Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COUNTY OF ORANGE
THOMAS CUSACK
- against
Respondents,
EMANUEL LEONOROVITZ et al.,
Additional Respondents.
- against -
)
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE
1.
Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., ("LBG"), located in Shelton, Connecticut. I have over 30
Exhibit A.
2.
I have been the Village's principal hydrogeologist for over 20 years. During that
time, I have been responsible for identifying and developing new water sources for the Village as
well as managing and maintaining existing sources.
3.
I submit this affidavit in support of the Village of Kiryas Joel's ( "Kiryas Joel")
"Municipal Petitioners") and Proceeding No. 2 (the "PHV Petition") commenced Preserve
Hudson Valley, et al. (collectively, "PHV Petitioners") seeking to annul Kiryas Joel's State
findings approving petitions for annexation of 507 acres and 164 acres from the Town of Monroe
to the Kiryas Joel, all dated September 6, 2015.
4.
Joel's permit for construction of a groundwater well at site in the Town of Cornwall known as
the "Mountainville Well" and its ongoing municipal project to construct a pipeline connection to
the New York City Aqueduct system for municipal water supply, as well as in response to
allegations that the Village's SEQRA review of the annexation petitions did not sufficiently
consider water supply.
5.
As detailed below, the Village fully considered the potential impacts of the
annexations on water supply and relied on reasonable population and water usage projections in
determining that the Village will be able to meet the projected needs of the proposed annexation
territories into the foreseeable future.
6.
I make this affidavit based upon my personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances stated herein, my review of the documents and reports that were prepared by LBG
for the Village with respect to the application to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") to construct the Mountainville Well, NYSDEC
documents related to the water supply permit for the Village's water supply, including the
Mountainville Well, and my review of documents prepared in connection with the Village's
SEQRA review of the annexation petitions.
7.
I note that this Court previously upheld the well-testing and analysis I made for
the Village in support of the Mountainville well permit. Town of Woodbury v. Village of Kiryas
wells and two sand and gravel wells. The water supply wells are generally located in three well
fields. Ten of the wells are located within the Village boundaries [wells #1, 5, 6, 8 A, 9B, 13 A,
13B, 14A, 17, and 22 in the NYSDEC water supply permits].
Brenner well field, which is located on Larkin Road in the Town of Monroe [2 IB, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27 and 28], Well 28 is a high capacity sand and gravel well located near the Ramapo River in
the Village of Monroe.
The wells and the allowable amount of water withdrawn are presently permitted
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (existing permit
WSA# 11,609 (consolidated permit ID 3-3399-00065/00001). The total present combined yield
capacity of these wells, including Mountainville Well 1 is approximately 2.91 million gallons per
day ("mgd").
The Village is currently permitted to withdraw up to 1.93 mgd from all of the
existing wells in the Village system, based upon existing permit conditions. Under special
condition 3 of WSA #1 1,609, the Village is authorized to withdraw up to 2.54 mgd temporarily
to meet peak water demands.
10.
The reason for the difference in these figures is that NYSDEC has imposed a cap
for certain higher yielding wells in the Village on the volume that can be regularly used, but
which higher amounts above the NYSDEC permitted taking are available for use on those
limited occasions when necessary to meet the Village's maximum peak water demand. In all of
2014, the Village's maximum daily demand exceeded 2 mgd on only four occasions.
11.
The Village currently has an average daily demand for water of 1.61 mgd, which
demands provided in the Amended Final Environmental Impact Statement ("AFEIS") for the
Village's Aqueduct connection project and the anticipated connection to the Aqueduct in 2017,
the Village's demand will be approximately 1.76 mgd at that time, also within the capability of
the Village's existing total well yield capacity and permit limits.
12.
The Village of Kiryas Joel owns, operates and maintains its water supply
infrastructure, including: two pumping stations, five water storage tanks, three water treatment
plants and the distribution system. The five water storage tanks have a combined capacity of 4. 1
mgd which allow the Village to meet maximum daily demand, water demand fluctuations and to
provide fire protection service for the Village.
13.
As part
("NYCDEP") water supply agreement for the Village's Aqueduct connection, I will be required
to certify that the Village's water supply will be able to endure the shutdown of the Aqueduct for
extended periods of time. Based on the Village's current well inventory and storage capabilities,
I am able to certify that the Village will be able to endure the shutdown of the Aqueduct at the
time of the connection and for some time thereafter. In the future, however, it is likely that the
Village will be required to identify additional measures to support its ability to endure future
shutdowns.
These would include measures such as increased takings from existing wells;
additional groundwater and surface water sources; additional storage capabilities; demand side
controls and conservation measures.
municipalities to have identified, much less have obtained permits for all potential future sources
consider such permits without an identified current need, as was precisely the case when
NYSDEC suggested that the Village withdraw its permit application for the Star Mountain
As detailed in the DGEIS Vol. 1 at pages 3.5-7 to 3.5-10, prepared for the
Village's SEQRA review of the annexation petitions, the Village has secured rights to several
existing or prospective wellfields in addition to the Mountainville Well, including the Star
Mountain wellfield and the Woodbury Heights Estates wellfield.
groundwater for the Village from wells will likewise be subject to review and approval by
NYSDEC and New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH"), In addition to SEQRA
review, permit review includes technical assessment of the sustainable pumping rate of wells and
their potential impact to neighboring wells and nearby surface water features. Water supply
permits are subject to conditions to ensure public and environmental health and safety.
15.
The Mountainville Well is intended to provide additional support for the Village's
Aqueduct, this well will support the Village's demand in times of future Aqueduct shutdown.
16.
Contrary to the allegations in the Municipal Petition, the intended use of the
Mountainville Well has not changed since it was first proposed, see Municipal Petition, at
22,
but rather as the Village has always maintained, the Mountainville Well will be used to serve the
Village in the interim period until connection with the Aqueduct and thereafter as a backup
supply.
17.
Creek, see Municipal Petition, at Tflf 12, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 27, were raised by many of these
same parties and rejected by NYSDEC during the SEQRA and permitting review of the
Mountainville Well project. In addition, the Municipal Petitioners raised these very same claims
in a prior Article 78 proceeding brought to challenge the SEQRA review of the Mountainville
well project, and this Court dismissed them. See Decision, Order and Judgment, Town of
Woodbury v. Village of Kirvas Joel. No. 2877-2013 (Apr. 7, 2014) (Lefkowitz, J.) attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
18.
after numerous discussions and meetings with NYSDEC water supply program staff from the
Department's Albany headquarters and Region 3, NYSDEC issued a Draft Permit (3-334000284/00001; WSA No. 1 1,609) on January 23, 2013.
19.
Permit, including consideration of numerous comments from the public and potentially affected
municipalities, and including the same issues raised by Municipal Petitioners.
20.
The claims alleged in the Municipal Petition were identified, thoroughly analyzed,
considered and ultimately rejected by NYSDEC in the course of this environmental review of the
Mountainville Well site.
21.
addressed these issues during consideration of the Village's water supply permit application are
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
22.
23.
After carefully considering these comments and responses and rejecting the very
same claims alleged in the Municipal Petition, NYSDEC issued Kiryas Joel a final water supply
In connection with the annexation petitions that the Village received, I assisted in
the Village's SEQRA review, led by Tim Miller Associates, of the Village's ability to meet the
water needs of the proposed annexation areas, based on reasonable population projections and
existing per capita daily water usage in the Village. See DGEIS Vol 1 3.5; FGEIS Vol. 1
3.5.7 and Vol. 2, Appdx. G.
25.
The annexation territory is not within the Village's current water service area.
However, at present the Village is providing public water supply service to portions of this
territory as outside users. This has required the establishment of a separate Town water district
and agreement for the provision of this service. With annexation, the annexation properties
would have a right of access to the Village water system, and it is assumed that all development
in the annexed territory would obtain water from the Village system.
26.
Population growth and estimated future water demand indicated a 2025 study area
population of 42,297 and an estimated daily water demand of 2.79 million mgd. Future water
demand for the Village was estimated using an established water use rate of 66.0 gallons per day,
per capita. The water use rate was based upon historic reported water usage in the Village.
27.
annexation petitions, the Village's review of water impacts was based on the projected
future, concrete development projects will be subject to Village review and approval and that
Village approval of any individual residential project cannot proceed without an adequate water
supply.
28.
When a new development project is applied for in the Village, I review the
calculated average and maximum daily water demands for the proposed development. Using the
most current average and peak water usage data available from the village and the current well
yield capacities, I determine whether adequate surplus capacity would be available in the
Village's water system to meet the water demands of the proposed development.
29.
The review of projected water supply impacts in the DGEIS and FGEIS
determined that the Village will be able to meet the future water needs of the proposed
annexation territories. Moreover, its ability to meet these water supply needs will be particularly
strengthened with the Village's anticipated connection to the New York City Aqueduct system,
which has the capacity to provide water to the Village beyond the study period for the FGEIS, as
Village population grows. See DGEIS Vol. 1 3.5.2.
Vol. 1 at pages 3.5-7 to 3:5-10, the Village has ownership interests in several other well fields,
including those at Star Mountain and Woodbury Heights that have the potential for development
30.
The NYCDEP Bureau of Water Supply has confirmed the Village's right to take a
water supply from the City's water system, pipeline construction for the connection has
proceeded, and final engineering plans for the connection to the NYC Aqueduct are now being
finalized by the Village and City engineering staff.
maintain 100 percent back-up for the volume of its water taking from the Aqueduct. As
discussed above, the Village has secured the rights to groundwater wells with tested water
capacity that exceeds the projected Village water demand well into the future after its connection
to the Aqueduct.
31.
The Village's review of potential water supply impacts from the annexation
32.
All of the Village's water supply sources are subject to regulatory control of the
NYSDEC and NYSDOH. The NYSDEC water supply permits regulating the Village's existing
water supply contain specific conditions including: established limits for water taking from
individual wells, water conservation measures and mandatory enforceable conditions to mitigate
impacts to other existing nearby supply wells.
33.
In addition, each NYSDEC Water Supply Permit was subject to review pursuant
to SEQRA, and as noted above, any new source of groundwater for the Village from wells will
likewise be subject to review and approval by NYSDEC and NYSDOH.
34.
Connection to the Catskill Aqueduct, which has already been subject to full
SEQRA review, will also mitigate potential water supply source impacts. Engineering plans for
this connection are subject to review and approval by the NYCDEP. The water supply agreement
between NYCDEP and the Village requires a City-approved water conservation plan as well as
state-of-the-art metering and other technologies to prevent waste and contamination of the water
source. In addition, the use of Aqueduct water is strictly limited to the territorial boundaries of
the Village, unless otherwise approved by NYCDEP, and the allowance volumes are likewise
strictly limited by a formula in the New York City Administrative Code based on U.S. Census
population figures and per capita usage in New York City.
35.
I have also reviewed the Affidavit of Jeffrey Frederick, CPG dated October 21,
2015, submitted by the Municipal Petitioners in support of their petition (the "Frederick
Affidavit"). .
36.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Frederick did not submit any of the comments
included in his litigation Affidavit during the review by the Village and NYSDEC of the
Mountainville Well project or the Village's SEQRA review of the annexation petitions.
37.
The issues raised in the Frederick Affidavit at Paragraphs 4 and 5 (f), (g), and (h)
relating to impacts from the Mountainville Well have been discussed above and were
comprehensively addressed in the full, completed SEQRA review of that project. Moreover, the
concerns all relate to the NYSDEC water supply permit, not these annexation petitions, which
proposed no change in the Village's permit as presently issued by NYSDEC.
38.
Similarly, the potential issues in Paragraph 5 (g) relating to the Catskill Aqueduct
project were fully evaluated in the context of the SEQRA review of that project,
39.
The issues raised in Paragraphs 5 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Frederick Affidavit
relate to the Village's use of a 10-year population projection for assessing potential water
demands in the annexation territory.
10
scenario driven by population dynamics with the longer capital financing requirements of
NYSEFC tied to the 30-year term of the loan to finance the project.
40.
The comment in Paragraph 5 (e) of the Frederick Affidavit that the water supply
projections failed to consider the development of the annexation territories with private water
wells was not raised during the public comment on the Village's SEQRA review, and in any
event is misplaced, as potential development using private water wells in the annexation areas
was fully evaluated in DGEIS 3.5.2 (at 3.5-14 to 3.5-18).
41.
The comments in Frederick Affidavit Paragraphs 5 (f) (i) - (iv) related to inter-
basin impacts were fully evaluated in the context of the SEQRA review of the Mountainville
Well and responses to comments presented to and considered by NYSDEC. As these comments
relate to other Village-owned wellfields such as Star Mountain and Woodbury Heights Estates,
any evaluation of impacts at these fields at this time would be overly speculative.
42.
The comment in Frederick Affidavit Paragraph 5 (h) that the Village should have
analyzed the impacts of a blended use of groundwater and Aqueduct water again relates to
Aqueduct impacts and the Mountainville Well, not the annexation.
presently incurring tremendous expense to develop the Aqueduct connection, which it fully
intends to use.
43.
cumulative impacts study would require speculation in the absence of specific development
11
proposals for the annexation territory, and again will be more properly addressedto the extent
not already examinedin the context of specific development projects and NYSDEC water
supply applications, not in assessing the potential impacts from the annexation itself.
44.
DGEIS and FGE1S fully considered potential mitigation of water supply impacts to the fullest
extent practicable in the absence of any specific development proposals for the annexation areas.
To the extent the Frederick Affidavit raised issues related to mitigation of impacts at specific
wellfields, these impacts and proposed mitigation measures relate to the Village's water supply
permits, which have been subjected to full SEQRA review or will be at the time the Village
makes such specific applications.
continuing regulation by NYSDEC and NYSDOF1 and subject to applicable permit terms and
conditions.
45.
could not be meaningfully examined in the context of the proposed annexations, but rather will
be the subject of review as necessary when specific development proposals and projects come
before the Village and/or other agencies.
46.
I have also reviewed the Affidavit of Thomas E. Dwyer, P.G. dated October 26,
2015, submitted by Petitioners Village of Cornwall on Hudson and the Town of Cornwall in
support of their petition (the "Dwyer Affidavit").
47.
The Dwyer Affidavit questioned whether the pumping test performed on the
Mountainville Well 1 was inadequate to assess the impact on these resources in times of heavy
draw or low recharge, and questioned the methodology of the pumping test and its adequacy in
assessing impacts on existing neighboring wells, including the Town and Village of Woodbury's
12
Trout Brook Road wellfield and the Town and Village Cornwall's Taylor Road wellfield. The
Dwyer Affidavit also expressed concern that the well would negatively impact nearby surface
waters, including Woodbury and Moodna Creek because of hydrologic connection to the aquifer,
First, all of these issues were adequately addressed as part of the Mountainville
Well permit proceeding and NYSDEC has concurred with our analysis.
comments
about
impacts
on
the
aquifer,
comprehensive
standard
In
response
to
testing performed on
behalf of the Village of Kiryas Joel pursuant to State pumping test standards supports the
conclusion that no impacts to the principal aquifer will result from the Village's use of the
Mountainville Well 1. LBG completed a 72-hour pumping test on Well 1 located on the Village
of Kiryas Joel's Mountainville pump station and well field parcel on Route 32 in Cornwall, New
York in June 2011. The pumping test was conducted with strict adherence to the NYSDEC
pumping test standards ("Recommended Pump Test Procedures for Water Supply Application,"
TOGS 3.2.1, Appendix 10). The NYSDEC pumping test standards are designed to determine the
safe yield of proposed wells and potential impacts to neighboring wells and surface-water
features.
As Appendix 10 to TOGS states, the pump test procedures "have been designed to
produce the accurate and complete information that is vital to these determinations," Proper
methodologies for this test were also confirmed by NYSDEC Division of Water in Albany.
49.
Data from the pumping test were included in Exhibits II and III to the Village's
water supply permit dated November 17, 2011 and prepared by LBG.
Using the methodology and standards in TOGS Section 10, there was no water-
level drawdown measured in the piezometers during the test, including no surface-water or
13
during the 2011 pumping test. The first piezometer location was installed in the in the
stream were dry throughout the entire data collection period (pre-test and post-test), with the
exception of brief appearances of surface water following rain events. These data indicate this is
a temporary storm-water runoff channel and not a permanent stream.
diligence by attempting to monitor the stream as required by the TOGS. The second piezometer
location was installed in the wetland southwest of Well 1 .
piezometer went dry several days before the start of pumping because of high temperatures and
low precipitation.
The third
groundwater were present at this piezometer location throughout the data collection period, and
no impact was measured in either the surface-water or groundwater level from pumping of
Mountainville Well 1 .
51.
Well 1 was provided in Appendix I. The geology at this location was logged from 35 feet below
grade (ft bg) to 1 00 ft bg at five-foot intervals. Geologic logs for the two existing monitoring
wells MW-1 and MW-2 were provided in Appendix III of LBG's report.
sufficiently detailed to document the upper 35 feet that was not logged in Well 1.
The
piezometers were hand driven into the shallow soil from the surface using a slide-hammer. This
14
52.
The results from the 72-hour pumping test showed no outstanding issues of
53 .
The results of the 72-hour pumping test demonstrated a stabilized yield and water-
level drawdown on Well 1 at a rate of 425 gpm (gallons per minute); rapid water-level recovery
following shutdown of the test (90% within one hour); adequate groundwater recharge (1.00 to
1.38 mgd) to support the taking of up to 425 gpm from Well 1. There was no water-level
drawdown measured
in the piezometers
including no
surface-water or
affidavits, the data collected pursuant to State TOGS standards demonstrate that no additional
pumping tests, such as long-term testing, are required.
54.
measurements were collected from onsite and offsite observational wells located within 1,500
feet of the test well (TOGS section 7).
undeveloped and subject to a conservation easement that limits future development. The portion
of the radius east and southeast of Well 1 encompasses a limited number of residences. All eight
offsite properties were solicited for permission to collect water-level data from their wells. Four
property owners granted permission to collect measurements from their wells. Two of the four
wells (250 and 280 Old Route 32) were located in well pits, and the wells could not be opened to
collect water-level measurements without creating a sanitary risk. The other two, 230 Old Route
32 and 1470 Old Route 32, were monitored as described below.
55.
There was no impact observed in the neighboring wells monitored during the
15
onsite monitoring wells would not affect the observed data in the offsite bedrock residential
wells.
56.
additional onsite monitoring wells completed in the stratified-drift aquifer (MW-1 and MW-2)
that were drilled near Well 1.
The water-level data collected during the pumping test allow for
the calculation of aquifer parameters and the assessment of potential regional water-level impact
from pumping of the test well.
57.
The onsite Monitor Wells MW-1 and MW-2 were constructed 51 feet and 94 feet,
respectively, from Well 1, consistent with TOGS Section 7. Based on the data collected during
the pumping test, the drawdown in MW-1 and MW-2 at the end of the test was 9.26 feet and 0.42
foot, respectively. As expected, the drawdown data showed that pumping-related impact to
58.
Water-level data were collected from the two offsite residential wells located at
230 Old Route 32 and 1470 Old Route 2 at approximately 1,150 feet and 870 feet, respectively,
away from Well
1.
In response to the Dwyer Affidavit's comments that LBG and the Village of
Kiryas Joel neglected to consider the potential for impact on the Village of Woodbury's Trout
Brook wellfield when it assessed the Mountainville Well site, LBG was well aware of and
considered the potential for impacts by the Mountainville Well on offsite wells, including the
upgradient and distant Trout Brook well field.
16
down-gradient from the Trout Brook well field to have any direct impact on the Trout Brook
aquifer.
To
60.
further
support
the
conclusions
above,
LBG
completed
additional
analysis on the data derived from the June 201 1 aquifer test, attached hereto as Exhibit E. The
additional analysis was completed to assess the effect of potential aquifer boundary conditions
and determine if the distance drawdown effect from the pumping of Well 1 would potentially
affect the proposed Trout Brook Road wells. The transmissivity (T) (38,720 gpd/ft [gallons per
day per foot]) and the storage coefficient (S) (0.38) were calculated using drawdown versus time
method. The drawdown data were corrected utilizing the corrections presented in Kruseman
and DeRidder, 1 990 so that the solution is applicable for unconfmed aquifers .
61.
The curve shown on the plot is a fitted type curve and the points represent the
measured drawdown in the well. The type curve was generated by adjusting the aquifer
parameters presented in the solution portion on the plot until there is a good match between the
type curve and the measured data (i.e., the aquifer parameters have been calculated).
62.
program
curve matching or an automated method to minimize the difference between the type curve and
the observed data. In addition, AQTESOLVE allows boundary effects (such as the stratified drift
boundaries observed in the study area) to be incorporated into the analysis by automatically
generating image wells to simulated specified boundary conditions and locations.
63.
The calculated T and S were used along with AQTESOLVE to develop the
theoretical drawdown versus distance plot for Well 1. The theoretical drawdown versus distance
17
plot was developed assuming Mountainville Well 1 was pumping at a constant rate of 425 gpm
for approximately 22 days. As stated above, data from the June 2011 aquifer test of Well 1 show
that the water level in the well had reached a near stabilized level after three days of pumping.
Twenty two (22) days was used for the construction of the drawdown versus distance plot to be
conservative. The 22-day timeframe was necessary because the analytical equation used to
construct theoretical curve does not simulate the effects of leakage, river and/or wetland
recharges, which are the causes of stabilization. The stratified-drift boundaries were accounted
for in the development of the theoretical plot using boundary features in AQTESOLYE.
64.
The drawdown versus distance plot shows that the Village of Woodbury well field
is located beyond the expected area of influence of Well 1 (2,980 feet) even if the stratified drift
till boundaries are incorporated into the analysis. Note, for this analysis the area of influence of
Well 1 was conservatively defined as the area of land in which the water table or potentiometric
surface was lowered by 0.01 foot.
65.
Furthermore, in response to the Dwyer comments that LBG's standard testing was
somehow an inadequate basis alone for reaching the conclusion that there would be no influence
on wells as far away as the Trout Brook well, one need only consider the self-sustaining nature
of the Mountainville Well site to further refute this assertion. It is clear that, as a self-sustaining
well which is capable of fully recharging without any impact on the recharge potential of
Woodbury's well fields, the Mountainville Well will have no impact on Woodbury's wells.
66.
away from the Mountainville well field in the Moodna Creek aquifer, there is no potential for
pumping of Mountainville Well 1 to have a direct impact on the Moodna Creek/Taylor Road
18
aquifer because of the distance and separation of the aquifers as demonstrated in the above
analysis.
67.
The Dwyer Affidavit questioned the potential impacts of a 425 gpm interbasin
transfer removing water from the Woodbury Creek Tributary watershed and its downstream
Moodna Creek watershed as well as impacts to the Ramapo River, and questioned whether the
Village's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the County's Harriman WWTP could
68.
1 was conducted with strict adherence to the NYSDEC pumping test standards, which are also
designed to determine potential impacts to surface water.
69.
Extensive
hydrogeological testing
in
accordance
with NYSDEC
standards
indicated that there is no direct hydrologic connection with nearby surface water features,
including no direct impact on water levels in and below Woodbury Creek.
70.
measure water levels (see TOGS Section 10), and were installed near Well 1 for the pumping test
to assess potential surface-water interconnection with the test well under pumping conditions.
As described above, piezometers were installed in an on-site intermittent stream, in an on-site
wetland, and in and below Woodbury Creek to the northwest of the parcel.
71.
monitored during the test period as a result of the pumping of Well l.This indicates that there
was no direct hydrologic connection with nearby surface-water features during the testing,
including no impact on water levels in and below Woodbury Creek.
19
72.
The Village acknowledges that a scenario might exist where prolonged drawdown
during times of extreme drought or other compromised natural condition could result in potential
indirect impact to the surface-water resource.
conditions, mitigation or other conservation measures could be required to minimize any such
impacts. Such measures might include source reduction; time limitations on withdrawals; and, in
severe circumstances, complete closure of the well until circumstances moderate. A stream
gaging program (measuring stream stage and flow) to continuously monitor and record stream
flows in Woodbury Creek was submitted and approved by the NYSDEC per special conditions 8
This monitoring
program will be used to determine what percentage, if any, impact on flow in Woodbury Creek
may occur from pumping of the Mountainville Well 1. Background flow conditions in
Woodbury Creek will be measured prior to placing the well into service as part of the monitoring
plan.
73.
Potential impacts to the Ramapo River and Interbasin Diversion impacts were
In
addition, relevant to concerns about the Village's existing sand and gravel well #28, water-level
monitoring in the Ramapo River was conducted from 2007 through 2009 (23 months) per special
condition #8 for WSA #10,612 after Well 28 was placed into service.
Daily water-level
measurements were collected from locations in the Ramapo River upstream and downstream of
Well 28.
This monitoring program showed no direct impact from pumping of Well 28 on the
Ramapo River. The results of this monitoring program were submitted to the NYSDEC as part of
the permit special condition.
20
74.
drought, LBG has drafted and submitted for agency comment an "Emergency Response Plan" to
the Orange County Department of Health. This plan (which incorporates a drought management
plan) is not yet approved, and LBG and the Village are presently engaged in responding to
potential situations where one or more of the Village wells are subject to a yield restriction.
75.
dependent natural resources, including aquatic life, flora, fauna, and recreational uses, the
pumping test confirmed that water levels in Woodbury Creek will not be affected by the safe
yield levels of withdrawal from the well. Provisions for implementing a stream gaging program
to continuously monitor and record stream have been incorporated as a condition in the permit
together
with
other
conservation
measures
during
times
of extreme
drought
or
other
compromised natural condition that could result in potential indirect impact to the surface-water
resource.
76.
pumping test used by the Village's consultant, the resulting safe yield determination, potential
sites or effects not monitored, and whether the Village is understating its intended withdrawal
rate, these issues have been addressed above and extensively in Exhibit C.
77.
In response to the Dwyer Affidavit's comments questioning the numbers used for
the distance drawdown calculations, the numbers used for the distance drawdown in LBG's
report were provided in the report text and a graph in Appendix VII to the LBG report. This data
was used to calculate a transmissivity value (T) for the shallow aquifer in the report per TOGS
21
Section 13.
This T was not used in any subsequent analysis. The T used in the safe yield
analysis was calculated using the Jacob approximation (drawdown versus time) from the
pumping well during the test. The safe yield analysis in LBG's August 201 1 report was purely
theoretical. Any additional withdrawals beyond the permitted 425 gpm would require additional
testing and monitoring in accordance with NYSDEC guidelines.
78.
In addition, the withdrawal limits are not understated. The Village is permitted to
evaluation of the sustainable yield if additional wells were completed at the Mountainville Well
Field.
1,212 gpm (1.7 mgd). However, the permit issued by the NYSDEC limits the taking of Well 1 to
425 gpm. Any action to increase the taking limits for the well field will require an amendment to
the water supply permit.
79.
would diminish other municipalities' abilities to manage their own water resources, the
Mountainville Well pump test indicated it would have no effect on neighboring water supplies.
80.
years'
thoroughly took a "hard look" at all potential water supply impacts from the proposed
annexations using reasonable projections of population and water usage, and fully considered all
reasonable mitigation measures that could be implemented when future development projects are
identified for the annexation territory in order to address any identified potential impacts.
22
( A.
y-i
Notary Public
1/
MARYACURRAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
My Commission Expires March 31, 2017
23
4RSR-47-1 ?i-n?!Rn v
EXHIBIT A
Thomas P. Cusack
iBl
&
p.
Technical
Reports;
Aquifer
Protection
Programs;
Water
Conservation
Programs/Water
Audits;
EDUCATION
B. S. in Geology, 1982, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York
REGISTRATION
Certified as Professional Geologist by the American Institute of Professional Geologists
TECHNICAL SOCIETIES
Association of Ground-Water Scientists and Engineers {National Ground Water Association)
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Senior Vice
Inc.,
Shelton,
Connecticut
2006 to 2008
Vice President and Director of Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Sheiton, Connecticut
2002 to 2005:
Senior Associate with Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Trumbull, Connecticut
1995 to 2002:
Associate with Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Wilton and Trumbull, Connecticut
1994 to 1995:
Senior Project Manager at Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Fishkill, New York and
Wilton, Connecticut
1988 to 1994:
Senior Hydrogeologist at Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Fishkill, New York
1987 to 1988:
Hydrogeologist and Assistant Project Manager at Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers.
Pearl River, New York
1984 to 1985:
quality monitoring plan, well field management and well redevelopment program.
Orange County Water Authority
Lead consultant for the Orange County Water Authority (OCWA), New York (1994 to 2002).
Authored several significant studies including County-Wide Groundwater Resource Study: a
groundwater resource inventory and planning study completed for the OCWA. The study is
one of the most comprehensive county-wide groundwater planning studies in the State of
New York.
The study involved gathering existing groundwater information, an inventory of existing and
proposed groundwater supplies, estimates of present and future water demands to the year
2020 and an inventory of existing and potential groundwater contamination sites. Data from
the study has enabled local and county planners to set development guidelines to safeguard
existing groundwater supplies and protect favorable undeveloped areas for future
The study is presently being used to develop
development of groundwater supplies.
additional
groundwater
supply
sources;
county-wide
wellhead
and
aquifer
protection
programs.
Village of Chester
Conduct an assessment of two high-yield sand and gravel wells to increase the permitted
NYSDEC water taking. The weils were redeveloped prior to conducting additional pumping
A well field
tests to maximize their yield potential for the increase taking application.
management plan and long-term redevelopment program was developed for the well field.
Southeast Orange County
Represent a number of municipal entities requiring interface with developers and State
agencies; including dispute resolution of water-supply related and development issues; draft
special conditions to be included in water-taken permits (New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation).
Town of Fishkiil
Principal investigator to determine the source of elevated sodium and chloride concentrations
at the Snook Road well field. The study included the implementation of an extensive surface
and groundwater water-quality monitoring program including the installation of a monitoring
well network to determine the potential source(s) from road salt application and impacts. The
study recommended the dilution of the water supply to reduce sodium and chloride by
interconnection to the Village of Fishkill water supply. In addition, review the application of a
reverse osmosis treatment system. The study required significant interaction with Duchess
County Department of Health, New York State Department of Health, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Municipal officials and Town iegal counsel.
State. The plan is utilized to implement aquifer protection plan for the education use.
Village of Kirvas Joel. New York
Services related to the development of regional water-supply sources for the Village of Kiryas
Joel, the fast-growing municipality in the State of New York. To date, LBG has completed
extensive regional hydrogeologic studies and groundwater exploration for the additional
development of 1.4 mgd from bedrock wells and 2.1 mgd from high-yielding sand and gravel
wells. The groundwater exploration program included extensive test well drilling; pumping
test and groundwater withdrawal impact evaluations; water-quality analysis; and permitting
and regulatory approval. Ongoing well field management and redevelopment programs.
Town ofWappinger. New York
LBG conducted drilling supervision and well design for the development of four new
high-yielding sand and gravel wells. The study included an extensive pumping test program
and water-quality analysis. Based on the results from the optimumization analysis, the well
field has a maximum sustainable yield of 1,655 gpm or 2.38 mgd. Conducted studies to
determine if the wells are under the direct influence of surface water as required under the
Surface Water Treatment Rule. In addition, development and implementation of a long-term
redevelopment program.
LBG assisted in
Conducted a hydrogeologic study of existing well field to address water-quality concerns and
loss in well yields. Services included the development and execution of a well redevelopment
program and the siting and oversight of the installation of a new high-yielding sand and
grave! well.
Completed a groundwater
feasibility of community water-supply source development
of seven bedrock wells
consisting
supply
groundwater
a
developed
and
program
exploration
which were sited based on the initial hydrogeologic assessment. Completed a 72-hour
pumping test program on the wells for a combined safe yield of 430 gpm (gallons per
minute). Completed a water-quality and GWUDI (groundwater under the influence of surface
water) assessment of the wells.
Village of Wappinaers Falls, New York
Conducted a hydrogeologic study of existing well field to address water-quality concerns and
Services included the development and execution of a well
in well yields.
redevelopment program and the siting and oversight of the installation of a new high-yielding
loss
and
Recommended
Best
Management Practices which have been adopted by the respective municipal entities.
Town of North Castle Water District No. 2. North Castle New York
Completed oversight of installation and analysis of test borings in sand and gravel aquifer for
siting of replacement production well. Selected replacement well site and completed all
necessary permitting requirements with regulatory agencies prior to drilling and construction.
Prepared well specifications and bid documents. Oversight of construction of replacement
sand and gravel production well and completed a 72-hour pumping test. Filed water-supply
application permit with NYSDEC and water system design specifications with WCDOH.
Development and implementation of a long-term well redevelopment program.
Village of Harriman. New York
Project director and principal investigator for a regional hydrogeologic investigation focusing
on the potential groundwater yield from fractured rock and sand and gravel aquifers in the
franchise area of a municipality. Investigation findings ied to the development of additional
well water supplies and implementation of groundwater. Development and implementation of
a long-term well redevelopment program.
York State.
Consulting services relating to the development of a large water supply from a gneiss
bedrock aquifer. The study included a 31-day pumping test and large-scale offsite well
monitoring program to determine long-term reliable yield of the aquifer and potential impact to
Required extensive testimony in support of
domestic wells in the surrounding area.
water-supply withdrawal.
investigation findings led to the issuing of a final operating permit for a new well.
Hurlevviile. New York
Project manager and principal investigator for hydrogeologic investigation of groundwater
resources in fractured siltstone and shales, development of well supply capable of meeting
Project director and principal investigator for several residential developments. Consulting
services relating to hydrogeologic site assessments followed by drilling test wells and
production wells in fracture shale. The project involved pumping tests to determine the safe
yield of supply wells and conducting an offsite well monitoring program to determine offsite
impact as a result of pumping.
Chester. New York
Project manager and principal investigator for several small to large-scale commercial and
Hydrogeologic site assessment included the investigation of
residential developments.
fractured bedrock, and sand and gravel aquifer in the region. The projects involved use of
borehole geophysics, test drilling, production well installations and pumping test. The study
stressed long-term safe yield of well and investigation of offsite impact as a result of
pumping.
Consulting review relating to the development of large water supply from gneiss bedrock
The study included multiple well pumping, including a large-scale offsite well
aquifer.
monitoring program to determine if significant impact resulted from pumping onsite wells.
Required extensive regulatory contact and testimony in support of water-supply withdrawal.
Greenwich. Connecticut
Consulting services for a hydrogeologic analysis to determine the cause for groundwater
flooding of the basement of a public school. Design, supervision and testing of dewatering
system in glacial oufwash sediments.
Project manager and principal investigator in evaluating the sufficiency of groundwater supply
from fractured bedrock and sand and gravel aquifer for a large recreation and condominium
development. The project involved review for a major investor- owned water company. LBG
Project manager and principal investigator in the development of a small community water
water-supply withdrawal.
Town of Chester
Conducted a hydrogeologic study of multiple well fields for the Town to address water quality.
PRESENTATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers - Environmental & Water Resources Institute.
World Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2014
Flow Dimensions -Key to Understanding Fractured Rock System
New York State Conference of Mayors & Municipal Officials Public Works School
Presentation on Mechanism of Well Plugging Microbiological Factors in Well Redevelopment
Orange County Citizen Foundation. Hudson Valiev Water Works Association
Presentation of Orange County Ground-Water Resource Study (LBG, 1995)
Hudson Valley Waterworks Association, Orange County Southeastern Municipal Task
Force
Presentation on Municipal Road Salt Managements Guidelines and Recommended Best
Management Practices
EXHIBIT B
Application of
Petitioners,
DECISION, ORDER
& JUDGMENT
-against-
MM
APR 0 7 201<i
X
LEFKOWITZ, J.
ORIGINAL FILED
The following papers numbered 1 though 128 were read on the motion by petitioners,
Town of Woodbury, Village of Woodbury, and Village of Harriman (collectively, "petitioners")
for an Order pursuant to CPLR 6301 enjoining the construction of a water pipeline along Orange
County Route 44 or New York State Route 32 and the motion by respondent, Village of Kiryas
Joel ("Kiryas Joel"), for an Order pursuant to CPLR 7804(f) and CPLR 321 1(a)(1), (3), (5), (7)
dismissing the amended verified petition and complaint (the "amended petition"):
1-3
4
5-6
7-12
13
14
15
16-22
23-27
Exhibits 1-12
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Affidavit of Stephen H. Welle in Response to Motion to Dismiss Exhibits A-J
Affidavit of Michael Queenan in Response to Motion to Dismiss Exhibits A-D
Affidavit of John P. Burke in Response to Motion to DismissExhibits A-B
28-40
61
41
42-52
53-57
58-60
62-70
71
72
73
74
75
76-96
97
98-103
104
105-111
112-127
128
of a 1 3-mile water pipeline in Orange County, New York, to connect the water supply of Kiryas
Joel to the New York City Aqueduct (the "pipeline project") and the development of a well field
in the hamlet of Mountainville, in the Town of Cornwall (the "Mountainvi lie Well").
The pipeline project has been the subject of prior extensive litigation. In 2004, Kiryas
Joel declared itself the lead agency for the environmental review of the pipeline project under
article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (also known as the State Environmental Quality
Review Act ["SEQRA"]).
The size of the pipeline and location of a pumping station along the
pipeline route was part of the SEQRA review. The draft environmental impact statement
("DEIS") stated that the pipeline would be 24 inches in diameter as follows:
The proposed 24-inch pipeline diameter was chosen primarily because less
electrical energy would be required to pump 2 mgd of water through a 24-inch
In 2004, Kiryas Joel completed a final environmental impact statement ("FEIS") . The
County of Orange then commenced a special proceeding under CPLR article 78 challenging the
SEQRA review by Kiryas Joel (see Matter of County of Orange v Village ofKiryas Joel, Index
no, 7547/04, [Sup Ct, Orange County]). By decision and order dated October 20, 2005, the
Court (Rosenwasser, J.) annulled the determinations of Kiryas Joel and directed the preparation
of a supplemental environmental impact statement ("SEIS"). On appeal, the Second Department
affirmed in part and modified in part, directing Kiryas Joel to prepare an amended final
environmental impact statement ("AFEIS") rather than a SEIS (see County of Orange v Village
of Kiryas Joel 44 AD3d 765 [2d Dept 2007]). In that, decision, the Second Department stated as
follows:
Contrary to the County's contention, however, the DEIS and the FEIS were not
with the initial proposal, the lead agency has satisfied its obligations under
SEQRA (see ECL 8-0 109 [2] [d]; 6 NYCRR 61 7. 14[fj[5] ). The FEIS, in this
instance, considered three alternative pipeline routes, "no action," alternative pipe
dimensions, an alternate site for a filtration and pump station, and the potential
drilling of additional wells. The alternatives section of an FEIS need not identify
or discuss every conceivable alternative, including the particular alternatives
propounded by the County, and need not be exhaustive, particularly where the
various options lie along a continuum of possibilities (see Matter of Halperin v
City ofNew Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 777, 809 NYS2d 98). A rule of reason is
applicable to the discussion of alternatives in an FEIS (see Akj.?an v Koch, 75
NY2d at 570, 555 NYS2d 1 6, 554 NE2d 53). Where there has been such a
reasonable consideration of alternatives, the judicial inquiry is at an end (see
Matter of Town of Dryden v Tompkins County Bd. of Representatives, 78 NY2d
33 1 . 333-334, 574 NYS2d 930, 580 NE2d 402; Matter of Halperin v City ofNew
Rochelle, 24 AD3d at 777, 809 NYS2d 98)
(44 AD3d at 769).
Kiryas Joel completed the AFEIS for the pipeline project in 2009. The AFEIS stated as
follows:
Trench size, construction duration and potential adverse environmental impacts
would be the same for a 24-inch diameter pipeline as for any other size pipeline.
As noted previously, consumption of electricity would be about 10% less for the
24 inch pipeline. On the other hand, a smaller pipe would provide less capacity for
future demand. Nevertheless, due to concerns expressed by NYCDEP that the
pipe is oversized . a reduction in pipeline diameter to 18 inches would provide
sufficient capacity to meet Kiryas Joel 's objectives.
The County of Orange then commenced a second proceeding challenging the AFEIS (see
Matter of County of Orange v Village of Kiryas Joel, Index no. 85 1 3/2009 [Sup Ct, Orange
County]). In 2010, Kiryas Joel and the County of Orange settled the litigation involving the
pipeline project and the engineering design phase for the pipeline project commenced.
Thereafter. CDM Smith, the engineering consultant hired by Kiryas Joel for the pipeline
project, performed hydraulic evaluations. In May 201 1, CDM Smith issued an engineer's report.
In this report, CDM Smith concluded that an 18-inch, pipe would not permit the water withdrawn
from the New York City Aqueduct to flow by gravity for a portion of the 13-mile pipeline route,
and that therefore, a 24-inch pipe would need to be utilized. CDM Smith also determined that
constructing a pump station at the aqueduct connection location in the Town of New Windsor
was not feasible and that the pump station should be located at approximately the halfway point
between the aqueduct connection and Kiryas Joel, which would facilitate the flow of water by
gravity from the aqueduct along a portion of the route until pumping was required to lift the flow
for the remaining length of the pipeline to Kiryas Joel.
Kiryas Joel asserts that based upon this report, it determined that preparation of a SEIS
was not necessary because the DEIS for the pipeline had been prepared based on a 24-inch
pipeline design and intermediate pumping station. Kiryas Joel also concluded that, the AFEIS
had established that installation of the 24-inch pipeline would not create any additional
environmental impacts than would the 18-inch pipeline, nor would relocating the pump station
from the aqueduct connection to the Mountainville Well site create any additional environmental
impacts that had not been previously studied under the AFEIS. Consequently, a SEIS was not
prepared by Kiryas Joel.
In October 201 1 , Kiryas Joel submitted design plans and specifications for the pipeline
project, which included a 24-inch pipeline and intermediate pump station, for approval to the
New York State Department of Health ('sNYSDOH"), the New York State Department of
Department of Public Works ("OCDPW"), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers
("USAGOE"). In November 2011, Kiryas Joel submitted the plans to the New York State
Thruway Authority ("NYSTA") in connection with its application to construct the pipeline under
the New York State Thruway.
NYSDOH and OCDOH approved the pipeline design of 24-inches in diameter and the
intermediate pumping station. Each of the other agencies involved issued permits and approvals
based upon the plans which provided for a pipeline with a 24-inch diameter and an intermediate
pumping station. On February 22, 2012, CDM Smith made a presentation regarding the pipeline
project design to the Town and Village of Woodbury, which the Mayor of Harriman also
attended. Kiryas Joel contends that at this presentation, CDM Smith advised that the 24-inch
pipeline and intermediate pump station alternative had been chosen (see Stuart Affidavit in
Support of Motion to Dismiss). Petitioners do not refute this contention, but in response, submit
the affidavits of the Supervisor of the Town ofWoodbury, the Mayor of Kiryas Joel of
Woodbury and the Mayor of Kiryas Joel of Harriman in which they state that they do not recall a
discussion of the 24-inch pipeline {see Affidavits of John P. Burke, Michael Quunan and Stephen
H. Welle in Response to Motion to Dismiss).
In June 201 2, CDM Smith advised the Town of Woodbury that the design for the project
had been completed and provided the Town Woodbury with the project design drawings and
specifications. Kiryas Joel notes that the drawings and specifications referenced the 24-inch
pipeline and intermediate pump station.
water pollution prevention plan ("SWPPP") to the Town and Village of Woodbury, seeking their
review of the storm water controls to be implemented during construction. Kiryas Joel notes that
"
the S WPPP identified the 24-inch pipeline and the plan for an intermediate pump station at the
Mountainville Well site. On March 1 1 , 201.3, Kiiyas Joel attended a meeting with the Town and
Village of Woodbury. On March 19, 2013, Kiryas Joel began construction of the pipeline.
Thereafter, Kiryas Joel acquired a 1 0-acre parcel of property in the Town of Cornwall to
site the intermediate pumping station. Kiryas Joel retained Leggette, Brashears & Graham* Inc.
("LBG"), a water supply hydro geologist firm, to study whether the Mountainville Well site
could support a viable supplemental water supply well for Kiiyas Joel. LBG performed a series
of well pump tests and determined that the Mountainville Well site was a suitable location for a
well to meet Kiiyas Joel's existing and future water demands. LBG's findings and conclusions
were contained in a groundwater supply development plan prepared in connection with Kiiyas
Joel's application for the well and water supply permits to the NYSD.EC and the N YSDOH and
as part of its SEQRA review. The Mountainville Well, when completed, would be connected to
the pipeline for transmission to Kiryas Joel without construction of a separate transmission
pipeline.
Kiryas Joel asserts that following its SEQRA review of the Mountainville Well, it
concluded that the Mountainville Well would not have any significant adverse environmental
impacts ancl that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. Kiryas
Joel also determined that construction of the proposed Mountainville Weil and its connection to
the pipeline did not require a supplement to the AFEIS for the pipeline project because the
development of the Mountainville Well project did not raise any significant adverse
environmental impacts that had not previously been considered in the prior SEQRA review. On
December 4, 2012, Kiryas Joel adopted a negative declaration with respect to the proposed
Mountainville Well.
development of a well field and/or water supply in the hamlet of Mountainville, Town of
Cornwall, Orange County..." The original petition asserted two causes of action - the first
alleging that Kiryas Joel failed to take the required "hard look" at the environments impacts and
"potential interference" of the Mountainville Well project upon the Woodbury Village Trout
Brook Weil field, a well being developed to which is permitted to draw from the same aquifer
(verified petition and complaint, ffi|22-28). In their second cause of action in the original petition,
petitioners asserted that Kiryas Joel failed to take a hard look at other environmental. impacts of
the Mountainville Well, including a transfer of water from the basin for the Moodna Creek to the
Ramapo River, the loss of local resources to the communities surrounding the Woodbury and
Moodna Creeks, and the need for expanded sewage treatment at the Harriman Wastewater
Treatment Plant (verified petition and complaint ^29-35).
Thereafter, petitioners moved by order to show cause dated April 12, 2013, for a
preliminary injunction to prevent Kiryas Joel from continuing construction of the pipeline. ByDecision and Order entered on July 16, 2013, the Court (Nicolai, J.), denied petitioners'
application was based on the original petition, and that Kiryas Joel had "obtained ail local, county
and State work permits required" for the construction of the pipeline, the Court stated as
follows:
Because Petitioners' attempt to hait th[e] construction [of the pipeline], otherwise
authorized by Kiryas Joel Law and New York City Administrative Code, is not
:e<
validity of the backup Mountainvilie Well project and. not the laying of the
pipeline to the New York City Aqueduct, the injunctive relief sought on this
motion is "not related to the subject of the article 78 proceeding, and the
requirements of CPLR 6301 have not been met. In other words, even assuming
Petitioners' success in invalidating the negative declaration and halting the
Mountainvilie Well project based upon their SEQRA claims, the laying of
pipeline was not authorized by that negative declaration, and thus enjoining the
continued construction of the pipeline would not flow from such ultimate relief on
the original petition. Thus, the Court denies this application for a preliminary
injunction.
Petitioners then amended the petition to add claims challenging the construction of the
pipeline, seeking to enjoin its construction, and an order directing removal of the pipeline already
constructed. The first cause of action in the amended petition and complaint alleges that the
installation of a 24-inch pipeline rather than an 18-inch pipeline is in violation of the conditions
imposed in the March 3 1 , 2009 AFE1S. The second and third causes of action set forth in the
amended petition and complaint, were restatements of the first and second causes of action
contained in the original petition relating to the Mountainvilie Well. The' fourth cause of action in
the amended petition and complaint alleges that the construction of the Mountainvilie Pump
Station was never reviewed in the AFEIS or the Amended Findings Statement and adds to the
capacity of the pipeline in violation of SEQRA. The fifth cause of action in the amended petition
and complaint alleges that construction of the pipeline without having obtained a permit from
DEC to access water from the Mountainvilie Well or permission from DEP to connect to the
undersigned by Order dated November 27, 20 1 3 of the Administrative Judge of the Ninth
Kiryas Joel now moves to dismiss the amended verified petition and complaint on various
grounds. Kiryas Joel asserts that the proceedings are time-barred, barred by laches, that the
petitioners lack standing, the amended petition fails to state a cause of action for a permanent
As to timeliness, Kiryas Joel argues that it has been almost two years since Kiryas Joel
made a final determination to install a 24-inch pipeline with an intermediate pump station located
at the Mountainville site, and. over 1 5 months after petitioners learned that a 24-inch pipeline
would need to be used and the pumping station location moved. Kiryas Joel asserts, in the
alternative, that the limitations period began to run in October 201 1 when the finalized pipeline
design plans showing a 24-inch pipeline and relocation of the pump station to the Mountainville
Well site were submitted to NYSDOH for final approval.
In response, petitioners contend that with respect to the Mountainville Well, the time to
commence proceedings commenced on December 4, 201.2 with the issuance of the negative
declaration and that petitioners' causes of action with respect to the pipeline did not accrue until
Kiryas Joel began construction of the pipeline in March 2013. Petitioners state, in the
alternative, that in the absence of a formal determination by Kiryas Joel as to the changes to the
10
diameter of the pipeline or preparation of a supplemental EIS, the limitations period has not yet
begun.
It is clear that a CPLR Article 78 challenge against an administrative body or officer must
be commenced "within four- months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and
binding upon the petitioner" (see CPLR 2 1 7 [ I ] ) . With respect to challenges to SEQRA
determinations, the limitations period accrues when the SEQRA process concludes (see
Stop-The-Barge v Cahill, 1 NY3d 218 [2003]). The Court's inquiry therefore is to determine
when, in the 10-year process of planning the pipeline project, the SEQRA process concluded. If
petitioners' contention is correct that the limitations period has not yet accrued, it is conceivable
that the pipeline could be fully constructed with all necessary approvals and the SEQRA process
would still not have been finalized. Such a result is not supported by the case law or the statute,
and petitioners cite no authority for this contention.
It must be noted that SEQRA does not require the lead agency to hold a public hearing or
accept public comments on the decision not to prepare a supplemental EIS (see Matter of
Riverkeeper v Planning Bd. of Town ofSoutheast, 9 NY3d 219 [2007]). In Mailer of
Riverkeeper, the Court held that the lead agency did not have an obligation to notify or solicit
comments before determining that a second SEIS was not required (9 NY3d at 235). Further,
SEQRA does not require further public hearings when modifications do not have a significant
effect on the environment ( Matter ofJackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400
[1986]); see also Matter of Village of Pelham v City of Mount Vernon Indus. Dev. Agency, 302
AD2d 399 [2d Dept 2003], Iv denied 100 NY2d 505 [2003]).
Kiryas Joel relies on Stop-The-Barge v Cahill (1 NY3d 218 [2003]) for the contention
11
that the SEQRA process ended in May, 201 1 upon issuance of CDM Smith's Engineer's Report.
In Stop-The Barge , it was held that tire limitations period began to run when the agency reached
a definitive' position and DEP conducted no further SEQRA investigation. Whether Stop-The
Barge supports a finding that the SEQRA process ended in May, 201 1 when Kiiyas Joel reached
a definitive position regarding the pipe diameter and the location of the pumping station, it is
clear that the SEQRA process concluded at the latest in October, 201 1 when Kiryas Joel
submitted design plans and specifications for the pipeline project, detailing the 24-inch pipeline
and intermediate pump station, for approval to NYSDOH, NYSDEC, N YSDOT and other
agencies, and no further SEQRA investigation ensued {see Matter of Village ofPelham v City of
Mount Vernon Indus. Dev. Agency, 302 AD2d 399). Thus, the limitations period to challenge
Kiryas Joel's determination to use a 24-inch diameter pipeline had expired prior to the filing of
the original petition.
By reason of the. foregoing, the first and fourth causes of action of the amended petition
should be dismissed. Since petitioners commenced proceedings on the last day with respect to
the issuance by Kiryas Joel of the negative declaration as to the Mountainville Well, the second,
that petitioners knew or should have known of the design plans to use a 24-inch pipeline and
relocate the pump station for a considerable time period but made no effort to seek judicial
intervention until April, 201 3. Even if this Court were to find that the claims regarding the
pipeline contained in the amended petition relate back to the time of the filing of the original
petition, petitioners waited to commence proceedings until after Kiryas Joel had obtained final
12
design approval for the 24-inch pipeline from N YSDOH, and had constructed over three miles of
the pipeline, at a cost of approximately $960,000. The work has included significant work
below the Woodbury Creek and the New York State Thruway.
or failed to object to the final decision to use a 24-inch diameter pipeline rather than the 1 8-inch
pipeline and to relocate the pump station. Kiryas Joel has established it will be prejudiced by
further delay of construction of the pipeline (see Matter ofCitineighhors Coalition of Historic
Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 NY3d 727, 728-729 [2004]);
National Holding Corp. v Banks, 22 AD3d 471 [2d Dept 2005], Iv denied 6 NY3d 715 [2006]).
In Matter ofSave The Pine Bush v New York State Dept. ofEnvtl. Conservation (289
AD2d 636 [3d Dept 2001], Iv denied 97 NY2d 611 [2002]), delays in pursuing litigation,
including commencing proceeding on last day of the limitations period, warranted a finding of
laches. Similarly here. Kiryas Joel has demonstrated that petitioners' claims with respect to the
pipeline and the Mountainville Weil must fail due to their delay in commencing proceedings to
challenge the 24-inch pipeline and Mountainville Well, Therefore, the amended petition and
complaint should be dismissed.
Even assuming that petitioners' claims in the amended petition and complaint should not
be dismissed on the basis of untimeliness or laches, the first through fourth causes of action
! While an analysis of the parties' arguments with respect to petitioners' standing to bring
these proceedings is academic in light of this Court's findings with respect to timeliness and
laches, it should be noted that Kiryas Joel's argument that petitioners lack standing is without
merit. Petitioners have standing since they have a demonstrated interest in the potential
environmental impacts of the pipeline and Mountainville Well (see Town of Woodbury v County
of Orange, 1 14 AD3d 951 [2d Dept 2014]; see also. Matter of Village of Chestnut Ridge v Town
of Ramapo , 45 AD 3d 74 [2d Dept 2007], Iv dismissed 1 2 NY3d 793 [2009], 15 NY3d 817
[2010]).
13
contained in the amended petition would fail pursuant to CPLR 32 1 1 (a)(1) and 7804(f), since the
documentary evidence submitted in the record conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted
claims as a matter of law {Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88. [1994]).
It is clear that strict, not substantial, compliance with SEQRA is required {Matter of King
v Saratoga County Bd ofSupervisors, 89 NY2d 341 , 347 ( 1 996]; see also Matter of Baker
Village ofElmsford 70 AD3d 181, 1 89-1 90 [2d Dept 2009] [holding that "ITjiteral compliance
with both the letter and spirit of SEQRA ... is required "]). An action taken without strict
compliance with SEQRA must be annulled (see Mailer ofNew York City Coalition to End. Lead
Poisoning v Vallone. 100 NY2d 337, 348 [2003]; Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground v
Cortlandville , 279 AD2d 6, 12 [3d Dept 2000]).
However, the Court's function in a proceeding to review whether an agency
determination satisfies SEQRA is limited to reviewing the record to determine whether the
agency identified and took a "hard look" at relevant areas of environmental concern, and made a
"reasoned elaboration" of the basis for its determination (Matter of Eadie v Town Bd. of Town of
N. Greenbush. 7 NY3d 306, 3 1 8 (2006); Matter ofJackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.,
67 NY2d 400, 417 [1986]). As articulated by the Second Department in Matter of City of Rye v
Korff(249 AD2d 47 0 (2d Dept 1998], Iv denied 92 NY2d 808 [1998]), w[n]othing in the law
requires an agency to reach a particular result on any issue, or permits the courts to second-guess
the agency's choice, which can be annulled only if arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by
substantial evidence" (249 AD2d at 472 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, "the mere
fact thai a project has changed does not necessarily give rise to the need for the preparation of a
supplemental EIS (SEiJS)" (see Matter of CVS 12th Ave. LLC v City of New York, 32 AD3d 1, 7
14
[1st Depl 2006]). Thus, while petitioners challenge the conclusion reached by Kiryas Joel as to
the use of a 24-inch pipeline or its decision that a SEIS was unnecessary, the record reflects that
the design, as approved by NYSDOH, was based upon extensive engineering analysis, was set
forth in a reasoned elaboration of basis for the design, and as such, was not arbitrary, capricious
or unsupported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Eadie, 7 NY3d 306). Moreover, the
record demonstrates that Kiryas Joel identified and took a "hard look" at relevant areas of
environmental concern with respect to the Mountainville Well, and made a "reasoned
elaboration" of the basis for its determination (Matter ofEadie v Town Bd. of Town ofN.
Greenbush , 7 N Y3d 306, 3 1 8 (2006); Matter ofJackson v New York Stale Urban Dev. Corp. , 67
NY2d 400, 417 [1986]). Indeed, as the Appellate Division noted, the FEIS considered "an
alternate site for a filtration and pump station, and the potential drilling of additional wells" (44
AD3d at 769 [2d Dept 2007]).
It must be noted that the contentions proffered by petitioners with respect to the
Mountainville Well were not supported by competent data sufficient to refute Kiryas Joel's
submissions (see Schuman v Town of Washington, 156 AD2d 660, 662 [2d Dept 1989]; Matter of
Village of Harriman v Town Bd of Town of Monroe, 153 AD2d 633, 635 [2d Dept 1989]). The
record reflects that LBG conducted well pumping tests to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed Mountainville Well on Woodbury Creek, the primary aquifer, and the
surrounding wells in the area. Kiryas Joel demonstrated that LBG was aware of the undeveloped
Trout Brook well and the Town of Woodbury's 2006 well permit when it concluded that the
Mountainville Well was self-sustaining and there would be no impact on wells in the area (see
Cusack Affid.. ffij 37-39). In response, petitioners did not submit data or studies sufficient to
15
demonstrate that the Town of Woodbury's planned Trout Brook well would be adversely
effected (see Schuman , 1 56 AD2d 66.0). The bare assertions by the Town of Woodbury's
engineer, Dennis Lindsay, that Kiryas Joel "did not identify nor consider potential impacts to the
Trout Brook well field, or consider the joint impact of both municipal wells operating
simultaneously" or the opinion'of petitioners' expert, William Canavan, that Kiryas Joel's
withdrawal from the Mountainville Well "could reduce the recharge available" for the Trout
Brook well are insufficient to annul the determination by Kiryas Joel and the negative
declaration. Indeed, the fact that the parties' experts may disagree is not dispositive (see
Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible South town Dev. v Roosevelt Is. Operating Corp., 291 AD2d
40, 55 [1st Dept 2001 ], Iv denied 97 NY2d 613 [2002], Iv denied 98 NY2d 608 [2002]; Matter of
Sciatic Concerned Citizens v Town Bd. of Town ofSciatic, 148 AD2d 130, 134 [3d Dept 1989],
Iv denied 15 NY2d 701 [1989]).
Additionally, insofar as the AFEIS for the -pipeline-project contained an analysis of the
wastewater impacts that would result due to water withdrawal from the wells, petitioners'
argument that Kiryas Joel did not take the required "hard look" at the Mountainville Well is
without merit. While petitioners may dispute Kiryas Joel's determination of nonsignificance, the
decision not to require a supplemental EIS must be upheld since it was not arbitrary or capricious
(see Matter ofEadie v Town Bd. of Town ofN. Greenbush, 1 NY3d 306, 318 [2006]); see also
Matter ofMolly, Inc. v County of Onondaga, 2 AD3d 1418, 1418 [4th Dept 2003], appeal
withdrawn, 2 NY3d 760 [2004]). Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the first through fourth
16
the pipeline on. the ground that Kiryas Joe! has not secured a water supply permit from NYSDEC
for the Mountainville Well or a connection to the New York City Aqueduct from NYCDEP must
also be dismissed based upon documentary evidence. On January 23, 2013, NYSDEC issued a
draft water supply permit. Further, Kiryas Joel has established that no permit from NYCDEP is
required. By letter dated November 13, 2009, the NYCDEP advised Kiryas Joel in part as
follows:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our mutual understanding that,
subject to satisfaction of the terms and conditions described below, the
Village of Kiryas Joel ("Kiryas Joel") has the legal right, pursuant to
Section 24-360 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York
("Code") to make a new connection to the New York City Water Supply
appurtenances for the use of said water, including its purification, without the consent of any
17
board, officer, bureau, or department of the state, or any subdivision thereof." These sections of
Kiryas Joel Law govern Kiryas Joel's authority to lay the pipeline to connect to the New York
City Aqueduct, under any public highway within Orange County, or any adjoining county (see
Village of Webster v Town of Webster, 270 AD2d 910, 91 1 [4th Dept 2000]).
In addition, the
City of New York is statutorily required to furnish quantities of water to. various municipalities
north of New York City {see Matter of Village ofScarsdak vJorling, 91 NY2d 507 [1998];
United Water New Rochelle v City of New York, 1 80 Misc 2d 241 [Sup Ct, Westchester County
1999], ajfd as mod. 275 AD2d 464 [2d Dept 2000]). The Administrative Code of the City of
New York, governs access to New York City's aqueduct and provides, in part as follows:
It shall be lawful for any of the municipal corporations or water districts in the
counties of Ulster, Greene, Delaware, Schoharie, Sullivan, Orange, Westchester
and Putnam, ... to take and receive from any of the reservoirs, aqueducts,
conduits, streams or pipes of the city a supply of water for the uses and purposes
of such municipal corporations or water districts or village and to that end such
municipal corporations or water districts are, and each of them is, and such village
also is, authorized and empowered to lay the necessary mains, pipes, valves,
hydrants, supply pipes and other necessary appurtenances for the use of such
water, without the consent of any board, officer, bureau, or department of the state
or any subdivision thereof'
(New York Cilv Administrative Code 24-360).
Indeed, the statutory language mandates that approval be given to Kiryas Joel to tap into
New York City's water supply (see e.g. Incorporated Vil. ofCornwall v Environmental
Protection Admin, of City ofN. Y. , 45 AD2d 297 [2d Dept 1974]; Matter of Village ofScarsdale v
Jorling, 229 AD2d. 101, 103 [2d Dept 1997]; United Water New Rochelle , 180 Misc 2d at 243).
Finally, petitioners' argument advanced in the fifth cause of action in the amended
petition that construction of the pipeline is in contravention of Orange County Legislative
18
Resolution 96 of 2013 is similarly without merit. Such resolution is the subject of yet another
action pending in Supreme Court. Orange County, Village of Kiryas Joel v Donnery, Index no.
3101/2013., in which Kiryas Joel seeks damages related to the passage of such resolution.
In the Decision and Order of the Court (Nicolai, J.) in the Donnery matter entered on
January 6, 2014, the Court noted that the County of Orange has conceded that it cannot impose
conditions on the pipeline by enacting the Resolution. The January 6, 2014 Decision and Order
reads in pertinent part as follows:
Plaintiff contends that the Resolution purports to condition all permission for
Kiryas Joel to excavate certain rights of way to construct its pipeline on the
Village's obtaining of permits from other governmental entities, including the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York City
Departmental Protection, which are not required for the subject construction.
According to the Village, Kiryas Joel has a statutory entitlement to construct the
pipeline in the County right of way under Village Law Article 1 1 and under the
existing and validly issued County DPW work permit... Defendant Legislature
concedes that it cannot, impose any conditions on Kiryas Joel 's valid County
DPW highway permit. It claims instead that the Resolution simply contained an
expression of Us will and thus is not actionable. ..The Legislature 's concession
Therefore, the fifth cause of action cannot be maintained and should be dismissed. 2
In light of this Court's findings that the amended petition and complaint should be
dismissed as set forth herein, petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot.
-In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address that branch of the motion to dismiss
which alleges that petitioners' claims should be dismissed for failure to state acause of action.
19
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion by respondent to dismiss the amended
verified petition and complaint is granted, and the amended verified petition and complaint is
The foregoing constitutes the Decision, Order and Judgment of this Court.
Dated: White Plains. New York
April 7,2014
3
To:
James Bacon, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioners
P.O. Box 575
New Paltz, New York 12561
Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP
Attorneys for Respondent
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, New York 12260
20
EXHIBIT C
Project Location:
Applicant:
Consultants:
Shelton, CT 06484
CDM Smith
1 1 British American Blvd., Suite 200
Latham, NY 12110
Legal Counsel:
Project contacts:
Village Clerk
Monroe, NY 10950
Shelton, CT 06484
(845) 783-8300
(203) 944-5000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introductory Memorandum
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Commenter List
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
(518)487-7600
Fax (518)487-7777
WOH.COM
I.
Introduction
On November 17, 2011, the Village of Kiryas Joel ("Village" or "Kiryas Joel") filed an
application with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC")
seeking a new water supply permit for the construction of a groundwater well supply on property
owned by the Village in the Town of Cornwall ("Mountainville Well Field"). NYSDEC issued a
draft permit on January 23, 2013.
support the Village's water supply permit application and respond to the public comments
received at the hearing and otherwise provided to the NYSDEC in writing. Appendix A contains
a table charting all comments received, the issues raised therein, and a reference to the response
for the specific issue. Each issue has been summarized and coded with a unique identifier. For
example, issues related to aquifer impacts have been coded as A.l.a.
Applicant's response to
each coded issue is contained in Appendix B. Thus, a response to aquifer impacts (coded A.l .a)
is discussed in Section A, subsection l.a (A.l.a) of Appendix B.
Appendix C contains all written comments submitted during the public hearing in April
2014.
Appendix E
Written and oral comments were received on various elements of the water supply
permit. Three lists of commenters with assigned identification numbers is provided in Appendix
F. The comments in List A (A-xx) are written comments submitted during the April 29, 2014
legislative hearing. The comments in List B (B-xx) are written comments submitted in March
2013, in response to the submission of the application. The comments in List C (C-xx) are oral
comments made during the April 29, 2014 legislative hearing in the order presented. Each
specific comment is identified by a two-part number (example: A-5). The letter refers to
when/where the comment was made. The number refers to the person making the comment.
Mountainville Well Field, Well No.l, authorizing a total taking of 612,000 gallons per day
("gpd") or 425 gallons per minute ("gpm") (Appendix H).
NYSDEC's Part 601 regulations guide issuance of water supply permits. As stated in 6
NYCRR 601.1: "The purpose of this Part is to regulate the use of the water resources of the
state pursuant to article 1 5 title 1 5 of the Environmental Conservation Law by implementing a
water withdrawal permitting, registration and reporting program for water withdrawals equaling
or exceeding a threshold volume." The Department considers the factors enumerated in Part
601.1 1 in its decision on all permits. Please see Section II, below, for detailed application of
these factors to the Village's water supply permit application.
NYSDEC's control over water supply permits reflects the statewide nature of the water
resource. As the Appellate Division, Second Department recently held, "provisions of the
Transportation Corporations Law and the Environmental Conservation Law . . . taken together,
clearly establish that the State Legislature intended to preempt local governments in regulating
both the withdrawal and transfer of water resources." (Woodbury Heights Estates Water Co. v.
Vill. of Woodbury. 1 1 1 A.D.3d 699, 701 [2d Dept 2013]). Accordingly, the issuance of water
supply permits rests exclusively within NYSDEC's authority, and should be issued where the
Part 601 factors are met.
The Village's present water supply is comprised of a series of groundwater wells located
within and outside of the Village boundary. Currently, the Village operates and maintains 14
production wells, all permitted by NYSDEC (Wells 1, 5, 6, 8A, 9B, 13 A, 13B, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26,
27 and 28). Nine of these wells are located within the Village and five are located on Villageowned property outside of the Village. The total present combined yield capacity of these wells
is approximately 2.28 million gallons per day ("mgd"). The current total permitted water taking
limit under existing NYSDEC water supply permits is a combined 1 .93 mgd. The reason for the
difference in these figures accounts for higher yielding wells within the Village (present yield
capacity = 1 .389 mgd) for which NYSDEC has imposed a 1 mgd cap on the volume that can be
regularly used, but which higher amounts above the NYSDEC permitted taking are available for
use on those limited occasions when necessary to meet the Village's maximum peak water
demand. In all of 2014, the Village's maximum daily demand exceeded 2 mgd on only five
occasions.
The Village currently has an average daily demand for water of 1.61 mgd, which it is
easily capable of accommodating.
Amended Final Environmental Impact Statement ("AFEIS") for the Village's Aqueduct
connection project and the anticipated connection to the Aqueduct in 2017, the Village's average
daily demand will be approximately 1.7 mgd, also within the capability of the Village's existing
total well yield capacity and permit limits.
storage tanks with a total capacity of 3.72 million gallons, which support the Village's ability to
meet maximum daily demands.
The yield capacity from the test production well (Well 1) located on the Mountainville
parcel is 612,000 gpd. This figure is identified on the draft permit now being considered. Under
the draft permit (WSA No. 1 1,609), the total average water taking permitted by the NYSDEC for
the Village would be limited to 1.93 mgd (1,928,800 gpd). The draft permit excludes the
Mountainville Well 1 in the total permitted yield capacity of the Village based on the redundancy
requirement (best well out of service) of the regulatory agencies. With the Mountainville Well 1
volumes removed from the Village inventory, the Village is unable to demonstrate adequate
capacity to meet its maximum peak daily demand
Village to connect to the NYC Aqueduct to accommodate this peak demand and future demands
of the Village, NYSDEC has provided a condition in the draft permit that would allow the
Village to temporarily take up to 2.54 mgd utilizing the Mountainville Well 1, provided the
Village can establish another redundant well at Mountainville or elsewhere within a reasonable
time period. This can be accomplished at the Mountainville site; however, it must be noted that
doing so will not increase the net taking permitted from this well field.
As part of the Village's pending water supply agreement with the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection ("NYCDEP") for the Village's Aqueduct connection,
the Village must certify that the Village's water supply will be able to sustain a shutdown of the
Aqueduct for extended periods of time. Based on the Village's current approved well inventory
and storage capabilities, the Village would currently be able to sustain a shutdown of the
Aqueduct.
In the future, however, it is likely that the Village will be required to implement
measures such as increased takings from existing wells; development of additional wells on
existing well fields; additional groundwater and surface water sources; additional storage
capabilities; demand side controls; and conservation measures.
different than for any other municipality with a connection to the Aqueduct.
The Mountainville Well Field is intended to provide additional support for the Village's
water demands now and in the future. In the intervening time before the Aqueduct connection is
completed, Well No. 1 will support the Village's existing well network, especially at times of
maximum daily demand, which as noted occur only on a limited number of days per year. Once
the Village connects to the Aqueduct, this well will support the Village's demand at times of
future Aqueduct shutdowns. In order to meet NYSDOH requirements (Ten State Standards) that
a municipal water system demonstrate an ability to meet maximum daily demand with its
greatest producing well out of service, a redundant well (at or above the capacity of Well No. 1)
will be required whether at the Mountainville Well Field or elsewhere.
discussed with NYSDEC and acknowledged in the draft permit in condition 1 .B. The redundant
well will not increase the overall withdrawal from the well field or the taking amount permitted
by the water supply permit.
In the absence of the Mountainville Well Field, the Village may be compelled to
implement additional measures to accommodate this maximum day demand and redundancy
requirement.
This could be done by any number of means, including through use and
management of the Village's existing wells and storage facilities. In the past, the Village has
even relied on the use of trucked in water on limited occasions to support its maximum demand,
which is an acceptable, albeit costly practice.
The Village has other viable alternatives to the Mountainville Well Field to meet the
Village's needs in the future, including the maximum daily demand and redundancy requirement.
For example, the Village owns additional wells on Taylor Road in the Village of Cornwall-onHudson (the "Star Mountain Well Field").
existing high-yielding sand and gravel wells with a reported yield of 1 .54 mgd. These wells had
previously been approved by NYSDEC and utilized to supply water to the former Star Mountain
facility and adjacent homes but were deactivated when the former owner ceased operations on
the property.
It was
while this permit application was pending with NYSDEC that the Mountainville Well Field
property was identified as a potential source of additional water (April 2011). Based on the
viability of the Mountainville Well Field and after discussions with NYSDEC, the Star Mountain
Well Field application was subsequently withdrawn by the Village while reserving the right to
resubmit it in the future if necessary.
The Mountainville Well Field property was acquired by the Village in November 2010 to
construct a pump station for the Aqueduct pipeline. At the time of its acquisition, there was no
exploration program began in April 201 1 and was completed in July 201 1. The completed water
taking permit for the Mountainville Well Field was submitted to NYSDEC in November 2011,
while the Star Mountain application was pending.
NYSDEC suggested that, with the combination of the Mountainville and Star Mountain well
fields, the Village's water supply would exceed its projected need.
and discussion with NYSDEC, the Village withdrew its Star Mountain Well Field application,
reserving the right to re-apply should the need be presented in the future.
The decision to
prioritize the Mountainville Well Field over the Star Mountain Well Field was made, in part, on
the closer proximity of the Mountainville site to the Aqueduct pipeline and the fact that the
anticipated production of this well would likely serve the Village's needs into the future once the
Aqueduct connection was completed.
The site of the Mountainville Well Field was originally identified by the Village's
engineering consultant, CDM Smith, as part of its engineering design of the pipeline for the
Village's Aqueduct connection. As part of that design, CDM Smith identified a need to locate a
pump station near the mid-point of the pipeline route in order to facilitate transmission of water
from the New York City Aqueduct connection in the Town of New Windsor along the 13-mile
pipeline to Kiryas Joel. This property is located approximately halfway between the Aqueduct
connection in New Windsor and the Village.
As the Village often does with properties in which it acquires an interest, Kiryas Joel
tasked Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., ("LBG"), to perform hydrogeological tests at the
pump station property to investigate the viability of developing a groundwater source for the
Village. LBG has proven credentials with NYSDEC on water supply projects, and has been the
7
responsible for identifying and developing new water sources for the Village as well as
managing and maintaining existing sources.
Given the site's proximity to a known "principal" aquifer, LBG initiated a groundwater
exploration program in April 2011 to determine the extent and potential yield of the stratified-
drift sand and gravel aquifer deposits which are mapped as underlying the Mountainville Well
Field site.
highly productive or whose geology suggests abundant potential water supply, but which are not
intensively used as sources of water supply by major municipal systems at the present time."
A 72-hour pumping test on the proposed well was completed in June 201 1 in accordance
with NYSDEC standard pumping test guidelines ("Recommended Pump Test Procedures for
Water Supply Application" NYSDEC TOGS 3.2.1).
guidelines is required by NYSDEC and New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH")
and is also typically used when conducting pumping tests that are designed and executed to meet
SEQRA requirements. To approve any such application, NYSDEC must determine that the
proposed well or wells will adequately meet the needs of the applicant without adversely
affecting others who may rely on the same aquifer. The requirements of these procedures have
been designed to produce the accurate and complete information that is vital to these
determinations. The pumping test is designed to not only determine the viability and production
value of a proposed well site, but also to determine whether the well could be developed without
any undue impacts on the aquifer, other existing wells, surface waters or wetland features in the
area. This is the standard test utilized for all NYSDEC water supply permits.
The 72-hour pumping test for the Mountainville Well Field included the demonstration of
stabilized yield and water-level drawdown in the test well (Well 1) for a minimum of six hours at
the end of the test period.
from two additional on-site monitoring wells completed in the stratified-drift aquifer (MW-1 and
MW-2) that were drilled near Well 1.
allows for the calculation of aquifer parameters and the assessment of potential regional waterlevel impact from pumping of the test well.
constructed 51 feet and 94 feet, respectively, from Well 1. A site plan depicting the location of
the monitoring wells is included in the application.
pumping test, the drawdown in MW-1 and MW 2 at the end of the test was 9.26 feet and 0.42
feet, respectively. As expected, the drawdown data showed that pumping-related impact to the
shallow portion of the aquifer decreased with distance.
A 180-day water level drawdown projection was completed for Well 1 using the water
level data collected during the pumping test and aquifer parameters were calculated.
The 72-
hour pumping test on Well 1 demonstrated stabilized yield and water-level drawdown at a
pumping rate of 425 gallons per minute ("gpm"). Water-level recovery in the well was rapid and
90% recovery was achieved within one hour of shut down of the well. The 180-day water level
drawdown projection showed the water level in the well was above the pump intake setting as
well as above the top of screen in the well. This projection demonstrates that the well can sustain
a rate of 425 gpm, with available water above the pump intake after a period of 180-days of
continuous pumping with no recharge.
Water level measurements were also collected from three piezometer locations.
location of the piezometers is also shown on the application site plan.
9
The
NYSDEC guidance, piezometers are routinely used during such tests to measure surface water
levels and were installed near Well 1 for the pumping test to assess potential surface water
interconnection with the test well under pumping conditions. Piezometers were installed in an
on-site intermittent stream, in an on-site wetland, and in and below Woodbury Creek to the
northwest of the parcel.
piezometers monitored during the test period as a result of the pumping of Well 1. This indicates
that there was no direct hydrologic connection with nearby surface water features during the
testing, including no impact on water levels in and below Woodbury Creek. In addition, shallow
groundwater was present in the on-site wetlands (PZ-2) and showed no impact from pumping, so
there would be no impact to the corresponding surface water for this feature.
Finally, the
microscopic particulate analysis (MPA) sample collected from Well 1 reported a low risk
potential for groundwater under the influence of surface water (GWUDI) for the well.
This
Water level measurements were also collected from off-site neighboring wells located
within 1,500 feet of the test well. The location of the off-site monitoring wells is also shown on
the application site plan.
located at 230 Old Route 32 and 1470 Old Route 32 at approximately 1,150 feet and 870 feet,
respectively, away from Well 1.
impact attributed to the pumping of Well 1 on the Mountainville parcel. Moreover, based on the
hydrogeological setting and the results from the aquifer testing program at the Mountainville site,
LBG determined that the proposed Mountainville Well Field would not adversely affect the yield
of the Village of Woodbury's well fields. The Trout Brook well is located over a mile from the
10
Mountainville site. It is also located upgradient, which means that the Mountainville Well would
not affect the recharge potential of the Village of Woodbury's well fields.
Water quality samples for purposes of NYSDOH review were also collected from the
pumping test well near the end of the 72-hour test period. The water quality sampling results
demonstrated that the water meets all NYSDOH drinking water standards with the exception of
the presence of total coliform. The well will need to be disinfected and resampled prior to being
placed in service for potable use. In sum, the results from the 72-hour pumping test showed no
outstanding issues of concern related to safe yield of the well, water quality, surface-water
impact or drawdown in off-site neighboring wells.
A detailed report of well pump testing methodologies, data, analysis, and conclusions
was prepared in connection with the pumping test ("Groundwater Supply Development Plan").
This report was prepared by LBG and provided to the Village to assist its SEQRA determination,
and was submitted to NYSDEC and NYSDOH in support of the Mountainville Well permit
application.
Based on the application materials submitted, responses to agency comments and after
numerous discussions and meetings with NYSDEC water supply program staff from the
Department's Albany headquarters and Region 3, NYSDEC issued a Draft Permit (3-334000284/00001 ; WSA No. 1 1,609) on January 23, 2013. The NYSDEC Draft Permit is attached in
Appendix H.
11
The residents of the Village currently depend on groundwater wells for their entire supply
of potable water.
resources in the Town of Monroe watershed in the early 2000s, NYSDEC (Michael Merriman
and Caesar Manfredi) and the Village reached consensus that future water supply development
would be conducted outside of the watershed. Consistent with that understanding, the Village
began planning for a connection to the New York City Aqueduct to provide a more safe and
reliable water supply to its residents. Pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code (the
"Code"), as a municipality in Orange County, the Village is entitled to take a water supply from
the City's Aqueduct in an amount described in the statute. Contrary to comments received, the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection ("NYCDEP") has only nondiscretionary authority to approve the engineering plans for the actual connection and placement
of equipment on City land, but has no authority to deny the connection to the Aqueduct. The
Village has been working cooperatively with NYCDEP on this project for over a decade.
NYCDEP has repeatedly acknowledged the Village's entitlement to take water from the
Aqueduct and to construct the necessary appurtenant facilities to accomplish this.
Section 24-360(a) of the Code provides that "[i]t shall be lawful for any of the municipal
corporations or water districts in the counties of Ulster, Greene, Delaware, Schoharie, Sullivan,
Orange, Westchester and Putnam, and for the village of Deposit in the counties of Delaware and
Broome, to take and receive from any of the reservoirs, aqueducts, conduits, streams or pipes of
the city a supply of water for the uses and purposes of such municipal corporations or water
districts or village and to that end such municipal corporations or water districts are, and
each of them is, and such village also is, authorized and empowered to lay the necessary mains,
12
pipes, valves, hydrants, supply pipes and other necessary appurtenances for the use of such
water, without the consent of any board, officer, bureau, or
subdivision thereof."
The Code further provides that "[t]he daily quantity of water which may
be taken and received by any municipal corporation or water district under the provisions of
this section shall not exceed the
quantity
calculated
by
multiplying
the number
of its
inhabitants as shown by the last preceding census of the United States or the last state or official
municipal census by the daily per capita consumption in the city of New York." NYCAC 24360(e).
The Village will connect to the Catskill Aqueduct near Riley Road in the Vails Gate
section of the Town of New Windsor. The Village intends to share an existing Aqueduct tap with
the Town of New Windsor pursuant to an inter-municipal agreement executed in January 2011.
Final adjustments to the engineering plans for the shared connection are currently being
reviewed by NYCDEP and the water supply agreement with the City likely will be executed later
in 2015.
Water from the Aqueduct will be transported via a 13-mile, 24-inch pipeline that will
follow State and County highway rights-of-way. The 24-inch pipeline was fully assessed during
the Village's SEQRA review of the pipeline project and was part of all plans reviewed and
approved by all of the regulatory agencies. A pump station will be located at the halfway point
in the route at the Mountainville Well Field property. Construction on phase I of the pipeline, an
1 The New York City Administrative Code was originally passed by the State Legislature, and the provisions related
to water supply, including Administrative Code 24-360, may not be altered except by the State Legislature. See
NYC Admin Code 1-111 ("All rights and powers to amend, modify, extend or supersede any provision or
provisions of sections . . . 24-354 through 24-365 of this code and any other provision or provisions of this code
relating to any lands now or hereafter acquired outside the corporate limits of the city for water supply purposes,
including highways, bridges and sewers, are hereby reserved to the legislature of the state of New York."). This
limitation demonstrates that the Legislature intended to protect the Village's unequivocal right to access the
Aqueduct that was afforded under the Water Supply Act of 1905 (L 1905, ch 724).
13
approximately 6.5 mile stretch between the Village and the Mountainville property, commenced
in March 2013 and is nearly complete. To date, the Village has installed over 25,000 linear feet
of pipeline and has expended over $13 million. Engineering plans for phase II, the remainder of
the line from Mountainville to New Windsor, have been completed and work permits are
pending with the relevant regulatory agencies.
As noted above, the Mountainville Well Field will be constructed on the same property
where the midway pump station for the pipeline will be located.
location will enable the Village to provide an interim supply of water without the need for an
water will serve the Village's potable water supply needs during times of Aqueduct shutdown
and will also provide an interim source while construction of the remainder of the pipeline is
completed. This portion of the Aqueduct Connection Project is called Phase IA and will include,
together with the Mountainville Well Field, an additional pump station, and water treatment
equipment. The Mountainville Well Field will enable the Village to meet its maximum daily
demand until the connection to the Aqueduct is completed.
pipeline will be available to transport water from the Mountainville Well No. 1 to the Village
shortly after these permit proceedings are completed.
behind schedule due in part to unexpected technical difficulties encountered during the
construction and also in part to relentless opposition by those who would prohibit the residents of
Kiryas Joel from obtaining a safe and reliable water supply, a fundamental right shared with
every other community in New York State. This delay has raised the importance of the interim
use of the Mountainville Well Field while the remainder of the pipeline is completed.
connection to the Aqueduct is now anticipated for 201 7.
14
The
E. SEORA Review
In 2004, the Village commenced the SEQRA review for the Aqueduct Connection
Project, including a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"), Final EIS and Findings
Statement.
Village completed an Amended Final EIS in 2009. The Village resolved all remaining litigation
involving the SEQRA review for the Aqueduct Connection Project in 2010.
To support its applications to NYSDOH and NYSDEC for well and water supply permits,
respectively, for the Mountainville Well Field, the Village commenced another coordinated
SEQRA review for the proposed well field on or about November 8, 2012 with the preparation
consented to the Village serving as the SEQRA lead agency for this review.
In support of the expanded EAF and permit applications, the Village's consultants
completed the following studies: a 72-hour pumping test for the Mountainville Well Field; a
The Village's
review also considered the 2009 Amended Final EIS for the construction of the Aqueduct
Connection Project; the 2010 Orange County Amended Final EIS for Harriman Waste Water
Treatment Plant ("WWTP"); Orange County Department of Public Works quarterly flow reports
for the Harriman WWTP; and Village of Kiryas Joel WWTP monthly flow reports.
15
The Village and its consultants had several discussions and meetings with NYSDEC and
Following a
thorough environmental review of the development of the proposed Mountainville Well Field,
which included consideration of potential impacts on surrounding wells, archeology, wildlife,
wetlands, surface waters, wastewater, temporary construction impacts and other issues, the
Village concluded that the action would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts
and that the preparation of an EIS was not required. The Village adopted a negative declaration
on December 4, 2012. The Village distributed the negative declaration to each of the involved
agencies. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation issued an
opinion on December 5, 20 11 that the Mountainville Well Site and Pump Station would have No
Impact upon cultural resources. NYSDOH issued its Endorsement of the Village's October 2012
Supplement to Engineer's Report on December 13, 2012.
The Village also determined that construction of the proposed Mountainville Well Field
and its connection to the Aqueduct pipeline, in lieu of construction of a redundant transmission
pipeline, did not require a supplement to the Village's Amended Final EIS for the Aqueduct
Connection project because the development of the Mountainville Well Field did not raise any
significant adverse environmental impacts that had not previously been considered in that prior
SEQRA review.
Based on its review of the Village's application materials, including the SEQRA negative
declaration, and the several discussions and meetings noted above, NYSDEC issued the Notice
of Complete Application and Draft Water Supply Permit to the Village on January 23, 2013.
16
F.
Legal Challenge
On April 4, 2013, the Town and Village of Woodbury and the Village of Harriman
commenced a legal challenge to the Village's SEQRA review of the Mountainville Well Field
project. The suit initially asserted two causes of action, each alleging that the Village failed to
take a "hard look" at certain issues during its review. First, the suit alleged that the Village did
not take a hard look at the project's purported impact on the Town's Trout Brook well field.
Second, the suit alleged that the Village did not take a hard look at other unspecified
environmental impacts.
Specifically, the suit sought a judgment vacating and annulling the negative declaration
with respect to the Mountainville Well Field, and restraining the Village from undertaking any
activity that was authorized by the negative declaration. As originally filed, the litigation did not
allege any claims against the pipeline or seek any relief against its construction.
On April 12, 2013, the municipal petitioners filed a motion under cover of this litigation
seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Kiryas Joel from constructing the water supply pipeline
to connect to the New York City Aqueduct, pending resolution of the underlying and unrelated
CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Mountainville Well Field negative declaration. On
July 16, 2013, Supreme Court, Environmental Claims Part denied the motion for preliminary
injunction , ruling that the attempt to halt construction of the pipeline construction, "which was
otherwise authorized by Village Law and the NYC Administrative Code," was not related to the
These same municipal petitioners thereafter filed an Amended Verified Petition and
Complaint (the "Amended Petition"), this time including a collateral attack on the Village's
17
construction of the pipeline. The municipal petitioners raised many of the same issues that have
again arisen in these comments: alleging impacts to the Village of Woodbury's Trout Brook well
field, Woodbury Creek, and other off-site wells; challenging the adequacy of the 72-hour
pumping test; challenging the 24-inch diameter pipe; and asserting impacts to wastewater
treatment capacity, among others. On April 7, 2014, Supreme Court, Environmental Claims Part
granted Kiryas Joel's motion to dismiss the Amended Petition, dismissing all of the claims
against the pipeline and Mountainville Well Field.
Joel fully complied with SEQRA, finding that the record demonstrates that the Village identified
and took a "hard look" at relevant areas of environmental concern with respect to the
Mountainville Well and made a "reasoned elaboration" of the basis for its negative declaration.
In reaching this decision, the Court found that the municipal challengers failed to refute the
Village's well pumping tests and the conclusions supported thereby that there would be no
adverse environmental impacts from the Mountainville Well on Woodbury Creek, the principal
aquifer and the surrounding wells in the area (including Woodbury's Trout Brook well field).
The Court also noted that the Amended Final EIS for the Aqueduct Connection Project contained
an adequate analysis of the potential wastewater impacts from the Village's water supply to
sustain the negative declaration for the Mountainville Well.
decision which is now final and binding. Accordingly, comments during the legislative hearing
directed at SEQRA issues have already been considered, litigated and upheld in State court, and
thus require no further re-consideration in this permit proceeding.
G. Draft Permit
The Village applied to NYSDEC for an ECL Article 1 5 water supply permit in November
201 1.
the Village, its consultants, NYSDEC, and NYSDOH. These discussions addressed the need for
and adequacy of the supply, impacts on state historic and archeological resources, impacts to
wetlands, assessment of endangered species, design of the pumping test, assessment of impacts
to Woodbury Creek and the Ramapo River, and preparation of a SWPPP that was submitted and
revised in response to Division of Water and Village of Woodbury comments.
As discussed
above, the Village completed a coordinated SEQRA review with NYSDEC and NYSDOH, and
the Village Board adopted a resolution in December 2012 issuing a negative declaration.
On
Pursuant to ECL 15-1503, NYSDEC must consider eight factors in making its decision
to grant a permit or to grant a permit with conditions:
a.
b.
c.
The project is just and equitable to all affected municipalities and their inhabitants
with regard to their present and future needs for sources of potable water supply;
d.
The needs for all or part of the proposed water withdrawal cannot be reasonably
avoided through the efficient use and conservation of existing water supplies;
e.
reasonable for the purposes for which the water use is proposed;
f.
g-
will
be
implemented
in
a manner that
h.
ECL 1 5-1 503(4) also provides that NYSDEC shall make a reasonable effort to meet the
needs of the applicant. NYSDEC regulations in 6 NYCRR 601 provide further clarification of
the ECL factors. The Village's discussion of its compliance with the 601 factors is discussed in
Section
II below.
provisions, the draft permit included numerous conditions and special conditions applicable to
the Mountainville Well Field. The draft permit limits the pumping rate to the levels approved.
The special conditions prohibit the Village from developing or increasing pumping rates for
existing sources above permitted levels without another permit from NYSDEC. The draft permit
requires conservation measures including metering, periodic calibration of small service
connection meters, recordkeeping and audit requirements, and a leak detection and repair
program. To address any potential concerns with impacts to off-site wells, the permit requires
that the Village make provisions to supply water to any residents whose private well-water
systems are diminished or rendered non-productive by the Village's use of the Mountainville
Well Field.
The draft permit also requires a redundancy plan to address the Village's peak daily
demand with the Mountainville Well 1 out of service.
20
redundant well at the Mountainville site to satisfy this condition. This redundant well will not
increase the total volume of taking beyond the level permitted for the site.
developed during SEQRA review, the lengthy back-forth-discussions with the applicant over the
draft permit, and results of the NYSDEC standard 72-hour pumping test that showed no adverse
effects on surrounding wells or surface waters.
convened a legislative hearing on the permit application, at which it received written and oral
comments and additional submissions from municipalities and concerned citizens.
II.
1) Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated alternatives.
The proposed project includes the consolidation of the Village of Kiryas Joel's existing
water supply permits and the permitting of the new water-supply well, Well 1, on the
Mountainville Pump Station parcel. Two feasible alternative sources evaluated during the time
21
groundwater sources within the Village of Kiryas Joel and reactivation of the existing Star
Mountain Wells 3 and 4 which are located on Taylor Road in Cornwall.
considered the "no-action" alternative, but rejected this alternative because the Village currently
needs the Mountainville Well Field to meet its maximum peak daily demand.
The proposed Mountainville Well Field was pursued over the other alternatives
considered because of the drawbacks associated with the other two alternatives.
In regard to
developing an additional groundwater source in the Village, the existing NYSDEC water taking
permits impose a daily limit on the combined withdrawal from production wells sited within the
subject to this combined withdrawal limit and therefore not a viable alternative to increase the
water taking to meet the peak and future water demands of the Village. The Brenner Well Field
likewise has been developed to its maximum water supply potential, subsequently there is no
potential to develop surplus water from this well field.
limits on the Village wells, at the urging of NYSDEC, consensus was reached between the
Village and NYSDEC staff members Michael Merriman and Caesar Manfredi that future
groundwater exploration and water-supply development would be conducted outside of the
Village's and Town of Monroe's watersheds due to municipal competition for the limited
groundwater resources in these areas. Accordingly, the Village investigated locations outside of
the region including Star Mountain and Mountainville. The Village also drilled a well at the New
Windsor pump station location which did not prove feasible.
The second alternative, connection to the Star Mountain Wells 3 and 4, was rejected due
to
from
and
the
corresponding
increased
construction needed for the additional transmission pipeline. These factors would also increase
22
the cost of the project and the time needed for completion. At the time the Mountainville Well
Field application was filed, the Department had already received and was reviewing the permit
application for the Star Mountain Well Field, which was initially filed in January 2010. The Star
Mountain Well Field consists of two existing, high-yielding sand and gravel wells with a
reported yield of 1.54 mgd. These wells had previously been approved by NYSDEC and used to
supply water to the former Star Mountain facility and adjacent homes. However, they had been
deactivated when the former owner ceased operations on the property.
Based on discussions
with NYSDEC regarding the lack of current need for both sources, it was determined that the
Mountainville Well Field was a preferable location that could also accommodate the current and
future needs of the Village.
A fourth alternative considered was connection to the New York City Aqueduct. This
alternative is currently being implemented with the construction of the pipeline between the
Village and the Aqueduct connection location in the Town of New Windsor. Construction of the
first 6.5 miles of pipeline is nearly completed.
final 6.5 miles of transmission main between Mountainville and New Windsor were completed
and filed with New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH"), the Orange County
the Town of New Windsor have been filed with the Town and NYCDEP and final adjustments to
the plans are being coordinated with NYCDEP. Construction is anticipated to be completed in
2017.
23
Based on the foregoing, the Mountainville Well Field was judged to be the best and most
cost-effective feasible alternative available to meet the Village's interim and future water supply
needs that is also protective of the environment.
Initially, it is important to note that the Village's per capita water usage is well below the
average. The Village's per capita water usage has been reported at levels of 58 to 66 gpd. By
comparison, the USGS reports the national average at approximately 98 gpd. Indeed, per capita
frequent use of water for activities such as lawn watering, car washes, and swimming pools.
Likewise, by comparison, a review of water supply permits indicates that the Village's 90 gpd
per person permitted water supply inventory volume is significantly smaller than the neighboring
Town/Village of Woodbury's 215 gpd per person.
The Village of Kiryas Joel has also implemented water conservation efforts and
efficiency measures to reduce water use. As described in the 2014 Water Withdrawal Reporting
Form submitted by the Village to the NYSDEC, information regarding household water savings
devices and ways to reduce water usage were distributed to residential customers, and steps have
been taken to reduce outdoor water use during drought conditions. The Village has also
improved its water storage facilities. In addition, at the urging by the Village, one of the main
private commercial users of Village water, the Kiryas Joel Poultry Plant, has implemented
significant plant improvements that have resulted in a 40% water usage reduction. The Village
has also undertaken regular measures aimed at improving the reliability and efficiency of its
24
existing well inventory. However, due to normal population growth and increased competition
for the limited groundwater resource in the vicinity of the Village, water conservation measures
alone have not been sufficient during periods of peak water system demand to reduce the need
for an additional source to meet the Village's maximum water demand requirements.
3) Why the proposed water withdrawal is reasonable for the proposed use.
pending completion of the Aqueduct Connection Project when the well would be available to
support the Village water supply as backup when the Aqueduct is unavailable. During times of
peak demand the Village has had to implement extraordinary contingency measures, including
trucking in water from outside sources. The proposed withdrawal from Mountainville Well 1 is
reasonable because the Village will be able to utilize the completed pipeline between the well
field site and the Village without the need for construction of an additional transmission main.
In addition, use of the Mountainville Well Field will remove the current need to further develop
the Star Mountain well site. Accordingly, the use is reasonable because the proposed withdrawal
from the Mountainville Well Field is intended to provide additional support to meet the Village's
water demand now and in the future as well as to meet the NYCDEP redundancy requirement for
the Village's connection to the Aqueduct and without the need to construct additional
transmission mains.
25
The addition of the Mountainville Well Field will also allow the Village to continue to
complete needed well redevelopment/rehabilitation work on its existing wells.
This work
includes replacing well pumps and appurtenances, equipment maintenance and leak detection,
and mechanical and chemical well redevelopment. These measures are necessary to maintain the
viability and efficiency of the existing supply sources, further supporting the Village's water
conservation measures. To complete these activities, wells are sometimes taken out of service
for days or weeks.
Adding the Mountainville Well Field will allow the Village to continue to
conduct routine and needed well maintenance without overstressing the remaining in-service
wells.
4) Why the proposed water conservation measures are environmentally sound and
economically feasible.
The water conservation measures which have been implemented by the Village of Kiryas
Joel are discussed above. The measures include public education and voluntary implementation
of actions to reduce water usage and installation of water saving devices. This also includes
routine maintenance and upgrades to its existing well inventory. During drought conditions, the
Village further reduces outdoor water usage and publishes notices in the local newspaper.
These
The current total permitted water withdrawal limit for the Village of Kiryas Joel is
1.93 mgd based on the Village's existing water supply permits. The 2014 peak water demand for
the Village of Kiryas Joel was 2.21 mgd as reported in the 2014 Water Withdrawal Reporting
Form submitted to the NYSDEC.
26
With the inclusion of Mountainville Well 1, the combined yield of the existing, permitted
Village of Kiryas Joel water system wells plus Mountainville Well 1 is 2.54 mgd which would
meet the current and future peak water demands of the system. This well would also enable the
Village to safely meet its redundancy requirements for the Aqueduct connection.
6) Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other municipalities and their
inhabitants in regard to present and future needs for sources of potable water.
During the 72-hour pumping test conducted on Mountainville Well 1, water-level data
was collected from existing wells located on neighboring properties. The data showed no effects
from pumping the 425 gpm allowed under the draft permit on the neighboring private and
municipal wells, including Woodbury's Trout Brook Road wells. The Village is unaware of any
other pending water supply permit applications, and in any event, has no reason to believe that its
withdrawal will directly impact any other user of the aquifer.
Moreover, at the suggestion of NYSDEC, the Village voluntarily withdrew its application
to reactivate the Star Mountain Well Field as it was concluded that the Mountainville Well field
could serve to meet the Village's current and future needs. In addition, this new well field is not
intended to replace any of the Village's existing wells, but rather is intended to supplement a
comprehensive well and storage inventory.
Aqueduct, relieving some of the daily pressure on the aquifer in Mountainville, in the Village,
and in the surrounding wells in the Town of Monroe. Indeed, the overall Aqueduct project, of
which the Mountainville Well Field is one part, will ultimately benefit the Village's neighbors
27
Finally, the Village has great respect for the importance of the statewide water resource
as one to be shared by all NYS residents and municipalities. Unlike others, the Village has not
sought to challenge or obstruct other municipalities from acquiring new or supplemental water
supplies.
For example, Kiryas Joel recently voluntarily provided the Village of Cornwall-on-
Hudson access to Kiryas Joel's Star Mountain wells to assist the Village in completing certain
pumping tests of Cornwall's existing water supply wells. In addition, the Village previously
agreed to provide water to the State Police barracks and other residential developments in the
Town of Monroe outside of the Village, and also provides emergency access to the Monroe and
Woodbury Fire Departments for filling their trucks upon request.
considered both individual and cumulative environmental impacts. The negative declaration was
subsequently upheld by New York Supreme Court, Environmental Claims Part. The negative
declaration was based, in part, on the 72-hour pumping test conducted on Mountainville Well 1
in June 201 1 in accordance with the NYSDEC guidelines, as discussed above. The pumping test
was designed to demonstrate the yield of the new production well and supported a conclusion of
no impacts to nearby existing wells and surface-water features. Water-level data was also
collected from two wells on neighboring properties during the test. No water-level drawdown
was measured in these offsite wells which can be attributed to pumping in Mountainville Well 1.
28
The pumping test conducted on Mountainville Well 1 in June 201 1 showed no significant
impacts to the nearby surface-water features or offsite wells near the property from pumping of
Mountainville Well 1.
proceeding, as described above. The court dismissed the petition on the basis that the Village
had taken an adequate "hard Jook" at potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, and
petitioners' submissions had failed to demonstrate otherwise.
8) Whether the proposed withdrawal will be consistent with all applicable municipal,
state and federal laws as well as regional and interstate agreements.
The proposed withdrawal will be undertaken in full compliance with all applicable
municipal, state and federal laws.
III.
The Village provides the following responses to the public comments, arranged as
Appendices to this Introductory Memorandum:
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
29
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F :
Commenter List
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
30
Commenter No.
At
A2
Commenter
Mary Gross- Ferraro
Forum
Comment / Issue
Response
A.la
Hearing
A.2.b
A.S.a
Hearing
Duplicate
A. lb
A.6.a
A.9.C
A,9.d
B.la
B.4,a
C.3.a
D.5
D.6
D.8
A3
A4
Lisa L Timm
Eugene Schreiner
Hearing
Written Comments received at Legislative
D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated
alternatives;
D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated
Hearing
alternatives;
A.lb
D.1
86
OA
D.6
A.7.a
A.la
A. lb
A.5.a
A.He
A5
Brad Keys
D.6
A6
Nancy Fasano
D.6
Hearing
A.11.f
C.3.a
A7
John Schwartz
C.3,3
Hearing
A.8.3
A.8.b
A8
D.6
A.6.a
Hearing
A.S.a
A.9.d
B,4.a
D.6
A9
Nancy C. Bryan
A. la
Hearing
A. lb
A.2.b
A.6.a
A.8.a
A.S.b
A.8.d
D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated
alternatives;
A.2.a
D.1
A.1lb
A.lb
B.4.a
85; C12
ASS; A90
Notes
10
A10
Riddick Associates
A.8.a
Hearing
A.8.b
A.8.C
A.8.d
A.8.e
A.S.f
A.9.3
application complete;
A.9.C
B-30
D.6:
B.4.a
11
A11
0.6
0.4
0.8
A.8.a
A.1.b
A.11.a
8.2.a
interstate agreements;
A.8.d
A.1.a
A65
12
A12
James Nibio
0.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated
Hearing
alternatives;
13
A13
A.1.a
Rodeuser
Hearing
A.2.b
A6
R. Edelstein)
Hearing
C.3.a
A.4.
"l4
A14
16
A15
A16
Jim Duribson
Kerry K. Luba
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
B.4.a
A72; B36
A4.b
B.l.a
0.7
A.1.b
0.6
18
A17
A18
Joeseph Palaggi
Michael Campo
A.1.3
A.1.b
OJ
A.f.b
A19
Mary Fredericks
A.8.C
Alb
Hearing
A,2.a
A.6.3
20
A20
Jerry Gage
21
A21
Gary Roaila
22
A22
Valerie Hebe!
Hearing
Written Comments received at Legislative
Hearing
23
A23
Criag Eliick
A,4.b
C.3,a
B.l.a
0.6
Hearing
A,8.a
8.4, a
0.7
A24
Jacqueline Hernandex
C79
25
26
A25
A26
Ptinio Ayaia
Janet Riadow
A.1.a
Hearing
A.l.b
A.9.a
A.9.
Hearing
D.6
A27
A.l.b
Hearing
A.2.a
A.S.a
D.6
D.7
A.2.C
A.7.a
B.f.a
28
29
A28
A29
Sandra A. Dunlop
Bill Braine
A.1.a
Hearing
A.8.a
A.2.b
Hearing
A.6.a
C.3.a
30
A30
Ron Marczyk
31
A31
Hearing
32
A32
Janne C. Dinnebeil
Hearing
8.4,a
A.l.b
A,8.a
Hearing
A.9.d
C39
Hearing
33
A33
Maggie Trainor
D7
D.7
Hearing
34
A34
Sheri Lisker
D.4
D.6
D.7
36
37
A35
A36
A37
Dan Small
Barbara Smith
Toya Dubin
A.11.e
Hearing
A.8.a
Hearing
A.8.b
A.8.e
Hearing
A.8.3
A.8.C
A.l.b
A.9.d
C.2.3
8.2. a
C.3.a
D.6
A64; C15; C51
A.5.a
A38
Marian Leeds
A62
39
A39
B17
A.2.b
A.S.a
B.1.3
D.7
Hearing
40
Kathlen Mitchell
A.8.3
A40; A57;
A.8.C
A.4,
A.4.a
A.4.b
A.Za
A.11.f
A.2.a
A39; AS7;
A.2.b
Gruber
41
Hearing
A42
Harry Mitchell
A.l.a
A.11.6
w
D.6
A.8.a
B.4.a
Hearing
43
A43
Constance A. Dioszeghy
Hearing
A.11.e
A.6.a
D.6
A.1.8
A.8.C
A.1.b
45
A44
A45
David Fitzgerald
Mary Fitzgerald
D.6
Hearing
B.2.a
C.3.a
Hearing
46
47
48
A46
A47
A48
MaryAspin
Mary Aspin
TiT
A.11.e
A.9.C
application complete;
A.11.1
A.8.6
Hearing
A.1.6
A.11.e
Hearing
A.9.C
application complete;
A.ll.f
A.8.e
A47
A46
A.11.6
A.l.a
B.4.a
0.7
D.8
D.6:
A.11.b
interstate agreements;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;
A49
A.4.
Authority
Hearing
A.4,b
A.4.3
A.H.c;
A.2.3
A.l.a
A.S.e
A.2.b
8-40
50
51
A50
A51
Merl G. Hutto
Hearing
A.tt.e
A.11.f
A.l.a
A.1.b
Hearing
A.1.b
D.6
A.1.a
B,4,a
A102; C13
A52
A.S.a
Hearing
A.8.a
A.6.a
A.t.a
A.8.b
D.6
A.4.
B.1.3
B,2.a
C4;C44
53
A53
54
A54
Robert J. Maltoy
A75
Hearing
A.s.c: Need for independent study;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
A.8.C
D.6
A.t.a
A.1.b
A55
A.t.b
A.2.3
Hearing
56
A56
Hearing
D.6
A.6.3
A.4.
A.2,b
A107
A57
B,4.a
A.4,b
Art Center
D.6
B.1.a
A.2.b
A.4.
A.t.a
A.t.b
AS8
Hearing
A.t.a
D.7
A.4.
A.8.a
A.8.b
A. 2. a
A.2.b
A.8.e
A39; A40;
59
A59
Nancy C. Bryan
A.1.3
A.2.a
A.2.b
A.6.a
A.S.a
A.8.b
A.S.d
D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated
alternatives;
60
A60
Meghan Vanderpool
A.1.b
D.1
A.11.b
A.1.b
B.4.a
Hearing
85; A9;
C12; A90
D.6
A.1.b
A61
William K. Fredericks
Hearing
D.6
62
A62
Marian Leeds
A38
Hearing
63
A63
Andrew Buck
A64
Toya Dubin
Hearing
Written Comments received at Legislative
64
b3T
Hearing
A.1.b
A67
0.6
A65
Hearing
as
D.4
D.8
A.8.3
A.1.b
A.11.a
8.2.a
A.S.d
A11
A.1.a
A66
67
A67
A63
Hearing
68
69
A68
A69
A.l.b
Hearing
A.9.a
A.1.a
lAa"
A.4.b
B.1.a
Donald Devaney
D.6
A.2.b
A.4.
A.l.a
A.l.b
A70
Mike Bushey
A,1.b
Hearing
A.2.3
837; C14
B.i.a
A.11.e
A.4.
A.2.b
A39; A40;
A57; B41
B25
71
A71
Theresa Trella
A.1.a
Hearing
A.2.b
A.2.a
A.6.a
0.6
73
A72
A73
B.4.a
R. Edeistein)
Hearing
C.3.a
A.4.b
BJra
Hearing
A.4.a
A.1.b
John Fiedler
A.4.
A14; B36
D.7
A74
Hearing
75
A75
76
A76
Leslie M. McGiil
Hearing
A53
0.6
B.2.a
8.4,a
78
A77
A78
Daria Capone
Arteen Bologna
Hearing
79
A79
Cody Bologna
80
A80
D.6
DJ
D.6
D.6
81
A81
Hearing
as
A,11.d
A.4.a
A.9.C
A,2,a
A82
Lisa Shrem
A.2.a
A.6.a
D.6
D.7
A.2.b
A83
Anthony Incanno
Hearing
B.l.a
D.6
D.7
A,1.a
A.6.a
A.4.a
A.2,a
A.2.b
A84
Ellen Santorelli
Hearing
D.6
A85
Hearing
D.6
A86; C74
86
A86
Anthony Incanno
Hearing
H7
D.6
D.7
A.1.a
A.4.3
A.2.3
A.2.b
A.6.a
A83; C74
87
A87
88
A88
Robert Fromaget
B.l.a
89
A89
Lisa Biackman
90
A90
Nancy C. Bryan
A.1.a
Hearing
A.1.b
A.2.a
A.2.b
A.6.a
A.8.a
A.8.b
A.8.d
B22
Hearing
D.1; Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated
alternatives;
A.11.b: Compliance with ECL 15-1501 et seq./S NYCRR 601;
A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;
B5; A9;
C12; A59
D.1
A.11.b
A,1.b
BAa
A91
92
A92
A.9.d
Summerfiekl)
Hearing
A.1,a
Hearing
A.2.b
A.2.a
Hailoran)
93
A93
Neal Hailoran
A.4.
A.4.b
A.4.a
B-43
6 a
Hearing
A.2.a
A.6.a
.6
A.4.
A.9.b
C59
A94
Village of Comwall-on-Hudson
(Brendan G. Coyne)
Hearing
A.1.b
8.4.3
D.6
D.7
A.8.b
A.9.C
A.8.a
95
97
A95
A96
A97
A.1.b
A.2.b
A,5.a
A.6.a
B.2,a
Legislature)
Hearing
Clark)
Hearing
A.H.e
A.11.f
(Joel Mertz)
Hearing
BAa
C.3.a
B-10; C48
98
99
A98
A99
A.1.a
A.S.d
A.6.a
A.2.3
A.8.a
A.8.b
A.8.C
B.2.a
Hearing
Sheila Conroy
Hearing
A.2.b
D.6
A.8.a
A.4.a
B.t.a
A.2.b
B29; A101;
C70
100
A100
Timothy Egan
Hearing
D.6
C40
A101
Sheiia Conroy
B.1.a
Hearing
C.3.a
B.4.a
A,8,f
D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated
5.2.3
D.1
alternatives;
C.1.8
C. 1 .a;
A.l.a:
A.2.b:
A.2.c:
A.4.a:
A.l.a
A.2.b
A.2.C
829;A99
C70
A.4.a
A.i.b
A.S.c
A.11.f
application complete;
A102
Meri G. Hutto
Hearing
A.i.b
D.6
A.l.a
A51; C13
A103
bIJ
Hearing
A,9,d
A,9,b
D.6
105
A104
A105
Patrick Conroy
ClandriorC. Freund
Hearing
BAl
B.2.a
B.1.a
A.8.a
A.2.b
A.11.f
Hearing
C52
A.4.a
B.2.a
D.6
A.9.b
A.8.C
A106
Debbie Jersey
Hearing
107
A107
A.2.a
Hearing
A.6.a
D.6
A.4.
A.2.b
A56
103
B1
Adam Schreiner
A.1.a
A.9.d
B.2.a
D.3
proposed use;
D.5
B2
Linda Reutershan
A,1.a
B.2.a
D.3
proposed use;
D.5
B3
B3
Linda Reutershan
A.l.a
B.2.a
proposed use;
D.3
82
D.5
84
A, 1.3
112
85
Nancy Bryan
A.1.3
A.1.b
A.6.a
A.7.a
113
86
Lisa L Timm
A.1.b
114
B7
A.1.b
115
88
A.5.b
C12; A9;
A59; A90
A3
Qulgley, Sup.)
D.5
A.11.g
D.8
C.2.a
interstate agreements;
117
89
810
Legislature)
118
811
Beatrice Stem
119
B12
Patrick Carella
120
813
121
B14
Linda Suorez
8.2.3
A.1.b
A.2.b
A.5.a
A.6.a
B.2.a
A.1.a
A.6.a
A.7.a
A.1.a
A.
122
815
Assembly)
1231
816
A.l.b
JA
A.2.b
A.2.a
A.6.a
A.l.b
A.2.3
B.l.a
A.7.a
B.2.a
Txb
A.2.b
B.l.a
B.4,a
A-95; C48
B.4.a
A.1.b
0.8
C45
124
125
817
B18
Lorraine McNeill
A.1.a
A.2.b
A.2.a
A.4.b
A.4.a
A.5.a
8.4.a
A. 4.
820; CS8
A.4.
A.4.b
A.4.a
Jeroloman, Mayor)
B.l.a
B.4.a
D.6
B19
Quigiey, Sup.)
127
B20
Lorraine McNeill
A.1.a
A.1.b
A.1.0
A.t.b
A.2.b
A,2.a
B.2.a
A.4.
A,4.b
A.4.3
A.6.3
B.4.a
128
821
xxx
129
B22
RobertA. Fromaget
B.1.a
130
B23
Annmarie Desilva
A. 1.a
A.4.b
A.4.a
A7J
B.l.a
S.2.a
131
B24
Clifford M. Ader
817; C58
B.2.3
A88
A.4.
8.4.a
D.6
B25
A.1.a
A.1.b
A.2.b
A.4.
A.4,b
A.4.3
A.5.b
A-11-b
B.4.3
D.8
B.1.3
interstate agreements;
B.l.a: Sewer capacity;
133
134
826
B27
Village of Comwall-On-Hudson
Patricia O'Dwyer
A,1.b
B.4.a
A.1.a
A.1.b
A.2.b
A.4.
A,4.a
D.6
8.1.a
C.2.3
B.4.a
A39; A40;
A57;A69; B41
135
136
137
828
829
B30
Robin Crouse
Sheila A. Conroy
of Woodbury, V. of Haniman)
A.2.b
A.2.a
A.S.d
B.1.a
A.4.
A.4.b
B.4.a
A.1.b
A.2.b
A.4.
A.4.b
8.1.a
C.1.a
A.S.a
A.4.a
B.4.a
A.8.b
A.8.C
A.8.f
A.9.a
A.9.C
application complete;
A.9.d: Economic Impact on community;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
A.9.d
A99; A101;C70
D.6
A-10
B.4.a
D.7
B31
T. and V. of Woodbury, V, of
Harriman (David K. Gordon,
Esq.)
A.9.C
D.6
8.1. a
B39
140
141
142
632
633
B34
B35
Dee Movius
Christopher Fryer
Thomas Munterich
Roland Larkin
A.2.b
A.2.a
A.4.8
R. Edelstein)
A.2.a
A.4.
A.4.a
A.2.b
A.2.a
A.6.a
A.2.b
A.2.a
A.2.b
143
A.4.
A.4.
A.4.
A.4.b
B.1.a
144
B37
Donald Oevaney
A.2,b
145
B38
Angeio Ferraro
A.2.b
A.6.a
146
839
A,8.a
A.9.C
Esq.)
application complete;
T. and V. of Woodbury, V. of
C67
A.4.a
A14; A72
A68; C14
D.6
831
147
B40
A.4.
A.4.b
A.4.a
A-49
148
B41
A.4.
A.4.b
A.4.a
150
151
B42
843
C1
Ggiber
___________________
KeHy Robinson-Finn
A.La
A.1.b
8.2.a
A.1.a
A.2.b
Halloran)
A.2.a
A,4.b
A,4.a
A57;
A69; B2S
A39; A40;
A, 4.
A.S.a
A.Lb
(Afternoon Session)
B.4.a
A-92
D.6
8.1.3
C.3.a
C78
153
154
C2
C3
C4
B.2.a
(Afternoon Session)
A.2.a
Warwick, Sup.)
(Afternoon Session)
A,4.a
A.2.b
A.4.b
B.La
A.6.a
A.Lb
A.8.a
A.6.a
A.9.b
Board)
(Afternoon Session)
8.4, a
A.4,
a57
A.4.
D.6
D.7
A52; C44
C5
A.La
D.6
C47
C6
157
C7
158
159
C8
C9
D.7
Larkinj
(Afternoon Session)
D.6
Legislature)
District)
(Afternoon Session)
Andrew Barone
160
C10
C41
(Afternoon Session)
C76
A.1.3
A.Lb
A.IO.a
B.La
A,9.a
A.4.a
A.11.e
A.S.a
A.La
A.8.a
A.8.b
A.2.a
A.2.b
C42
161
162
C11
C12
A.4.a
Co. Hydrologist)
(Afternoon Session)
A.6.a
A.t.a
A.S.b
A,2.a
A.2,b
Nancy Bryan
D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from die evaluated
(Afternoon Session)
alternatives;
A.11.b: Compliance with ECl 15-1501 et seq./6 NYCRR 601;
A.8.a
D.1
A.ll.b
A.1.b
8.4.a
A.2.b
A.S.a
A,8.a
A.2.a
D.6
D.7
B5; A3;
A59; A90
C13
Merl Hutto
164
165
C14
C15
Donald Devaney
Toya Dubin
A.1.b
A.1.3
(Afternoon Session)
D.6
A.1.3
A.11.e
A.t.b
A.8.e
A.8.0
A.1.b
D.6
A.9.d
167
168
C16
C17
C18
Tom Corette
A.5,a
C.2.a
B.2.a
Roberta Sloockbower
(Afternoon Session)
A.11.e
A.1.a
A.1.b
A.4,b
(Afternoon Session)
B.i.a
A.2.C
A.1.a
Chamber of Commerce)
(Afternoon Session)
B.4.3
A.9.d
A.S.b
A.1.b
D.6
C19
Department)
(Afternoon Session)
170
C20
StephenRacite (Cornwall
Baolist Church)
(Afternoon Session)
ASS; 837
A.8.a
A52; A102
A.11.C
A.4.b
A.S.a
A.S.b
A.2.a
A.1.b
171
C21
A.8.a
T&Vof Cornwall)
{Afternoon Session)
A.8.b
A.8.d
A.8.e
A.8.C
A.4.
A.1.a
A.1.b
A.2,a
A.2.b
A-11-f
A.i.b
5.2.3
(Afternoon Session)
B.1.3
172
C22
Erika Abraham
173
C23
Robert Scott
(Afternoon Session)
(Afternoon Session)
174
C24
Gordon Shehah
D.6
176
177
C25
C26
C27
"EH
Environment Inc.)
(Afternoon Session)
8.2.3
B.1.3
A.4.b
D.7
A.2.C
A.2.a
{Afternoon Session)
A.2.b
A.6.a
Robert Ketcham
D.6
(Afternoon Session)
A.6.3
A.i.b
A.2.b
A.2.a
C28
Terry Hughes
B.4.a
(Afternoon Session)
A.1.a
A.2.a
A.2.b
A.i.b
A.2.C
179
C29
Heather Lynch
180
C30
8.4.a
(Afternoon Session)
B.2.a
A.9.d
A.9.b
(Afternoon Session)
D.6
182
C31
C32
John Molitoris
Rich Randazz
(Afternoon Session)
A.i.b
A.9.d
A.l.a
A.2.b
A.ll.a
B.1.a
C.3.a
B.4.a
D.6
D.8
A.6.a
interstate agreements;
A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;
183
C33
Mary Ferraro
A-2-b
C49
184
185
C34
C35
Valerie Prunty
(Afternoon Session)
B.2.a
D.S
8.4.a
(Afternoon Session)
A.1.b
D.S
C36
Roger Gray
A.1.b
(Afternoon Session)
A.9.C
application complete;
187
188
C37
C38
Simon Grube;
Eugene Schreiner
A.2.a
(Afternoon Session)
A.4.a
A.6.a
A.9.d
A.2.b
A.9.e
(Afternoon Session)
189
C39
Bill Weber
190
D.7
A.11.e
(Afternoon Session)
A.S.a
(Evening Session)
A.l.a
C40
B.2.a
A29
D.S
A.i.b
A100
C41
192
C42
193
C43
D.S
C7
A.4.a
A.11.e
A.S.a
A.S.a
A.l.a
C10
A.8.b
A.2.a
MS
A.l.a
Hudson, Mayor)
(Evening Session)
A.1.b
A.9.b
B.4.a
D.7
195
C44
C45
B.2.a
Board)
(Evening Session)
A.S.a
A.S.a
A,9.b
A.4.
D.7
D.S
C.3.3
B.4.a
A.8.C
D.7
A.i.b
A.l.a
A52; C4
815
196
C46
D.6
Woodbury, V. of Harriman)
(Evening Session)
A.1.a
C.3.a
A.2.b
B.4.a
C7?
B.1.a
198
199
C47
C48
C49
Hamptonburgh)
(Evening Session)
200
C50
Michael Mattausch
A.1.a
D.6
BAa
(Evening Session)
A-2-b
A.1.b
a*J
A.8.b
A.8.d
A.8.C
A.l.a
A.1.b
A.8.C
C5
ASS; B10
A,8.e
A.4.
A.2.a
M!>
A.1.b
A.11.f
C21
A.S.a
C.3.a
D.6
C51
Toya Dubin
A.8.e
(Evening Session)
A.S.a
A.8.C
A.1.b
D.6
A.S.d
A. 5. a
C.2.a
B.2.3
C52
Patrick Conroy
203
204
205
206
C53
C54
C55
C56
Bonnie Mangiardara
Carolyn Curran
Henri Ponti
8.4.a
B.2.a
8.1.a
A.S.a
A.4.a
A.2.b
A.11.f
A,6.a
(Evening Session)
A.2.b
C.3.a
(Evening Session)
B.1.a
(Evening Session)
B.1.a
A.9,d
A.t.b
B.2,a
B.4.a
(Evening Session)
207
C57
Ken Dawley
XlOb
A104
208
209
CS8
C59
Lorraine McNeill
A.9.a
(Evening Session)
A.2.a
B.4.3
A.2.b
A.2.C
A.4.b
A.4.a
A.4.
B.1.a
A.4.
(Evening Session)
817; B20
8.2.3
D.6
A.9.d
A.4.a
A93
C60
211
C61
A.1.b
A.2.a
(Evening Session)
A.2.b
A.6.a
A.l.b
212
213
214
215
216
C62
C63
C64
C65
C66
Michael Summerfeild
Ralph Caruso
Eduardo Bianco
Bob Kiedaisch
Henry Christensen
(Evening Session)
(Evening Session)
A.11.a
A,9.d
A.11.a
A,11.g
A.2.C
8.1.a
A-I.b
(Evening Session)
A.2.a
A.2.C
(Evening Session)
B.1.a
(Evening Session)
A.2.b
B.4,a
B.2.a
A11.a
A.S.a
A.8.d
A.l.b
A.1.a
D.8
interstate agreements;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
D.7
D.6
217
C67
Roland Larkin
8.2.a
A.2.C
(Evening Session)
C.1.a
B.1.a
218
219
220
C68
C69
C70
Jonathan Swiier
Carol Muliooly
Sheila Conroy
B.4.a
(Evening Session)
A.8.C
(Evening Session)
A.4.a
A.8.f
B.i.a
C.3.a
A.2.a
A.2.b
B.2.a
A.8.3
A.4.
B35
221
C71
Patrick Thompson
(Evening Session)
D.6
A.9.e
223
C72
C73
Led Klosky
Anthony Fasano
A.1.a
(Evening Session)
A.6.3
A.2.a
A.2.C
(Evening Session)
A.2.b
D.6
B.2.3
224
C74
Anthony Incanno
(Evening Session)
B.1.a
D.6
D.7
A.t.a
A.6.a
A.4.a
A.2.a
A.2.b
A83; A86
C75
Mikey Jackson
A.9.e
(Evening Session)
226
C76
227
C77
dim McGee (on behalf of Sen. (Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing
D.7
Larkin)
(Evening Session)
Woodbury, V. of Harriman)
(Evening Session)
A.i.a
A.2.b
C.3.a
B.4.a
8.1.a
C6
D.6
C46
229
C78
C79
Jacqueline Hernandez
A.1,b
(Evening Session)
B.4.a
B.1.a
C.3.a
A.i.b
230
231
232
233
D.6
C1
A24
APPENDIX B
groundwater availability, and groundwater quality; (c) impact on nearby surface waters; (d)
impacts on Moodna Creek; (e) impacts on Woodbury Creek; and (f) impacts on Ramapo River.
Specifically, comments expressed concern that the pump test performed on the well was
inadequate to assess the impact on these resources in times of heavy draw or low recharge.
Comments questioned the methodology of the pump test and its adequacy in assessing impacts
on existing neighboring wells, including the Town and Village of Woodbury's Trout Brook Road
wellfield. Finally, comments expressed concern that the well would negatively impact nearby
surface waters, including Woodbury and Moodna Creek because of hydrologic connection to the
aquifer, and the Ramapo River.
a.
Aquifer Impacts
conclusion that no impacts to the principal aquifer will result from the Village's use of the
Mountainville well field.
pumping test on Well 1 located on the Village of Kiryas Joel 's Mountainville pump station and
well field parcel on Route 32 in Cornwall, New York in June 2011.
the New
Conservation (NYSDEC) pumping test standards ("Recommended Pump Test Procedures for
Water Supply Application, " TOGS 3.2.1, Appendix 10). The NYSDEC pumping test standards
are designed to determine the safe yield ofproposed wells and potential impacts to neighboring
wells and surface-water features.
"have been designed to produce the accurate and complete information that is vital to these
determinations. " Proper methodologiesfor this test were also confirmed by NYSDEC Division of
Water in Albany.
Data from the pumping test were included in Exhibits II and III to the
Village 's water supply permit dated November 17, 2011 andprepared by LBG.
The
drawdown in Well 1 for a minimum of six hours at the end of the lest period as required by the
TOGS section 3.1 Water-level data were collectedfrom onsite monitoring wells completed in the
1 Citations to "TOGS Section
stratijied-drift aquifer.
collected from
three piezometer
locations, one in the onsite intermittent stream, one in the onsite wetland and one in nearby
Woodbury Creek (TOGS section 10).
neighboring observation wells located within 2,000 feet of the pumping well (TOGS section 7).
Water-quality samples were collected from the pumping well near the end of the 72-hour test
period (TOGS section 12). A 180-day water-level drawdown projection was completedfor Well
1 using the water-level data collected during the pumping test and aquifer parameters were
calculated (TOGS section 13). No legitimate basis has been suggestedfor extending the length of
this test nor are any identified by TOGS, which expressly provides for a 72-hour test
"[rjegardless of the type of aquifer" (TOGS Section 3). Likewise, no legitimate basis has been
suggested for limiting the length of the permitted withdrawal to 72 hours to match the test
8 demonstrated stabilized yield and water-level drawdown in Well 1 at a pumping rate of 425
gallons per minute (gpm). The 180-day water-level drawdown projection showed the water level
in the well was above the pump intake setting as well as above the top of screen in the well.
Water-level recovery in the well was rapid and 90-percent recovery was achieved within one
hour ofshutdown of the well. The data support the safe yield of 425 gpm.
Using the methodology and standards in TOGS Section 10, there was no water-level drawdown
measured in the piezometers during the test, including no surface-water or groundwater level
drawdown in Woodbury Creek.
The water-quality results collected and analyzed according to TOGS Section 11 meet all New
York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) drinking water standards with the exception of the
presence of total coliform.
sample collectedfrom Well 1 reported a low-risk potential for groundwater under the influence
ofsurface water (GWUD1) for the well.
The results from the 72-hour pumping test showed no outstanding issues of concern related to
well stabilization, water-level recovery and water quality.
An assessment of the groundwater recharge to the stratified-drift aquifer underlying the
Mountainville parcel from the upgradient watershed area was completed.
located downgradient of the Town of Woodbury Trout Brook Road wellfield parcel and
upgradient of the Mountainville parcel is comprised of a total of 2.08 mi (square miles).
Within
this area, stratified-drift deposits underlie 0. 76 mi2 of the total watershed area and glacial till
2
underlies 1.32 mi .
To calculate the groundwater recharge to this watershed area, LBG used a recharge rale for
stratified drift of 0. 8 to 1.1 mgd/mi2 (million gallons per day per square mile) andfor glacial till
0.3 to 0.41 mgd/mi2. The calculated recharge for the upgradient watershed area to the aquifer
underlying the Mountainville parcel is provided in the table below:
Recharge
Rate
Recharge
Multiplier (mgd/mi2)
(mgd)
Stratified Drift
0.76
0.8-1.1
0.61-0.84
Glacial Till
1.32
0.3-0.41
0.40-0.54
Total
2.08
1.00-1.38
square mile
mi
2
mgd/mi
mgd
The recharge total for the watershed area located downgradient of the Town of Woodbury well
field and upgradient of the Mountainville parcel of 1.00 to 1.38 mgd exceeds the yield of
Mountainville Well 1 of425gpm (0.612 mgd).
The results of the 72-hour pumping test demonstrated a stabilized yield and water-level
drawdown on Well 1 at a rate of 425 gpm (gallons per minute); rapid water-level recovery
following shutdown of the test (90% within one hour); adequate groundwater recharge (1.00 to
1.38 mgd) to support the taking of up to 425 gpm from Well 1 and this withdrawal will have no
standards demonstrate that no additional pumping tests, such as long-term testing, are required.
The Town of Woodbury challenged the adequacy of the Village 's SEQRA review, including the
pumping test and its resulting conclusion of no impact on wells in the area, in a CPLR Article 78
proceeding commenced in April 2013.
Environmental Claims Part issued a decision on April 7, 2014 dismissing Woodbury's petition.
The judge held that the pumping test supported the Village 's negative declaration under SEQRA,
and that Woodbury had failed to submit data or studies sufficient to demonstrate that
Woodbury 's planned Trout Brook well would be adversely affected, or that the Village 's negative
declaration should otherwise be annulled. The court's decision is included in this submission as
Appendix I.
i.
Groundwater Availability
In response to comments about ground water availability, pursuant to NYSDEC pumping test
standards, water-level measurements were collectedfrom onsite and offsite observational wells
located within 1,500feet ofthe test well (TOGS section 7). Most ofthe land within 1,500feet of
Well 1 is undeveloped and subject to a conservation easement that limits future development.
The portion of the radius east and southeast of Well 1 encompasses a limited number of
residences. All eight offsite properties were solicitedfor permission to collect water-level data
from their wells. Four property owners granted permission to collect measurements from their
wells. Two of thefour wells (250 and 280 Old Route 32) were located in well pits, and the wells
could not be opened to collect water-level measurements without creating a sanitary risk. The
other two, 230 Old Route 32 and 1470 Old Route 32, were monitored as described below.
Water-level data, including water-level drawdown, were collected from two additional onsite
monitoring wells completed in the stratified-drift aquifer (MW-1 and MW-2) that were drilled
near Well 1. The water-level data collected during the pumping test allowsfor the calculation of
aquifer parameters and the assessment ofpotential regional water-level impactfrom pumping of
the test well. See site plan depicting the location ofthe monitoring wells in Appendix G.
The onsite Monitor Wells MW-1 and MW-2 were constructed 51 feet and 94 feet, respectively,
from Well 1, consistent with TOGS Section 7. Based on the data collected during the pumping
test, the drawdown in MW-1 and MW-2 at the end of the test was 9.26 feet and 0.42 foot,
respectively.
Water-level data were collectedfrom the two offsite residential wells located at 230 Old Route
32 and 1470 Old Route 2 at approximately 1,150 feet and 870 feet, respectively, away from Well
1. The water-level data from these wells showed no drawdown impact attributed to the pumping
of Well 1 on the Mountainville parcel. Therefore, it was concluded that these wells appear to be
considered the potential for impacts by the Mountainville Well on offsite wells, including the up
gradient and distant Trout Brook well. The Mountainville Well is too far away and down
gradientfrom the Trout Brook wellfield to have any impact on it.
Based on the hydrogeological setting and the results from the aquifer testing program at the
MountainviUe site, LBG determined that the proposed Mountainville Well Field would not
adversely affect the yield of the Village of Woodbury 's well fields. The Trout Brook well is
located over a mile from the Mountainville site. It is also located upgradient, which means that
the Mountainville Well would not affect the recharge potential of the Village of Woodbury 's
wellfields.
As shown in the LBG report, the hydrogeologic testing and analysis of the Mountainville Well
data indicated that there was no discernible impact beyond 1,500 feet of the proposed
Thus, contrary to certain comments, additional testing to assess
Mountainville Well site.
potential pumping related impacts on wells beyond 1,500 feet,
including the
Village of
Woodbury's wellfields (over 5,600 feet away and upgradient of the Mountainville site), is not
necessary.
As noted above, groundwater recharges to the stratified drift and glacial till aquifer underlying
the Mountainville parcel.
The recharge values for the 2. 08 square mile watershed area located
downgradient of the Trout Brook parcel and upgradient of the Mountainville parcel is 1.00 to
1.38 mgd, which far exceeds the yield of the Mountainville Well of 425 gpm (0.612 mgd).
This
demonstrates that the Mountainville Well is a self-sustaining well and, thus, would not impact
the recharge potential ofthe Village of Woodbury 's wellfields.
To further support the conclusions above, LBG completed additional analysis on the data
derived from the June, 2011 aquifer test.
effect ofpotential aquifer boundary conditions and determine if the distance drawdown effect
from the pumping of Well 1 would potentially affect the proposed Trout Brook Road wells. The
transmissivity (T) (38, 720 gpd/fi (gallons per day perfoot)) and the storage coefficient (S) (0. 38)
were calculated using drawdown versus time data in the test well during the aquifer test. The T
was derived using the Theis match point method (Theis, 1935).
corrected utilizing the corrections presented in Kruseman and DeRidder, 1990 so that the
solution is applicable for unconfined aquifers (See Appendix G).
The curve shown on the plot is a fitted type curve and the points represent the measured
drawdown in the well.
aquifer parameters
presented in the solution portion on the plot until there is a good match between the type curve
and the measured data (i.e., the aquifer parameters have been calculated). This process is
expedited with the aid of an aquifer parameter estimation program called AQTESOLVE
(Duffield, 2002). AQTESOLVE allows the user to use visual curve matching or an automated
method to minimize the difference between the type curve and the observed data.
In addition,
AQTESOLVE allows boundary effects (such as the stratified drift boundaries observed in the
study area) to be incorporated in to the analysis by automatically generating image wells to
simulated specified boundary conditions and locations.
5
The calculated T and S were used along with AQTESOLVE to develop the theoretical drawdown
versus distance plot for Well 1.
assuming PW-1 was pumping at a constant rate of 425 gpm for approximately 22 days.
As
stated above, data from the June 2011 aquifer test of Well 1 show that the water level in the well
had reached a near stabilized level after three days ofpumping. Twenty two (22) days was used
for the construction of the drawdown versus distance plot to be conservative.
The 22-day
timeframe was necessary because the analytical equation used to construct theoretical curve
does not simulate the effects of leakage, river and/or wetland recharges, which are the causes of
stabilization.
The drawdown versus distance plot shows that the Village of Woodbury well field is located
beyond the expected area of influence of Well 1 (2,980 feet) even if the stratified drift till
boundaries are incorporated into the analysis.
Well 1 was conservatively defined as the area of land in which the water table or potentiometric
surface was lowered by 0. 01 foot.
Furthermore, in response to the Town and Village of Woodbury's comments that LBG's standard
testing was somehow an inadequate basis alone for reaching the conclusion that there would be
no influence on wells as far away as the Trout Brook well, one need only consider the selfsustaining nature of the Mountainville Well site to further support this fact. As such, it is clear
that, as a self-sustaining well which is capable offully recharging without any impact on the
recharge potential of Woodbury's well fields, the Mountainville Well will have no impact on
Woodbury's yet undeveloped wells.
As noted in the Introduction and above, the Town and Village of Woodbury raised these very
same issues in their unsuccessful Article 78 challenge to Kiryas Joel's SEQRA review for this
application.
Based, in large part, on these very same data and analyses, Supreme Court
(Environmental Claims Part) granted Kiryas Joel's motion to dismiss that proceeding, finding
that the testing provided a rational basis for the SEQRA determination and that the Town and
Village of Woodbury's expert's opinion regarding recharge for the Trout Brook well was
ii.
Groundwater Quality
In response to comments regarding the potential for water quality impacts on neighboring wells
from the proposed groundwater withdrawals from Well 1, the following response is provided.
Historically, water-quality impacts rarely occur from groundwater supply withdrawals.
The
only instance in which potential pumping-related impacts would result in water-quality problems
6
bottom ofthe well and the disturbance may result in the circulation ofsediment in the discharged
water under pumping conditions. No significant water-level interference was observed in either
the on-site or offsite wells monitored during the 72-hour pumping test performed in strict
compliance with NYSDEC standards. Accordingly, the test and data support the conclusion that
no anticipated water-quality impacts are expected in neighboring wells in the region. In the
unlikely event any unanticipated impacts occur, Special Condition 14 of the draft permit will
require the Village to mitigate such impacts.
Finally, certain public comments claimed that there was well interference during the pump test.
These comments appear to have been misdirected. Review of the comments indicated that rather
than pertaining to the Mountainville Well Field site, these comments are related to potential
impacts to residential wells along Taylor Road.
referring to the Star Mountain Well Field also located on Taylor Road.
wells are nearly 2.1 miles away from the Mountainville site.
Mountain Well Field was withdrawn by the Village.
2.
Comments questioned the potential impacts of a 425 gpm inter-basin transfer removing water
from the Woodbury Creek Tributary watershed and its downstream Moodna Creek watershed.
More specifically, the comments related to the impact on stream flows in Woodbuiy Creek.
Other comments expressed concerns about impacts to the Ramapo River and questioned whether
the Village's Wastewater Treatment Plant and the County's Harriman Plant could handle
increased sewer flow alleged to be caused by the well.
b.
In response to comments by Chazen and others concerning impacts to Woodbury Creek, the
pumping test was conducted with strict adherence to the NYSDEC pumping test standards, which
are also designed to determine potential impacts to surface water features as discussed in
Responses A.l.a (impacts on aquifer) and A.l.b (impacts on neighboring wells, groundwater
availability, and groundwater quality).
Extensive hydrogeological testing in accordance with NYSDEC standards indicated that there is
no direct hydrologic connection with nearby surface water features, including no direct impact
on water levels in and below Woodbury Creek.
A 72-hour pumping test on the proposed well was completed in June 2011 in accordance with
NYCDEC pumping test standards (TOGS 3.2. 1, Appendix 10) to determine the viability and
production value of the proposed well site, and also to determine whether the well could be
developed without any undue impacts on the aquifer, other existing wells and surface waters in
the area. Please see Responses A.l.a. and A.l.b for discussion of the pumping test and its
compliance with NYSDEC standards in Appendix 10 to TOGS 3.2.1.
To measure surface water impact, water level measurements were collected from three
piezometer locations. Piezometers are regularly used during such tests to measure water levels
(see TOGS Section 10), and were installed near Well 1 for the pumping test to assess potential
surface water interconnection with the test well under pumping conditions.
Piezometers were
installed in an on-site intermittent stream, in an on-site wetland, and in and below Woodbury
Creek to the northwest ofthe parcel.
No water-level drawdown interference was discernible in the piezometers monitored during the
test period as a result of the pumping of Well 1.
hydrologic connection with nearby surface waterfeatures during the testing, including no impact
might exist where prolonged drawdown during times of extreme drought or other compromised
natural condition could result in potential indirect impact to the surface water resource.
It is
reasonably expected that under such conditions, mitigation or other conservation measures
could be required to minimize any such impacts. Such measures might include source reduction;
time limitations on withdrawals; and, in severe circumstances, complete closure of the well until
circumstances moderate. Such measures could reasonably be incorporated as conditions in the
permit. Moreover, it is also reasonable to implement a stream gauging program to continuously
monitor and record stream flows which would be useful for identifying any change to existing
In response to comments about wastewater, the quantity and quality of wastewater treatment
effluent discharged to New York watersheds is regulated by the State through State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permitting. Any additional wastewater generated
from the Village of Kiryas Joel will be treated at its own plant or at the County's Harriman
treatment plant and would be subject to each plant's respective permit limits. These limits serve
to reduce the impact on water quality based on the regulated uses ofa receiving water body. The
impact of wastewater effluent on area streams has been studied in the SPDES permit
applications for the development and expansion of the wastewater treatment plants to which
Kiryas Joel wastewater will be discharged. These limits are also regularly considered for the
needfor modification. No modifications to these permits are anticipated to directly result from
this project. Therefore, there are no additional significant adverse impacts anticipated from
(See Response A. 4,
Even before the most recent Harriman WWTP 2.0 mgd expansion, it was evident that there was
adequate capacity between the Village WWTP and the Harriman WWTP to accommodate the
potential increase in wastewater generated by the New York City aqueduct connection project.
Subsequent to the completion of the FEIS and Findings Statement for the pipeline project, on
March 9, 2005, NYSDEC approved a new groundwater well (Well #27) that increased the
Village's water supply (and corresponding potential wastewater production) by 135,000 gpd
(125 gpm @ 18 hrs/day). In addition, on August 17, 2005, NYSDEC approved another new
groundwater well for the Village (ttrell #28) with an output of 486,000 gallons per day. In total,
both approvals by NYSDEC represented an addition of 621,000 gpd of new water supply to the
Village. As a result of the addition of these two wells, the Village currently has approval to draw
in excess of 1.9 mgdfrom its existing wells, with a corresponding potential volume ofwastewater
generated. Despite such an increase in the Village 's water supply and corresponding waste
water generation potential, NYSDEC expressly determined in its approvals that this new water
supply would have no adverse impact on the Harriman WWTP or the Ramapo River. In response
to public comments regarding the potential impact of this additional water supply on growth,
wastewater and the Ramapo River, NYSDEC stated:
In regards to the concern about growth impacts, particularly upon the sewage treatment
capacity in the Ramapo River Basin, this Department carefully reviewed its files in
regards to the capacity of both the Village' Sewage Treatment Plant and Orange
County's Harriman Sewage Treatment Plant to treat this additional wastewater. We
determined that there is sufficient excess capacity to treat this additional water, without
adverse impacts on the Ramapo River.
In addition,
Orange County engaged Camp Dresser & McKee in 2006 to complete the
grant from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ("NYSERDA
Study"). The NYSERDA Study assessed the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost of implementing a
membrane bioreactor treatment system at the Harriman WWTP. The study concluded that
facility treatment capacity could be cost effectively increased by an additional 3.0 mgd, from 6.0
mgd to 9.0 mgd. Additionally, the study's results demonstrated that the anticipated discharge
permit standardsfor such an increase are readily achievable and technologicallyfeasible for the
Harriman WWTP and will also actually increase the quality of the effluent discharged to the
Ramapo River. The County has currently engaged another consultant to develop a final plan to
subsequent SPDES permit or amendment to the existing permit will include limits protective of
the receiving water body.
3.
Project Justification/Need
Comments questioned the need for additional water supply to the Village and whether the 601
factors justify it.
Please see the discussion ofthe 601 factors in the Introductory Memorandum.
4.
Comments questioned the assessment of NYSDEC Part 601 factors, especially considering the
interbasin transfer of water from the Lower Hudson Basin to the Ramapo Basin.
In response, 6 NYCRR Part 601 "Water Withdrawal Permitting, Reporting and Registration, "
subpart 601.18, requires that a diversion of water or wastewater over 1,000,000 gpd (gallons
per day) across New York State Major Drainage Basin watershed boundaries must be reported
to and approved by NYSDEC.
located in the Lower Hudson Basin of 425 gpm (gallons per minute) or 612,000 gpd to the
Ramapo River watershed does not exceed the threshold volume of 1,000,000 gpd. Accordingly,
the fact that the transfer is significantly below the regulatory threshold implies that it will not
result in a significant impact and is thus permissible. Please see the Introductory Memorandum
forfull discussion of the Part 601 factors.
The Ramapo watershed is afederally-designated, sole source aquifer. Thirty percent ofRockland
County and two million residents in New Jersey receive their drinking water from the Ramapo
Valley aquifer (source: DEIS Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2002). As such,
the residents and users of the watershed place high importance on preserving their water
resources, including preserving both the quality and quantity of water in the River. Toward this
end, Rockland County through the auspices ofRockland County Sewer District No. constructed a
new advanced wastewater treatment plant to return high quality effluent to the Ramapo River
basin in lieu of utilizing existing infrastructure that would result in an out of basin discharge to
the Hudson River. Moreover, Rockland County has publicly expressed encouragement for Kiryas
Joel's Aqueduct Connection Project as it will result in a positive inter-basin transfer of water
into the Ramapo watershed.
a.
less than 1 mgd, significantly below the NYSDEC threshold requiring NYSDEC approval in 6
NYCRR Part 601.18.
10
b.
The water withdrawn from Mountainville Well 1 in the Lower Hudson Basin will ultimately be
discharged into the Ramapo River Basin through either the Village of Kiryas Joel Wastewater
Treatment Plant or the Harriman Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Mountainville Well 1 will not cause either wastewater treatment plant to exceed their permitted
discharge capacity and, in fact, will ultimately increase the quantity of flow in the river;
consequently there will be no significant impacts to the Ramapo River.
5.
Water Conservation
a.
Water Conservation
A water conservation plan was included in the water supply permit application.
Please see
Appendix G.
b.
Drought Management
The Village 's consultant, LBG, has drafted and submittedfor comment an "Emergency Response
Plan" to the Orange County Department of Health.
management plan) is not yet approved, and LBG and the Village are presently engaged in
responding to comments provided by Orange County DOH. It is anticipated that this plan will
be in place by the time the Mountainville Well is activated.
6.
Comments inquired about assessment of water-dependent natural resources, including (a) aquatic
life, (b) flora, (c) fauna, and (d) recreational uses.
In response to comments from Chazen that wildlife, including trout, will be impacted by falling
water levels, the lack of demonstrable direct impact on Woodbury Creek demonstrated by the
Woodbury Creek will not be affected by the safe yield levels of withdrawal from the well.
Provisions for implementing a stream gauging program to continuously monitor and record
stream flows could readily be incorporated as a condition in the permit together with other
conservation measures during times of extreme drought or other compromised natural condition
that could result in potential indirect impact to the surface water resource.
Comments questioned whether the pipeline will pass over private property. Other comments
inquired whether the construction impacts for the wells will be similar to those from the pipeline
11
environmental upheaval from construction that would impact wildlife in the area, including fish
in Woodbury Creek. One comment expressed concern that construction would proceed without
permits, or in violation of state and local laws.
a.
i.
The Village owns the well property. The line connecting the Mountainville Well HI to the
Village 's transmission main will not pass over private property.
constructed and installed in the public right-of-way in both County and State highways that pass
directly in front of the well field parcel. Authorityfor location of the pipeline in the public rightof-way is found in NY Village Law Article 11, the New York City Administrative Code, and New
York Highway Law sections 52 and 136.
ii.
Construction impacts
The SEQRA negative declaration for the well project considered noise and construction impacts
from the wells, finding they will be limited due to the nature of the site and the relatively small
scale of actual construction on the site.
with only limited construction vehicles and negligible ongoing traffic from operation and
maintenance ofthe well andpump station. The onsite well construction will take place generally
during the daytime in an area of the site with limited visibility from the road.
private residences directly adjacent to the site.
There are no
project are beyond the scope of this permit application and have been extensively addressed in
the pipeline project DEIS, FE1S, andAFElS.
iii.
Permit Concerns
The Village will not commence construction of the Mountainville wells until all necessary
permits are secured. Indeed, the subject of the legislative hearing that yielded these comments
was the Village's application for such permits from the NYSDEC. The Village has proceeded
with construction of the main pipeline in accordance with all state and local laws, and will do so
when constructing the Mountainville wells and associated connecting pipeline.
8.
Comments raised concerns about the methodology of the pump test used by the Village's
consultant, the resulting safe yield determination, and potential sites or effects not monitored.
Comments also questioned the independence of the Village's consultant and asked for an
12
independent study. Comments also questioned whether the Village is understating its intended
withdrawal rate.
a.
None of the comments identified specific deficiencies in the pumping test as compared to the
State guidelines. In response to comments about the pumping test, Leggette, Brashears &
Graham, Inc. (LBG) completed a 72~hour pumping test on Well 1 located on the Village of
Kiryas Joel's Mountainville Pump Station Parcel on Route 32 in Cornwall, New York in June
2011.
The pumping test was conducted in strict accordance with the NYSDEC pumping test
standards.
The NYSDEC pumping test standards are designed to determine the safe yield of
proposed wells and potential impacts to neighboring wells and surface-water features.
The
pumping test methodology was confirmed by NYSDEC Division of Water in Albany. Based on the
application materials submitted, responses to agency comments and after numerous discussions
and meetings with NYSDEC water supply program staff from the Department's Albany
headquarters and Region 3, NYSDEC issued a Draft Permit (3-3340-00284/0001 ; WSA No.
11,609) on January 23, 2013.
concluded the test was conducted in accordance with NYSDEC pumping test standards.
b.
The 72-hour pumping test conducted by LBG included the demonstration of stabilized yield and
water-level drawdown in Well 1 for a minimum ofsix hours at the end of the test period.
Water-
level data were collected from onsite monitoring wells completed in the stratified drift aquifer.
Water-level measurements were collected from three piezometer locations, one in the onsite
intermittent stream, one in the onsite wetland and one in nearby Woodbury Creek.
Water-level
measurements were also collectedfrom offsite neighboring wells located within 2,000 feet of the
pumping well. Water-quality samples were collectedfrom the pumping well near the end of the
72-hour test period.
using the water-level data collected during the pumping test and aquifer parameters were
calculated. Other than disagreement with the outcome of the test, no comments identified any
specific deficiency in the actual test or testing protocols.
c.
No legitimate basis has been set forth for the need of an independent study other than what was
prepared by LBG.
LBG is one of the oldest firms in the country to provide consulting services in the specialized
field of Hydrogeology.
employees of the Groundwater Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS'). Early consulting
services focused on groundwater developmentfor public supply and industrial growth, as well as
13
mine dewatering. By the mid-1950's, prior to the existence ofmost environmental regulations in
place today, the firm had taken on itsfirst contamination projects.
For more than half a century, LBG has worked closely with public water suppliers and
authorities, private, industrial and commercial companies and government agencies to locate,
develop, monitor and protect groundwater resources, to investigate and remediate a variety of
soil and groundwater problems, and to address a wide range ofwater-related issues.
LBG also has extensive experience completing hydrogeologic investigations in Southeastern New
York State including large scale aquifer studies in Orange County.
standing water-supply experience provides it with a unique understanding of the value of water
resources, as well as the expertise clients need to manage those resources.
field
specializing
in
large-scale
groundwater
exploration,
groundwater
and regulatory approvals and permitting. His experience includes conducting groundwater
exploration and feasibility studies,
oversight responsibilities,
data evaluation,
reporting,
client/regulatory interaction and expert testimony. Mr. Cusack has successfully permitted over
30 mgd in the State ofNew York.
Likewise, NYSDEC technical staff responsible for review of the application materials is also
comprised of well-experienced engineers and hydrogeologists with expertise in reviewing such
materials.
study.
The withdrawal limits are not understated. The Village is requesting the taking of 425 gpm
(610,560 gpd). LBG evaluated the sustainable yield if additional wells were completed at the
Mountainville Well Field.
the taking of Well 1 to 425 gpm. Any action to increase the taking limits for the well field will
require an amendment to the water supply permit. (See Draft Permit Condition #3).
14
9.
Comments addressed the impacts of the well on other supplies and the potential of expanding the
need for other public infrastructure such as sewage treatment.
concern that the well would impact the Town of Cornwall's ability to manage its own water
resources and would infringe on its home rule authority. Several comments expressed concern
that the well would limit various communities' ability to grow and develop economically. Other
comments expressed concern that the well would impact other municipalities' wells that would
only begin producing after the Village's well was built.
a.
The primary aquifer that the Mountainville Well Field will tap into is a viable underutilized
water supply. The Village 's peak demand is 2.4 mgd, which occurs infrequently during any year.
The Village 's average daily demand in 2014 was 1.9 mgd. The Mountainville Well Field draft
permit limits the Village 's withdrawal to only 612,000 gpd, an amount sought to assist in
meeting the maximum peak demand. The Village is not seeking sustained, long-term withdrawal
of2.54 million gpd, but rather authorization to provide for such capacity when maximum peak
demand situations require it. The Village can meet its average demand with its existing wells.
There has been no identified community impactfrom use ofthe Village 's existing wells. In any
event, the Village intends to reduce the impact of its water demand on the aquifer by
constructing the pipeline and aqueduct connection. This will result in a positive impact on the
groundwater resource and the community.
In response to comments about impacts to other water supplies and related concerns, safe yield
testing demonstrated that the proposed well can yield 425 gpm without endangering other
supplies.
Mountainville Well is not based on the land area of the actual well site, but rather the indicated
municipal need,
In any event,
the
Mountainville Well is intended as a backup to surface water supplies that the Village will receive
Village plans to pump from the Mountainville Well when the primary supply from the Aqueduct
is unavailable.
With the addition of the Mountainville Well Field, the Village is not seeking to immediately begin
using 612,000 gpd more water than it presently uses, but rather to provide for its long-term need
as its population expands. Expanded sewage treatment capacity will be required as population
and water usage increase, as in any growing area, and as in other neighboring communities. As
with the description of the maximum peak demand described above, operation under the permit
will not lead to a significant immediate increase in wastewater corresponding to the 2.54 mgd
permit limit. The Village is working with Orange County and its neighboring communities to
15
develop long-term solutions for sewage treatment, including expansion of the Harriman Sewage
Treatment Plant in accordance with all local, state andfederal laws and regulations.
Although several comments raised concern that the MountainviUe Well would diminish the Town
of Cornwall's ability to manage its own water resources, the MountainviUe Well pump test
Water supply is a
State law provides for municipalities to acquire and expand water supplies,
subject to oversight and regulation by NYSDEC. The State water supply is not regulated by
or acquire a water supply based on need as does any other local community in New York State,
subject to regulations andpermit conditions. No community has a reserved right in the waters of
the State or exclusive use ofwater that mayflow under its municipal boundaries. No community
has the right to prevent others from taking a water supply even if being removed from that
community. Indeed, the New York courts have recently struck down a law passed by the Village
of Woodbury seeking to prevent withdrawals ofwaterfrom the Village on the grounds that State
law preempts the field of water supplies.
obligations to seek NYSDEC approval and permitting for the MountainviUe Well, and has
completed all required SEQRA review.
In response to comments that the Well would infringe on the Town of Cornwall's home rule
authority by allowing "annexation" of municipal property by the Village, the Village has not
sought to annex the MountainviUe property to the Village.
purchased this parcel, as is the right ofany municipality or private individual. Here, the Village
acquired the MountainviUe parcel to serve as the site for the midway pump station for the
Only after it acquired this parcel did it identify the site as having the potential for a
pipeline.
Village has sought NYSDEC approval to establish its well and take a water supply.
State law
preempts any local authority here with regard to water supplies. Therefore, there is no intrusion
into any local home rule authority or any other property right of the Town.
b.
i.
Several comments expressed concern that the MountainviUe Well will leave less water
available for the Town of Cornwall, Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson, and other communities,
potentially limiting their future development and growth and expansion of businesses such as
the Woodbury Commons Shopping Center. One comment noted that the Town of Cornwall
has
approximately
1000 acres
of undeveloped
land
zoned
residential,
and
that the
changing the
economics of developing them. A related comment stated that either NYSDEC or the Village
had
insufficiently examined the water needs from future potential build-out of West
As noted above in Responses A.J and A.8, the pump testing report in the Village 's water supply
permit application demonstrated that the Mountainville Well will have no significant impact on
nearby private and municipal wells. There has been no demonstration that any residential
development or business expansion would be limited by any water limitation related to the
Mountainville Well. Moreover, at the suggestion of NYSDEC, the Village previously withdrew
its application for an additional water supply at the Village's Star Mountain well field as this
additional supply was determined not to be needed at the current time. The Village has
examined all non-speculative potential impacts to the surrounding community in the course of
its SEQRA review of this project, a process in which NYSDEC participated and which was
upheld in court.
By contrast, the Village is seeking to develop this water supply to meet the
legitimate immediate needs of its residentsfor a safe and reliable water source.
ii.
Several comments stated that Mountainville Well will interfere with the Town of Cornwall's
long-term plans to substantially expand provision of municipal water using local resources
such as wells, and therefore the Mountainville Well would force the Town of Cornwall to
begin using Aqueduct water.
The applicant is unaware of any permit applications for specific wells or takings for these
speculative future uses. As noted above, no community has the authority to reserve a water
supply source without approval ofNYSDEC.
drill the Mountainville Well to address demonstrated, concrete present and future needs for
In response to comments about home rule, as discussed in Response A.9.a, above, the
provision of water resources is a matter ofState concern, subject to NYSDEC permitting and
regulation.
The Village's proposed Mountainville Well will not interfere with the Town of
Impacts on New Municipal Wells Put into Production after Village's Application
Complete
Comments stated that the Village of Woodbury already has a permit to use a well or wells in the
vicinity (the Trout Brook Road Wells). Other comments stated that the LBG report did not
consider these wells and that New York City DEP was unaware of them.
Finally, comments
expressed concerns that the Village of Woodbury and a private investor or developer have
invested substantial sums (approximately $1.2 million) and several years of effort in developing
the Trout Brook Road wells.
See Response A.l.a.
The
pumping test demonstrated that the Mountainville Well Field can safely yield 425 gpm without
compromising aquifer recharge or affecting nearby private or municipal wells.
17
The Village is
unaware of any water supply permit applications submitted in connection with any additional
future wells, and thus speculative impacts to these hypothetical wells cannot be considered in
evaluating the Village 's water supply permit application.
d. Economic Impact on Community
i.
Several comments expressed concerns that Town of Cornwall residents might have to pay for
a clean-up if there is an "accident" at the well pump. The Cornwall Chamber of Commerce
expressed concern about the economic development impacts to local businesses, farmers, and
recreation businesses that rely on creeks, streams and waterfalls. Several comments stated
that private wells would be harmed and landowners would lose property value because of no
water, which would, in turn, lower the tax base of the Town of Cornwall or other
municipalities.
A related comment expressed concern that the Village would not provide
The pump testing confirmed that the Mountainville Well could safely yield at 425 gpm
surrounding properties will lose water and therefore decrease in value. Speculative impacts
to unspecifiedfuture development are simply not within the scope of inquiry for this permit.
In the unlikely event that surrounding wells are impacted, Special Condition 14 ofthe permit
requires the Village to mitigate impacts to nearby residential wells, a condition that will be
enforced by NYSDEC under the permit and State law.
ii.
Several comments stated that the water the Village will get from the Mountainville Well has
great value, and that the Village should therefore write the Town of Cornwall a large check,
or that the Well would transfer wealth from Cornwall to the Kiryas Joel.
The Village is not selling water for profit, but seeking to provide for its own residents ' needs.
iii.
One comment expressed concern that allowing the Village to tap into New York City's water
supply would threaten the City's future economic viability as a financial center.
This comment is primarily aimed at the Village's connection to the Aqueduct, not the
Mountainville Well.
municipalities along its route to New York City, subject only to NYCDEP 's regulation of the
connection itself.
18
e.
Several comments noted the lack of local support for the project.
State law provides for connection to the New York City Aqueduct, and New York City DEP
municipalities of the State to obtain permits to secure a municipal water supply from the State 's
resource.
Certain local opposition to the Well is noted; however, the permit must be evaluated
demonstrated that the Well will not negatively impact this resource.
Comments expressed concerns about endangering the New York City water supply by
connecting to it.
Several comments also requested that the NYSDEC require the Village to
reduce the size of the pipe connecting from the well to the transmission pipeline.
a.
The water in the transmission main will be either from the New York City Aqueduct or the
Mountainville Well, not both at the same time. The connection with the pipeline will have check
valves and electric-actuated isolation valves. In addition, NYCDEP will require installation of a
head tank at the tap that will break the siphon between the Aqueduct and the pipe and prevent
backflow. Moreover, pursuant to the water supply agreement with NYCDEP, cross connections
will be strictly prohibited
states that water distribution systems are considered deficient if the head loss per 1, 000 feet of
pipe in pipes less than 16 inches is greater than 6 feet (per 1,000). At the well capacity of 425
gpm, the head loss per 1,000 in the 8-inch pipe is approximately 4 feet. The next standard size
smaller than an 8-inch pipe is a 6-inch pipe. The head loss per 1,000 in 6-inch pipe is
approximately 1 7feet, which is greater than the 6feet A WWA recommendation. Accordingly, the
proposed 8 inch line is appropriately sized per the standard engineering practices setforth in the
AWWA Manual.
19
11. Consistency with all Applicable Municipal* State and Federal Laws
No Municipal Approvals
Comments expressed concern that the project had not received land use approvals from the Town
of Cornwall or its Planning Board. Several comments noted that the Well will be drilled in land
formerly subdivided with limits on each lot for water withdrawals.
Local land use restrictions are aimed primarily at regulating on-site development, not limiting
water withdrawals by a NYSDEC-permitted well. As noted above, local governing boards are
not authorized to regulate water withdrawals from the State resource; such authority is vested
entirely with NYSDEC. Moreover, providing water supply is considered an essential government
function for the Village, and New York courts have held that a municipality is immune from the
land use authority of another municipality when performing such essential governmental
functions.
In addition, the Village is constructing the Mountainville pumping station and well
field pursuant to its authority under New York City Administrative Code section 24-360, which is
incorporated under State law, and which makes local municipalities within counties hosting the
New York City Aqueduct "authorized and empowered to lay the necessary mains, pipes, valves,
hydrants, supply pipes and other necessary appurtenances for the use ofsuch water, without the
consent of any board, officer, bureau, or department of the state or any subdivision thereof. "
Finally, as has been done with the pipeline construction within state and county right-of-ways,
where the Village has obtained and managed construction consistent with State and County work
permits, the Village will secure a building permit for the on-site construction to ensure
compliance with the technical standards ofthe State Building Code.
b.
i.
One comment expressed concern that New York City DEP approval had not been obtained
and thus the requirements of 6 NYCRR 60 1 . 1 0 (k) (8) have not been met.
NYCDEP 's approval is limited to the actual physical connection to the Aqueduct.
NYCDEP
has previously acknowledged the Village 's entitlement to connect to the Aqueduct and that it
has no approval authority with regard to the Mountainville Well Field. NYCDEP requires a
backup supply for municipalities seeking an Aqueduct connection, and has indicated that the
Mountainville
repeatedly acknowledged this fact in light of the misstated argument on the need for a City
permit to construct the pipeline, as well as the Village 's entitlement to an Aqueduct connection,
and these arguments have all been considered and rejected by State courts.
20
ii.
Several comments stated that the Village has not shown that the project is just and equitable
to all affected municipalities or that the Well is not a "reasonable use".
The Village is only seeking to fulfill its actual, indicated needs. The Village is not seeking the
Mountainville Well as a primary source of water, but instead only seeks to use it as an interim
supply while the pipeline construction continues and to ensure a backup supply once connected
when the Aqueduct is taken out of service. The doctrine of "reasonable use, " insofar as it
applies, only requires that one municipality not unfairly impair other municipalities' use of
shared resources. Pump testing ofthe well according to the NYSDEC guidelines demonstrated
no significant adverse impacts to the aquifer, surrounding wells, or water bodies from the safe
suggestion ofNYSDEC, the Village previously withdrew its application for an additional water
supply at the Village 's Star Mountain wellfield as this additional supply was determined not to
be needed at the current time. Thus, even operating at full safe yield, the Mountainville Well
will not impair other municipalities ' ability to use the aquifer. A more detailed summary of the
iii.
Several comments addressed compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 601, asserting that 601.8
would not allow consolidation of this permit with other of Kiryas Joel's permits because the
Mountainville Well would not be part of a water supply existing as of February 15, 2012.
The Village's water system existed prior to 2012, including various groundwater wells. The
Village is consolidating its water supply permits as a result of direction from NYSDEC
pursuant to the recently amended Part 601 regulations.
water supply permits into one, the Village is ensuring consistency across its water supply
inventory which will serve to better protect the public health, safety and welfare and the
environment and ensure the proper management of the State water resource.
Related
comments questioned whether NYSDEC could determine that this project is "environmentally
sound" under Part 601.
NYSDEC participated as an involved agency, which fully considered potential impacts to all
relevant areas of environmental concern.
The
challenged and upheld in State court. Accordingly, the Village's findings with regard to
potential environmental impacts are now complete and binding on the current permit review.
iv.
Comments expressed concern that wastewater impacts to the Ramapo River and decreased
water levels in Woodbury Creek would violate NYSDEC's anti-degradation policy in TOGS
1.3.9.
Wastewater impacts to the Ramapo River were extensively considered in Section 3 of the
Pipeline AFEIS and addressed in the Village's negative declaration for the well permit.
21
Wastewater from the Village is treated at Orange County 's Harriman Wastewater Treatment
Plant and at the Village 's own treatment facility, both of which ultimately discharge to the
Ramapo River. Bothfacilities are operated subject to NYSDEC permits, which insure that their
notes at page 2 that the SPDES permitting system, pursuant to which both treatment plants
operate, is the means for implementation of the anti-degradation policy.
Any consideration
with regard to the identified TOGS would be more properly considered as part of any
discharge permit for either of these facilities, not as a consideration for the Village 's water
supply permit.
Impacts to Woodbury Creek were assessed as part of the pump test, which
confirmed the lack of impacts from the Mountainville Well to the Creek at the safe yield level of
withdrawal.
c.
i.
Comments expressed concern that allowing the Village to build the wells conflicts with the
Orange County Water Plan.
The Orange County Water Plan specifically recognizes that Kiryas Joel will have a water
supply deficit in the next few years and anticipates that additional supplies will be needed.
The Water Plan also calls for conservation measures and requires meeting certain standards
specified in the 2010 New York State Smart Growth criteria.
Conservation
installation and replacement of water meters, a leak detection program, and the distribution
of water conservation kits. The resident per capita water consumption rate in the Village is
relatively low due to the Village's social practices, which do not include traditional high
demand uses such as outdoor swimming pools, lawn watering, and car washes. Ultimately,
through its connection to the Aqueduct, the Village will be reducing the competition between
surrounding Orange County communitiesfor water.
ii.
Safe yield analysis of the Mountainville Well was performed, which demonstrated no
predictions for the Moodna watershed, it is noteworthy that Mr. Urban-Mead has also
publicly stated that the Hudson Valley is poised to become the "Saudi Arabia ofwater, " with
22
d.
Several comments expressed concern that the Mountainville Wells would affect the Town of
Cornwall's ability to provide water needed for its own development and growth, as indicated in a
2002 water study.
The pump test indicated that the Mountainville Well will have no significant adverse impacts to
surrounding wells or water bodies.
are simply too speculative to justify denial of a permit that is sought to fulfill an actual, present
demonstrated need.
i.
Comments expressed concern that the Village will not comply with permit conditions
The NYSDEC water supply permit requires compliance with daily withdrawal limits, and
contains mechanisms for monitoring, record-keeping and enforcement by NYSDEC. As with all
of the Village 's existing water supply permits, the Village is required by law to comply with all
permit conditions and regulatory requirements in 6 NYCRR Part 601. No proof has been
presented to suggest that the Village has not reasonably complied with its existing water supply
permits. In response to comments questioning whether a larger pipe would allow the Village to
withdraw a greater volume than permitted, please see Response A.lO.b for explanation of the
pipe size.
ii.
Comments urged that NYSDEC should not permit the Village to connect its Well to the main
pipeline until the Village begins using Aqueduct water.
In addition to serving as a back-up resource when the Aqueduct is down for repair, the Well is
intended for immediate interim use to meet the Village's current maximum daily demand.
Using the pipeline to supply the Village with Mountainville water in the interim period will
2 See Scott Cuppett and Russell Urban-Mead, "Pludson Valley Water: Opportunities and
Challenges, " Center for Research Regional Education & Outreach, Discussion Brief U4 (Fall
2010), at 2,
available at http://www.newpaltz.edu/crreo/brief4_water_online_yersion.pdf
23
provide a benefit because it will not require construction of another parallel line or any other
disturbance or impacts.
iii.
Several comments asked what will happen to the gallons per day allowed after March 31,
2015.
The NYSDEC draft permit requires a redundant well at the Mountainville site within a
specified time period (based on anticipated completion of the primary well). This redundant
well will support the Village 's ability to meet the anticipated maximum daily demand with the
greatest producing well out of service (Well 1), but is not intended to be an additional
producing well. As discussed in the Introductory Memorandum, the draft permit excludes the
Mountainville Well 1 in the total permitted yield capacity of the Village based on the
redundancy requirement (best well out of service) of the regulatory agencies.
With the
Mountainville Well I volumes removed from the Village inventory, the Village is unable to
demonstrate adequate capacity to meet its maximum peak daily demand which occurs on a few
occasions during the year. Acknowledging the on-going effort by the Village to connect to the
NYC Aqueduct to accommodate this peak demand andfuture demands of the Village, NYSDEC
has provided a condition in the draft permit that would allow the Village to temporarily take up
to 2.54 mgd utilizing the Mountainville Well 1 provided the Village can establish another
redundant well at Mountainville or elsewhere within a reasonable time period.
This can be
accomplished at the Mountainville site, however, it must be noted that doing so will not
increase the net taking permitted from these wells.
Mountainville Well Field would require an amendment of the water supply permit in
accordance with Special Condition # 3.
f.
i.
Comments expressed concern over past compliance and enforcement issues related to the
Village's water supply.
The comments have not identified any administrative or judicial judgment finding the Village
in non-compliance with any of its water supply permits.
regarding other NYSDEC programs, any and all notices of violation have been addressed in
cooperation with NYSDEC. In accordance with the NYSDEC Record of Compliance Policy
(DEE- 16), none ofthese issues negatively reflect on the Village 's continued ability to manage
its water supply and comply with the terms of its permits. According to the terms of the water
supply permit, the Village will be required to comply with all permit limits and conditions
established by NYSDEC. NYSDEC will retain all of its enforcement authority to monitor this
compliance as it does with any other municipality with a State regulated water supply.
Nothing presented by the comments suggests any needfor different treatment here.
24
ii.
The increased diameter of the main pipeline from IB to 24 inches was raised in several
comments, which expressed concern over whether this was properly done.
This issue was comprehensively addressed in response to the legal challenge to the Village 's
SEQRA review for the well field. In its decision, the Court found that the Village had
presented and received State approval for a 24-inch pipeline, and that it had adequately
considered the same in its SEQRA review. (See Appendix I).
iii.
As discussed above, the pump testing indicated that no degradation of surrounding wells will
result from pumping the Mountainville Well at safe yield. The draft permit contains standard
conditions requiring that the Village, as permitee, address any degradation of neighboring
wells (see Special condition #14). This will be an ongoing responsibility of the Village as
long as it operates under the permit.
g.
Comments stated that NYCDEP approval was needed before NYSDEC could grant a permit.
NYCDEP approval is, in fact, neither a prerequisite nor a condition for approval of a State
water supply permit.
discretionary permit authority with respect to either the pipeline or the Mountainville Well.
Rather, NYCDEP is responsible for approval of the final engineering plans for the Aqueduct
connection and entering into a water supply agreement with the Village related to the terms and
costs of the withdrawal.
This issue too was fully addressed and dismissed in the litigation
pertaining to the Village 's SEQRA review for the Mountainville Well Field.
1.
Wastewater
a.
Sewer Capacity
Comments expressed concern about the capacity of the Harriman WWTP and the Village's
WWTP to treat the increased volume of sewage that would result from the well withdrawals.
The issue of adequate sewage treatment capacity to accommodate water withdrawn from the
Mountainville well field was adequately addressed in the Village 's SEQRA review and negative
25
declaration. The adequacy of that review was subject ofa legal challenge that was dismissed by
State court.
further permit proceedings and thus no further consideration of this issue is warranted or
appropriate.
Further, the issue of adequate sewage treatment capacity was also adequately
addressed within the Village 's SEQRA review for the pipeline project. Finally, Orange County
is currently undertaking a comprehensive planning exercise directed at expansion of the Sewer
District 's treatment capacity by as much as an additional 3 mgd. As such, the Village, whose
residents are District members, has a reasonable expectation that adequate sewer capacity exists
now and into the future to accommodate its projected water supply under this permit.
2.
Growth Inducement
Comments expressed concern that water from the well would spur additional growth of the
Village population.
Kiryas Joel's population increased 13.5 percent per year from 1980 to 1990. From 1990-2000,
however, the Village 's growth steadied at 5. 9 percent per year and has remained consistent at or
near this figure since. Current growth in Kiryas Joel is primarily internal and results from two
principal factors: large family size and young women remaining in the Village to have families
of their own. Both of these growth factors are responses to the obligations of Hasidic religious
practice. The presence or lack of essential services, such as sewage treatment capacity or
drinking water, has not affected population growth in Kiryas Joel one way or the other; growth
figures demonstrate that such growth has remained consistent. Therefore, it is anticipated that
the proposed well connection would not create significant impetus to spur new growth.
The
Village reviewed growth inducement for the 2 mgd pipeline in Appendix 9 to the Aqueduct
Connection Project AFEIS, commissioning a study by AKRF that concluded that resources such
as available water supply or sewage treatment capacity, whether more or less, would not affect
growth, which is internal and natural and thus consistent regardless of outside influences such
as these utilities. There is no new information that would lead one to believe that this water
supply permit will have any different effect.
3.
Aqueduct/Pipeline
Various comments were directed at SEQRA review of the main pipeline and its connection to the
New York City Aqueduct.
Comments directed at the SEQRA review completed for the Aqueduct pipeline project are
beyond the scope of this permit review. Construction of the pipeline is now underway and is
nearly 50% completed. Due to the proximity of the Mountainville well field to the pipeline, its
completion will provide an added benefit enabling the Village to utilize this pipeline to transport
26
an interim water supply and back up water supply to the Village without the need for further
construction.
4.
Various
comments
questioned
Mountainville well.
These included comments related to the sufficiency of the Environmental Assessment Form
Accordingly, no
1.
Comments expressed concern over the Village treatment plant's capacity for handling increased
flows. A related comment expressed concern over effluent flowing into the Ramapo River.
Issues related to adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity have been addressed in Responses
A.2.c, A.ll.b.iv, and B.l.a, above. Additionally, the Pipeline project Amended FEIS Section 3
addressed in great detail a number of wastewater issues relating to treatment of effluent and the
capacity of the Village and County's wastewater treatment plants to accommodate future
treatment demands after the completion of the pipeline and Aqueduct connection, as well as
potential impacts to the Ramapo River.
negative declaration for the Mountainville well field and presented to NYSDEC prior to its
has expressed support for the Village 's Aqueduct project since it will result in a net increase in
water to the Ramapo Basin.
has also examined the impacts of a "full build-out" scenario on available wastewater treatment
capacity and concluded that even under the most aggressive assumptions, the OCSDU1 has
sufficient capacity to meet current requirements with obligations to increase capacity when flows
reach 85%, thus ensuring OCSD #1 will have the capacity to meet its future demands. In
addition, plans are currently being studied for expansion of the Sewer Districts' treatment
capacity by an additional 3 mgd.
27
2.
Town of Cornwall and should not expand when there is ample housing stock reminiscent of
Brooklyn available in other communities.
Expansion of the Village is not an appropriate topic for consideration on this permit application
nor would it be appropriate for NYSDEC to consider or suggest where else future development
should occur or to utilize the State's water supply as a social engineering tool.
Further, with
respect to the Village 's entitlement to take a water supply from the NYC Aqueduct, State law
provides that local municipalities located within counties that are host to the NYC Aqueduct are
entitled by law to connect and take a water supply.
accessed by the Mountainville Well is a statewide resource for the benefit of all New York
residents, subject to State regulation and control. It does not belong exclusively to the Town of
Cornwall, the County of Orange, or any other local government. As referenced above, both the
Aqueduct pipeline and Mountainville well field SEQRA reviews adequately assessed the growth
inducing aspect ofthe Village 's water supply.
a.
Comments expressed concern over past instances of alleged non-compliance with permits by the
Village, stating that DEC should deny this permit on that basis.
In response, as addressed elsewhere in this response, the draft permit includes strict limits and
conditions and provides for NYSDEC oversight and enforcement of these requirements.
Instances of alleged non-compliance with other, unrelated permits are not appropriate factors
for consideration ofthe permit presently being considered.
3.
Climate change
Several comments expressed concern that SEQRA review did not adequately consider climate
change impacts, including comments by Chazen's engineer that the Moodna basin was becoming
drier as a result of a changing climate.
The adequacy of the Village 's compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of
SEQRA for the Mountainville Well has already been considered by State court which upheld the
Village's negative declaration on both substantive and procedural grounds.
Accordingly, no
a decrease in the fraction ofprecipitation falling as snow, which may lead to shifts in seasonal
28
stream flows.
likely occur with more heavy rainfall events and possible short-term (one- to three-month)
droughts.
Indeed, as noted in Response A.lO.c.ii, Mr. Urban-Meade has also publically opined on global
warming by promoting the notion that the convergence of robust rainfall, access to the Hudson
River and climate change predictions all position eastern New York as a future global "Saudi
Arabia ofwater, " thus seeming to contradict the underlying premise ofhis comments.
Please see detailed discussion ofPari 601 factors included in the Introductory Memorandum.
3 See Stephen Shaw, Rebecca Schneider, Andrew McDonald, Susan Riha, Lee Tyrhorn, Robin
Leichenko, Peter Vancurra, Allan Frei, and Burrell Montz, "ClimAID - Responding to Climate
Change in New York
29
EXHIBIT D
Mountainville Well No. 1 project proposed by the Village of Kiryas Joel. Written comments
i
were
hearing held in two sessions (afternoon & evening) on April 29, 2014 (1 07 written comments
evening session), A list of names of all who commented on the project is appended as
Attachment A. The Department intends to send a copy of this Response to Public Comments to
all who provided complete contact information with their comment on the Mountainville Well
No. I permit application.
No. 1 , Water Supply Application." Due to the length of the document, it is not reproduced
herein. Rather, an electronic copy (multiple pdf files) of the Village's stand-alone written
response to comments is available on the DEC website at:
http://www.dcc.nv. gov/permits/103519.html.
Numerous comments were received from the public on a variety of topics related, and unrelated,
io:
comments received, comments were grouped into broad categories according to topic or issue
raised. Comments from the public can be categorized as noted briefly below:
impacts to the aquifer, withdrawal limits
well as supplemental source vs. redundancy requirements
newyork
Department of
^ as?
enforcement
consistency with local, State & federal laws, permits, local & regional plans
documents. These documents demonstrate to the Department's satisfaction that the aquifer is
adequately productive and will safely yield the proposed Mountainville Well No. 1 withdrawal
amount (612,000 gpd) without interference impacts on sources of other users.
In certain instances, DEC staff are not in complete agreement with the Village's Response to
Public Comments and provide the clarifying information below on these topics. Beyond those
responses provided below on specific concerns raised by the public, DEC hereby accepts and
1 6, 201 5), as being adequately responsive to remaining issues or concerns not discussed in this
document.
Many of the public comments received by the Department were directed at issues which do not
pertain to the Mountainville Well Permit Application, or which provide comment on issues
beyond DECs jurisdiction under Part 601 Water Withdrawal Permit regulations. The Department
*
. * . *" ""
"
.
i
Application, including SEQR environmental review of the action, applicable Part 601
regulations, and DEC jurisdiction over the proposal
For certain comments on issues beyond the scope of the current Mountainviile Well Permit
Iv
opposition is not specified. In addition to the above, several requests to deny the permit were also
received. The Department's response to such requests for denial of the permit, and our final
decision on the Mountainviile Well Permit Application, is rendered below.
Comments which the Department does not respond to herein, either because these have been
determined irrelevant to the instant application or because these are adequately addressed in the
w,
Project Description
The Village of Kiryas Joel proposes to construct a new water supply well, Mountainviile Well
No. 1 , with 425 gallon per minute (612,000 gpd) capacity to supplement the Village of Kiryas
Joel potable water supply system. The project includes construction of approximately 620 linear
feet of new 8" diameter HDPE water main, 1 500 gallon storage tank, pump house, and
new
the well to its existing water supply infrastructure. The Mountainviile Well No. 1 permit will
also consolidate all prior Water Supply permit approvals issued to the Village into one
comprehensive permit and will increase approved water talcing from these three (3) existing
Village wells: Well No. 6 - increase to 250 gpm; Well No. 8A - increase to 160 gpm; and Well
No. 1 3 A - increase to 1 06 gpm. The total amount of permitted water withdrawal from all active
wells in the Village's water supply system is 1 .93 million gallons per day or MGD. The Village
also can temporarily withdraw 2.54 MGD to meet the Village's current maximum day demand.
Project Location
The new well, Mountainviile Well No.l, is located on the Mountainviile Pump Station Parcel on
NYS Route 32 in the Town of Cornwall, Orange County.
Notice of Complete Application was published in the NYS Environmental Notice Bulletin
(ENB) on February 20, 2013; the Notice of Complete Application was published by the applicant
in the News of the Highlands and Times Herald record on March 1, 2013. The Notice of Public
sessions on April 29, 201 3 in the Town of Cornwall to receive public comment on the proposal,
and that comments would be accepted until the close of the Hearing on April 29, 2013.
During the Notice of Complete Application comment period (closed March 8, 2013), a total of
43 written comments were received. During the Legislative Hearing (closed April 29, 2014), a
total of 107 written comments, and 118 oral comments, were received from the individuals,
effluent discharged to New York watersheds is regulated by the State through State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permitting. Any additional wastewater generated
from the Village of Kiryas Joel will be treated at its own wastewater treatment plant
( WWTF) or at Orange County's Harriman WWTP (OCSD#l) and would be subject to
each plant's respective permit effluent limits. These limits serve to reduce the impact on water
quality based on the regulated uses of a receiving water body. These limits are also regularly
considered for the need for modifications to the issued SPDBS permit. No modifications to these
current SPDES permits are anticipated to directly result from this project.
Impacts to Woodbury Creek were assessed as part of the pump test, which confirmed the
lack of impacts from the Mountainville Well to the Woodbury Creek at the safe yield level of
withdrawal. In order to address concerns about potential impacts, and due to its proximity to the
Mountainville Well,
Village to perform monitoring of nearby Woodbury Creek during the pumping of the
Mountainville Well. Per Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) provisions 6 NYCRJR 621.13, DEC may
initiate certain permitting actions, including modification, suspension or revocation of the permit,
should such monitoring reveal adverse impacts to Woodbury Creek which cannot be mitigated or
reduced through conservation or other measures.
demand on the aquifer by construction of the aqueduct connection and to use Mountainville
Well when Catskill Aqueduct is not in service, this proposal is not considered during DEC'S
demand. The Village is not seeking to immediately begin using 612,000 gpd more water in an
average basis than it presently uses with the addition of Mountainvilie Well No.l. Rather, the
well will facilitate the Village's ability to meet the maximum day demand, as well as to provide
Although several comments raised concern that the Mountainvilie Well would diminish the
Town of Cornwall's ability to manage its own water resources, the Mountainvilie Well
pump test indicated it would have no effect on the Town of Cornwall's water supplies. In
response to comments that the well would infringe on the Town of Cornwall's home rule
authority by allowing "annexation" of municipal property by the Village, it is the
Department's understanding that the Village has not sought to annex the
Mountainvilie properly to the Village, Rather, the Village purchased the Mountainvilie
Well parcel. In this instance, DEC understands that the Village acquired the Mountainvilie
Well parcel initially to serve as the site for the midway pump station for the NYC
Comments expressed concern about the capacity of the Harriman WWTP and the Village's
WWTP to treat the increased volume of sewage that would result from the well withdrawals. A
related comment expressed concern over effluent flowing into the Ramapo River.
As noted above, adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity and potential impacts to the Ramapo
River are addressed under the Department's SPDES permitting process. Kiryas Joel has a WWTP
with specific capacity and Orange County Sewer District#! (Harriman) has a WWTP with
specific capacity for discharges from its Sewer District users, which include the Village of
Kiryas Joel, as well as out of District users. Increased flow and the impact on the receiving water
will be addressed by the vSPDES permitting process if a SPDES permit modification is needed
for either of these WWTPs. Comments concerning effluent limitations and wastewater treatment
plant expansion due to the pipeline connection project are not relevant to this water withdrawal
application.
In addition, the Village, acting as SEQR lead agency, concluded its environmental review and
adopted a Negative Declaration for the Mountainvilie Well No. 1 on December 4, 2012. The
Village asserts in its Response to Public Comments that adequacy of that review was the
subject of a legal challenge that was dismissed by State court. Also as discussed in the
treatment capacity was addressed within the Village's SEQRA review for the pipeline
project.
Enforcement
Comments expressed concern that wastewater impacts to the Ramapo River and decreased
water levels in Woodbury Creek would violate NYSDEC's anti-degradation policy in TOGS
1 .3.9. See also above response regarding impacts to surface waters.
Wastewater impacts to the Ramapo River were extensively considered in Section 3 of the
Pipeline AFE1S noted above and addressed in the Village's negative declaration for the
proposed Mountainville Well action. Also as noted above, wastewater from the Village is
treated at Orange County's Harriman WWTP (OCSD#l) and at the Village's own
treatment facility, both of which ultimately discharge to the Ramapo River. Both facilities are
subject to NYSDEC SPDES permits -which address their impacts to the Ramapo River. The
NYSDEC anti-degradation policy is implemented through the SPDES permitting process.
Therefore, any consideration with regard to anti-degradation would be addressed as part of the
SPDES permit for either of these two facilities, not as a consideration for the Mountainville Well
Permit Application. As indicated above, impacts to Woodbury Creek were assessed as part of
the pump test, which confirmed the lack of impacts from the Mountainville Well to the
Woodbury Creek at the safe yield level of withdrawal. Several comments were recei ved which
Village has reasonably complied with existing permit conditions", we note that the Village has
not met maximum daily demand on occasion and was issued a Notice of Violation. The Village
has submitted the Mountainville Well Permit Application in order to meet its maximum day
water demand.
Several commentors indicated that the Village's intended use of the Mountainville Well No. 1 , as
either a primary source of supply or redundant source of supply (i.e., "backup supply"), was not
made clear. However, DECs review of the submitted application reveals no such contradiction,
initial and subsequent application materials submitted to DEC clearly indicate that Mountainville
Well No. 1 was intended as an additional source of supply to "meet the future water demand
requirements of the Village" (page 2 of Joint Application for Permit form dated 1 1/15/1 1 and
I The Kiryas Joel Board of Trustees issued Positive Declaration for the NYC Catskill Aqueduct Connection
project 8/6/02; the DEIS was deemed Complete 10/7/03; the Village Board of Trustees accepted the FEIS
5/4/04; Findings Statement was adopted 7/8/04; an Amended FE1S was deemed Complete 3/3/09; an
Amended Findings Statement in support of the project was adopted 3/3 1/09.
received 1 1/21/1 1). The Negative Declaration for the project (dated 12/4/12), indicates that the
and will assure an adequate backup supply as required for. the Village's CatskiU Aqueduct
Connection." [The CatskiU Aqueduct Connection project, over which the Department has no
jurisdiction, is a separate Village sponsored project to construct a 13+mile long pipeline to
connect the Village's water supply system to the NYC CatskiU Aqueduct] Water supply
regulations [see New York State Department of Health regulation, Title 10, Subpart 5-1 Public
Water Supplies, Appendix 5A, Recommended Standards for Water Works] require that all public
water supply systems be able to meet their maximum daily demand with the system's largest
Adequacy of Pump Test & Hydrogeological Studies, Need for Independent Review
The Department has no reason to doubt that the pumping test for the Mountainvilie Well No. 1
was conducted and reported in a scientifically rigorous manner which reflects die physical reality
of groundwater availability at this site. Nor do we doubt the validity of the report's conclusions.
The Village's Response to Public Comments is reasonable and complete on this subject.
Climate Change & Sustainability
insignificant emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during the construction phase of 'the project.
However, DEC has no regulatory authority over motor vehicles or mobile construction
equipment. Rather, vehicles and mobile construction equipment are regulated by theNYS
Division of Motors Vehicles (DMV) and must meet applicable requirements of NYS traffic law,
including routine inspections of exhaust and emission control systems. Regardless, the
construction phase will be temporary, and once complete, construction equipment emissions will
cease.
Although DEC has a policy which requires consideration of climate change in review of projects
programs, as appropriate], it is not clear how the construction and operation of the proposed well
October 2, 2015
Page 8
______
(i.e.,
atmosphere. Therefore, no climate change impacts are anticipated from the proposed action.
Further, the Village has indicated that the Mountainville Well was intended to provide additional
contains an enforceable limit on the approved water taking amount of 612,000 gallons per day
yield and proposed pumping rate of the Mountainville Well is sustainable over time as the
aquifer drawdown rate is more than compensated for by the aquifer recharge rate.
Upland impacts
Construction of the well, various appurtenances, and 8" diameter water line will be temporary.
Upon completion of construction, ground disturbance will be backfilled and revegetated. As
ground disturbance resulting from construction activities will be filled and revegetated, no
*
+T;.
be affected. In order to address concerns about potential impacts, and due to its proximity to the
Mountainville Well, the WW? permit contains an enforceable permit condition which requires
the Village to perform monitoring of nearby Woodbury Creek during the pumping of the
Mountainville Well, and to take specified actions if certain parameters are met, Finally, per
Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) provisions 6 NYCRR 62 1 . 1 3, DEC may initiate certain
permitting actions, including modification, suspension or revocation of the permit, should such
monitoring reveal adverse impacts to Woodbury Creek which cannot be mitigated or reduced
through conservation or other measures.
SEQR
SEQR Review Process The Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel circulated
for lead agency for this Type 1 action November 9, 2012. DEC consented in writing to the
Village's assumption of lead agency status on November 21, 2012. On December 4,
2012, the Village Board of Trustees adopted and circulated a Negative Declaration for the
project (received by the Department December 13, 2012). NYSDEC, as an involved
agency, is bound by the SEQR determination made by the lead agency, the Board of
Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel. Provisions of the State Environmental Quality
Page 9
review
was concluded.
Induced Growth The Village of Kiryas Joel provides an adequate response in their
Response to Public Comments.
circulated for lead agency for this Type I action November 9, 201 2. Following the lead
agency circulation and assumption of lead agency status, the Board of Trustees adopted
and circulated a Negative Declaration for the project December 4, 2012. Provisions of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been satisfied
and environmental review was concluded. Further, it remains the Department's intention
to consolidate all prior water supply approvals issued to the Village into one
comprehensive Water Withdrawal Permit with issuance of the requested WWP for the
Mountainville Well. No. 1.
confused the two separate locations in their comments made on the application: the
Taylor Road wells are located approximately two miles north of the Mountainville Well
parcel,] The Village made application for Water Supply permit on December 1 0. 2009,
but subsequently withdrew this application on August 2, 2012. In addition, the Village
also seeks to increase production from existing wells at its Brenner well site in the Town
of Monroe, Orange County. The Village has presented evidence of its search for
alternative sources of supply.
that the environmental review of this Type I action was concluded, as the Village of
Kiryas Joel Board of Trustees, as lead agency, issued a Negative Declaration on
December 4, 20 1 2, which is binding on all involved agencies.
water withdrawal [for further discussion, see the Village's Response to Public Comments,
Introductory Memorandum, Section II, Project justification - 6 NYCRR Part 601]. We have
therefore issued a Water Withdrawal Permit (DEC No. 3-3399-00065/00001) to the Village of
Kiryas Joel for the Mountainville Well No. 1 project. The WWP permit (pdf file) is available on
the DEC website noted above.
Finally, we thank all who commented on the project for your concern in protecting the natural
environment and resources of New York State.
wmn
::
vV:
";
'-
r.
...
..
.A'y
V
...
:y y :
%
i.
Vv;-vyV-
V
...'
: ::
; .
' '
I;:
'
y-
:
..
:
/
" '
;V.
Drawdown-Distance Projection from Data Collected During 72-Hour Pumping Test of Well 1
Completed June 7, Through June 10, 201 1
0
I
20
40
8
;
"d
60
|
I
80
100
10
100
Distance (Feet)
K:\JobsYVillage of Kiiyas Joel\Mountaiiiviile Estates Parce\HydrographsVDistance DrawdowrfiKJM-DistanceDrawdcwn.grf
INC.