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe M

==> picture [469 x 344] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [212 x 12] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 28. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe N ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [469 x 348] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 29. HGL Graph - Future Flows, Pipe O

Appendix F SPDES Permit

==> picture [139 x 45] intentionally omitted <==

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) DISCHARGE PERMIT – MUNICIPAL

This SPDES permit is issued in compliance with Title 8 of Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law of New York State and in compliance with the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. '1251 et.seq.)

in accordance with: effluent limitations; monitoring and reporting requirements; other provisions and conditions set forth in this permit; and 6 NYCRR Part 750-1 and 750-2.

This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire on midnight of the expiration date shown above and the permittee shall not discharge after the expiration date unless this permit has been renewed or extended pursuant to law. To be authorized to discharge beyond the expiration date, the permittee shall apply for permit renewal not less than 180 days prior to the expiration date shown above.

DISTRIBUTION:

Ken Kearney, Kearney Realty Group Kathryn Serra, P.E., C.T. Male Associates Dutchess County Department of Health EPA NPDES Section, Region 2 Aparna Roy, NYSDEC Division of Water Cheri Jamison, NYSDEC Bureau of Water Permits

Effective Date: 05/01/2020

SPDES Number: NY0271420 Page 2 of 13

Contents

Effective Date: 05/01/2020

SPDES Number: NY0271420 Page 3 of 13

INTERNAL OUTFALL UPON THE START UP OF THE 0.05 MGD PLANT

Effective Date: 05/01/2020

SPDES Number: NY0271420 Page 4 of 13

DEFINITIONS FOR PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING TERMS

|DEFINITIONS|Page 4 of 13 FOR PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING TERMS| |---|---| |TERM|DEFINITION| |7-Day Geometric Mean|The highest allowable geometric mean of daily discharges over a calendar week.| |12-Month Rolling Average (12 MRA)|The current monthly value of a parameter, plus the sum of the monthly values over the previous 11 months for that parameter, divided by 12.| |30-Day Geometric Mean|The highest allowable geometric mean of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the antilog of: the sum of the log of each of the daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month.| |Action Level|Action level means a monitoring requirement characterized by a numerical value that, when exceeded, triggers additional permittee monitoring and department review to determine if numerical effluent limitations should be imposed.| |Compliance Level / Minimum Level|A compliance level is an effluent limitation. A compliance level is given when the water quality evaluation specifies a Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL) below the Minimum Level. The compliance level shall be set at the Minimum Level (ML) for the most sensitive analytical method as given in 40 CFR Part 136, or otherwise accepted by the Department.| |Daily Discharge|The discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for the purposes of sampling. For pollutants expressed in units of mass, the ‘daily discharge’ is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement, the ‘daily discharge’ is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day.| |Daily Maximum|The highest allowable Daily Discharge.| |Daily Minimum|The lowest allowable Daily Discharge.| |Effective Date of Permit (EDP or EDPM)|The date this permit is in effect.| |Effluent Limitations|Effluent limitation means any restriction on quantities, quality, rates and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents of effluents that are discharged into waters of the state.| |Expiration Date of Permit (ExDP)|The date this permit is no longer in effect.| |Instantaneous Maximum|The maximum level that may not be exceeded at any instant in time.| |Instantaneous Minimum|The minimum level that must be maintained at all instants in time.| |Monthly Average|The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of each of the daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month.| |Outfall|The terminus of a sewer system, or the point of emergence of any waterborne sewage, industrial waste or other wastes or the effluent therefrom, into the waters of the State.| |Range|The minimum and maximum instantaneous measurements for the reporting period must remain between the two values shown.| |Receiving Water|The classified waters of the state to which the listed outfall discharges.| |Sample Frequency / Sample Type / Units|See NYSDEC’s “DMR Manual for Completing the Discharge Monitoring Report for the SPDES” for information on sample frequency, type and units.|

Effective Date: 05/01/2020

SPDES Number: NY0271420 Page 5 of 13

INTERIM PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING

FOOTNOTES:

1. The limits on this page shall expire upon startup of the 0.05 mgd Facility. The startup date for the 0.5 mgd facility will be identified in a letter from the permittee to the offices listed on the Monitoring Reporting and Recording page of this permit and to the Chief, Bureau of Water Permits, South Section, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-3505. Startup shall commence with DEC, EFC or Dutchess County Department of Health approved reports, plans and specifications.

2. Effluent limitation for Total Residual Chlorine is only applicable if chlorine is used for disinfection or other treatment processes.

3. Quarterly samples shall be reported in March, June, September, and December (Q1 – January 1[st] to March 31[st] ; Q2 – April 1[st] to June 30[th] ; Q3 – July 1[st] to September 30[th] ; Q4 – October 1[st] to December 31[st] ).

Effective Date: 05/01/2020

SPDES Number: NY0271420 Page 6 of 13

FINAL PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING

FOOTNOTES:

1. Flow from Outfall 01B ultimately discharges to Subtrib. of Saw Kill, Outfall 001. The combined flow from Outfall 01B and Outfall 01A is 0.075 MGD and discharges via outfall 001.

2. The limits on this page shall become effective upon startup of the 0.05 mgd Facility. The startup date for the 0.05 mgd facility will be identified in a letter from the permittee to the offices listed on the Monitoring Reporting and Recording page of this permit and to the Chief, Bureau of Water Permits, South Section, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-3505. Startup shall commence with DEC, EFC or Dutchess County Department of Health approved reports, plans and specifications.

3. Ultimate Oxygen Demand (UOD) shall be computed as follows: UOD = (1.5 × CBOD5) + (4.5 × TKN).

4. Effluent limitation for Total Residual Chlorine is only applicable if chlorine is used for disinfection or other treatment processes.

5. This is a Compliance Level. The calculated WQBEL is 0.005 mg/l.

6. Quarterly samples shall be reported in March, June, September, and December (Q1 – January 1st to March 31st; Q2 – April 1st to June 30th; Q3 – July 1st to September 30th; Q4 – October 1st to December 31st).

Effective Date: 05/01/2020

SPDES Number: NY0271420 Page 7 of 13

FINAL PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING (Continued)

FOOTNOTES:

1. Flow from Outfall 01A ultimately discharges to Subtrib. of Saw Kill, Outfall 001. The combined flow from Outfall 01B and Outfall 01A is 0.075 MGD and discharges via outfall 001.

2. The limits on this page shall become effective upon startup of the 0.05 mgd Facility. The startup date for the 0.05 mgd facility will be identified in a letter from the permittee to the offices listed on the Monitoring Reporting and Recording page of this permit and to the Chief, Bureau of Water Permits, South Section, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-3505. Startup shall commence with DEC, EFC or Dutchess County Department of Health approved reports, plans and specifications.

3. Ultimate Oxygen Demand (UOD) shall be computed as follows: UOD = (1.5 × CBOD5) + (4.5 × TKN).

4. Effluent limitation for Total Residual Chlorine is only applicable if chlorine is used for disinfection or other treatment processes.

5. This is a Compliance Level. The calculated WQBEL is 0.005 mg/l.

6. Quarterly samples shall be reported in March, June, September, and December (Q1 – January 1[st] to March 31[st] ; Q2 – April 1[st] to June 30[th] ; Q3 – July 1[st] to September 30[th] ; Q4 – October 1[st] to December 31[st] ).

Effective Date: 05/01/2020

SPDES Number: NY0271420 Page 8 of 13

DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

• (a) The permittee shall install and maintain identification signs at all outfalls to surface waters listed in this permit, unless the Permittee has obtained a waiver in accordance with the Discharge Notification Act (DNA). Such signs shall be installed before initiation of any discharge.

• (b) Subsequent modifications to or renewal of this permit does not reset or revise the deadline set forth in (a) above, unless a new deadline is set explicitly by such permit modification or renewal.

• (c) The Discharge Notification Requirements described herein do not apply to outfalls from which the discharge is composed exclusively of storm water, or discharges to ground water.

• (d) The sign(s) shall be conspicuous, legible and in as close proximity to the point of discharge as is reasonably possible while ensuring the maximum visibility from the surface water and shore. The signs shall be installed in such a manner to pose minimal hazard to navigation, bathing or other water related activities. If the public has access to the water from the land in the vicinity of the outfall, an identical sign shall be posted to be visible from the direction approaching the surface water.

The signs shall have minimum dimensions of eighteen inches by twenty-four inches (18" x 24") and shall have white letters on a green background and contain the following information:

N.Y.S. PERMITTED DISCHARGE POINT

SPDES PERMIT No.: NY__________

OUTFALL No. :____

For information about this permitted discharge contact:

Permittee Name: _________________________________________________________________________ Permittee Contact: ________________________________________________________________________ Permittee Phone: ( ) - ### - #### OR:

NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Office Address:

NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Phone: ( ) - ### -####

• (e) Upon request, the permittee shall make available electronic or hard copies of the sampling data to the public. In accordance with the RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS page of your permit, each DMR shall be maintained (either electronically or as a hard copy) on record for a period of five years.

• (f) The permittee shall periodically inspect the outfall identification sign(s) in order to ensure they are maintained, are still visible, and contain information that is current and factually correct. Signs that are damaged or incorrect shall be replaced within 3 months of inspection.

• (g) If the permittee believes that any outfall which discharges wastewater from the permitted facility meets any of the DNA waiver criteria, notification must be made to the Department’s Bureau of Water Permits. Provided there is no objection by the Department, a sign for the involved outfall(s) are not required. This notification must include the facility’s name, address, telephone number, contact, permit number, outfall number(s), and reason why such outfall(s) is waived from the requirements of discharge notification. The Department may evaluate the applicability of a waiver at any time and take appropriate measures to assure that the ECL and associated regulations are complied with.

Effective Date: 05/01/2020

SPDES Number: NY0271420 Page 9 of 13

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE

a) The permittee shall comply with the following schedule: