exit 122 app r cover - dot.ny.gov

REGION 8 POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX R WATER QUALITY STUDY NYS ROUTE 17 AT EXIT 122 TOWN OF WALLKILL ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK P.I.N. 8006.72 May 2007

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ELIOT SPITZER, Governor ASTRID C. GLYNN., Commissioner

WATER QUALITY STUDY REPORT

APPENDIX R

NYS Route 17 at Exit 122 Town of Wallkill Orange County

PIN 8006.72

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

REGION 8

PREPARED BY:

200 Federal Plaza

28 East Main Street Rochester, NY 14614

May 2007

New York State Route 17 at Exit 122 May 2007 PIN 8006.72

NYS Route 17at Exit 122: Water Quality Study Report Page i

Appendix R Water Quality Study Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number COVER TITLE SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 2

3. EXISTING DRAINAGE BASINS ........................................................................... 3

4. EXISTING BIOTIC QUALITY................................................................................ 3 5. EXISTING CHEMICAL QUALITY ......................................................................... 5 6. INCREASED LANE-MILES OF ROADWAY AND IMPERVIOUS AREA .............. 8 7. EFFECTS DE-ICING CHEMICALS ON WATER QUALITY.................................. 7 8. HIGHWAY RUNOFF AND POLLUTANT LOADING ANALYSIS ........................ 12 9. SPDES GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND CONCEPTS.................... 13 10. ACCIDENTAL SPILLS DURING CONSTRUCTION........................................... 15 11. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ................................................... 15 12. PRESERVATION OF RIPARIAN BUFFERS...................................................... 20 13. PERMITS / APPROVALS................................................................................... 22 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 23


NYS Route 17at Exit 122: Water Quality Study Report Page ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Wallkill River Biotic Quality ......................................... 5 Table 2.1 Water Quality Results – Wallkill River at Middletown ...................... 7 Table 2.2 Water Quality Results – Wallkill River near Phillipsburg ................. 7 Table 2.3 Water Quality Results – Wallkill River near Unionville .................... 8 Table 2.4 Water Quality Results – Wallkill River at Gardiner .......................... 8 Table 3 Summary of Roadway Lane Miles and Impervious Area................. 9 Table 4 Summary of Toler Chloride Concentrations .................................. 10 Table 5 Annual Pollutant Loading Summary .............................................. 12 Table 6 Description of Soil Types Within the Project Area......................... 16 Table 7 Recommended Widths of Buffer Zones and Corridors for Water

Quality Considerations .................................................................. 21

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location .............................................................................. 1 Figure 2 NYSDEC Sample Locations............................................................ 4 Figure 3 USGS Gauging Stations ................................................................. 6 Figure 4 Project Area Drainage Boundary for Toler Method Calculation..... 11 Figure 5 Project Area Soils Locations ......................................................... 18

ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Toler Method – Chloride Concentration Calculations Attachment B “ Simple Method” – Pollutant Loading Calculations


NYS Route 17 at Exit 122: Water Quality Study Report Page 1

1. Introduction The proposed project, shown in Figure 1, is located in the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, New York, and involves the reconstruction and realignment of NYS Route 17 at the Exit 122 interchange. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is planning to improve the safety and operation of NYS Route 17 at the Exit 122 interchange. Figure 1 – Project Location

Recent Federal legislation has designated NYS Route 17 as the future Interstate 86 (I-86) highway. This project will incorporate necessary improvements required to bring this section of NYS Route 17 and Exit 122 up to interstate standards.



NYS Route 17 serves as the primary east-west highway corridor across southern New York State. The project area covered in the water quality study includes 2.02 km (1.26 mi.) of NYS Route 17 beginning east of Exit 121 (I-84), continuing through Exit 122 (Crystal Run Road), and terminates 1000m (3,300 ft.) east of the Wallkill River. Included in the project area is 0.6 km (0.4 mi.) of East Main Street to the south side of the Exit 122 interchange, and 1.3 km (0.8 mi.) of Crystal Run Road to the north side of Exit 122. Within the project area, NYS Route 17 crosses Phillipsburgh Creek and the Wallkill River, and East Main Street crosses Phillipsburgh Creek. 2. Project Description The No Build and four Build Alternatives were developed for this project. The Build Alternatives are described below:

Alternative 2C: Loop Ramp Interchange and East Main Street Extension: Provides an interchange ramp configuration with loop and diagonal ramps connected to an extension of East Main Street. East Main Street would be extended north, intersecting Crystal Run Road at Ballard Road. Crystal Run Road would be realigned and intersect East Main Street on the north side of the new Exit 122 interchange. The East Main Street bridge over NYS Route 17 would be replaced. Interchange ramps would be provided between Exits 122 and 121 to eliminate the weaving maneuvers from mainline NYS Route 17. Alternative 2C Modified: Loop Ramp Interchange and East Main Street Extension without Crystal Run Road connection: Alternative 2C Modified is similar to Alternative 2C in that it provides the same interchange ramp configuration with loop and diagonal ramps connected to an extension of East Main Street. The East Main Street bridge over NYS Route 17 would be replaced and interchange ramps would be provided between Exits 122 and 121 to eliminate the weaving maneuvers from mainline NYS Route 17, the same as for Alternative 2C. The difference in this alternative is that Crystal Run Road is not extended to meet East Main Street. Crystal Run Road would be terminated and a cul-de-sac provided at the westerly end. East Main Street would be extended up to the intersection with Crystal Run Road and Ballard Road. The intersection would be widened to accommodate the increased traffic at that location. Alternative 2C(1): Loop Ramp Interchange with Signalized Intersections: This alternative would eliminate the extension of East Main Street up to Ballard Road. Under this alternative, East Main Street and the Exit 122 ramp configuration to the south of NYS Route 17 would essentially be the same as Alternative 2C. North of NYS Route 17, instead of extending East Main Street to Ballard Road, Crystal Run Road would be realigned to connect to East Main Street. Alternative 2C(2): Loop Ramp Interchange with Roundabouts: This alternative was developed by expanding on the Alternative 2C(1) concept while utilizing roundabouts at the major roadway intersections. The Exit 122 ramp



configurations where they meet NYS Route 17 to the south of the interchange would essentially be the same as Alternate 2C(1); however the intersection of the ramps with East Main Street would be realigned to accommodate a modern roundabout. To the north of the Exit 122 interchange, the exit and entrance ramp configurations would essentially be the same as Alternate 2C(1); however the ramp intersections and Crystal Run Crossing intersection would be combined into a single modern roundabout. Alternative 2E: Loop-Diamond Ramp Interchange: This alternative would have an unsymmetrical ramp configuration for Exit 122 with new on- and off-ramps that would intersect the realigned Crystal Run Road. A large loop ramp would serve NYS Route 17 westbound traffic. For Crystal Run Road southbound traffic to enter onto NYS Route 17 eastbound and westbound, double left turn lanes would be required. A pair of diamond ramps would serve eastbound traffic. 3. Existing Drainage Basins The project area lies within the Wallkill River watershed and includes two major surface water bodies; the Wallkill River and a tributary identified as Phillipsburg Creek. A small, intermittent unlisted stream was identified through field observations. The intermittent stream is located northeast of NYS Route 17, and south of Crystal Run Road. The channel appears to flow generally southwest and then branches into two reaches. A portion of the intermittent stream continues southeast, contributing to the wetland communities, and eventually draining to the Wallkill River. The Wallkill River flows along the eastern limits of the study area and drains into the Hudson River at Kingston, NY. A stretch of the Wallkill River starting at the NYS Route 17 bridges and extending downstream to the Montgomery Airport (approximately 11 km (6.8 mi)) is listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI). Phillipsburg Creek flows southeasterly through the project area and is approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) in length. Phillipsburg Creek discharges into the Wallkill River approximately 70 m (230 ft) north of the Midway Road Bridge. The Wallkill River is a Class B river while Phillipsburg Creek is a Class C(t) stream. These are the only New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) classified waterbodies in the project area. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) New York District, the Wallkill River is not a navigable river. However, the Wallkill River is designated as a navigable river by the NYSDEC under the New York State Protection of Waters Program (6NYCRR 608). Most of the highway surface stormwater runoff within the project limits currently drains into either Phillipsburg Creek or the Wallkill River. 4. Existing Biotic Quality Macroinvertebrate communities were sampled in 1994 by the NYSDEC Stream Biomonitoring Unit to determine water quality conditions within the Wallkill River (Bode



et al., 1995). Macroinvertebrates can be defined as stream insect larvae and are good environmental indicators of stream health and water quality. Water quality assessments were based on resident macroinvertebrates such as aquatic insects, worms, mollusks and crustaceans to name a few. Sample locations included STA 4 located in New Hampton at the Echo Lake Rd. Bridge, 75 km (46.6 miles) from the mouth of the Wallkill River (3.6 km or 2.25 river miles upstream of the project area) and STA 5 located in Crystal Run, approximately 100 m (328 ft) above the Scotchtown Rd. Bridge, 68 km (42.2 miles) from the mouth of the Wallkill River (2.4 km or 1.5 river miles downstream of the project area). See Figure 2 for the sample locations.

Figure 2 – NYSDEC Sample Locations



Community parameters used in the determination of water quality included species richness, biotic index, EPT value (denotes the total number of species of mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera) found in an average 100-organism subsample), and percent model affinity (Bode et al., 1995). Table 1 summarizes the biotic richness of the resident macroinvertebrate communities in the Wallkill River.

Table 1 - Summary of Wallkill River Biotic Quality

Site Location Community Parameter

Value (degree of impact)

Species Richness

20 (slightly impacted)

Biotic Index 5.90 (slightly impacted) EPT Richness 4 (moderately impacted) Model Affinity 50 (slightly impacted)

STA4- 3.6 km (2.25 river miles) upstream of project area

Assessment Slightly impacted Species Richness

25 (slightly impacted)

Biotic Index 5.79 (slightly impacted) EPT Richness 6 (slightly impacted) Model Affinity 59 (slightly impacted)

STA5- 2.4 km (1.5 river miles) downstream of project area

Assessment Slightly impacted Source: Wallkill River Biological Assessment Report, Bode et al., 1995. Macroinvertebrate community conditions in the Wallkill River were reported to be slightly impacted due to nonpoint agricultural inputs from row crops and/or livestock, municipal/industrial discharges, and siltation (Bode et al., 1995). A rating of slightly impacted reflects good water quality. The macroinvertebrate community is slightly but significantly altered from the pristine state. Species richness usually is 19-26. Mayflies and stoneflies may be restricted with EPT values of 6-10. The biotic index value is 4.51 - 6.50. Percent model affinity is 50 – 64. Water quality is usually not limiting to fish survival but may be limiting to fish propagation. 5. Existing Chemical Quality Recent water quality reports have concluded chemical quality conditions within the Wallkill River are stressed due to known pollutants such as silt/sedimentation, nutrients, and pesticides from known sources such as agriculture and urban runoff (DEC, 2000; Litten, 2003). The water quality of the Wallkill River is of concern, and the researching of any available background water quality conditions is important to the evaluation of water quality impacts of the build alternatives. Therefore, all data and sources were searched to obtain all available information related to the water quality of the Wallkill River in the project area. Although the data obtained nearest to the project area is relatively old, the information obtained illustrates the changes in water quality in the



Wallkill River over time. Figure 3 shows the approximate locations of the USGS Water Quality gauging stations in relation to the project area. Tables 2.1 through Table 2.4 summarize water quality in the Wallkill River from various USGS sample sites located along the river. Fish consumption and other recreational activities (swimming, fishing, etc.) as well as aesthetics of the Wallkill River are influenced by these pollutants. Figure 3 - USGS Gauging Stations



Table 2.1 - Water Quality Results - Wallkill River at Middletown (USGS 01370306)

Constituent Date Units Result Standard1 Temperature 9/1986 Celsius 18.9 No Standard Conductivity 9/1986 µS/Cm 500 No Standard

Dissolved Oxygen

9/1986 mg/L 6.4 Non-trout, never <4.0, daily avg 5.0

pH 9/1986 Standard units 7.5 6.5-8.5 Chloride 9/1986 mg/L 49.0 250

Lead 9/1986 µg/L 5.0 * Zinc 9/1986 µg/L 20.0 30

Source: http://ny.usgs.gov 1NYS Water Classifications and Quality Standards, 1998. *The standard for lead is indicative upon the water hardness at the time the sample was taken. Table 2.2 - Water Quality Results - Wallkill River near Phillipsburg

(USGS 0137055) Constituent Date Units Result Standard1 Temperature 3/1964 Celsius 6.5 No Standard Conductivity 3/1964 µS/Cm 279 No Standard

pH 3/1964 Standard units 8.0 Non-trout, never <4.0, daily avg 5.0

Turbidity 3/1964 NTU 0.5 “No increase that will cause a substantial visible

contrast to natural conditions”

Chloride 3/1964 mg/L 1.2 250 Nitrate 3/1964 mg/L 2.5 10

Source: http://ny.usgs.gov 1NYS Water Classifications and Quality Standards, 1998.



Table 2.3 - Water Quality Results - Wallkill River near Unionville (USGS 01368000)

Constituent Date Units Result Standard1 2/2003 0.1 Temperature 5/2003

Celsius 15.8

No Standard

2/2003 529 Conductivity 5/2003

µS/Cm 506

No Standard

2/2003 13.1 Dissolved Oxygen 5/2003

mg/L 9.2

Non-trout, never <4.0, daily avg 5.0

2/2003 7.7 pH 5/2003

Standard units 7.6

6.5-8.5

2/2003 8.5 Turbidity 2/2003

NTU 11

“No increase that will cause a substantial visible

contrast to natural conditions”

Chloride 2/2003 mg/L 76.5 250 Lead 8/2002 µg/L 1.0 ** Zinc 8/2002 µg/L 9.0 30

Source: http://ny.usgs.gov 1NYS Water Classifications and Quality Standards, 1998. **The standard for lead is indicative upon the water hardness at the time the sample was taken.

Table 2.4 - Water Quality Results - Wallkill River at Gardiner (USGS 01371500) Constituent Date Units Result Standard1 Temperature 10/1996 Celsius 12.2 No Standard Conductivity 6/1997 µS/Cm 44.1 No Standard

Dissolved Oxygen

7/1996 mg/L 8.6 Non-trout, never <4.0, daily avg 5.0

pH 6/1997 Standard units 8.6 6.5-8.5 Chloride 2/2003 mg/L 76.5 250

Lead -- µg/L -- ** Zinc -- µg/L -- 30

Source: http://ny.usgs.gov 1NYS Water Classifications and Quality Standards, 1998. **The standard for lead is indicative upon the water hardness at the time the sample was taken. 6. Increased Lane-Miles of Roadway and Impervious Area Construction activities of the Build Alternatives will increase the number of lane-miles of roadways and increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the project area. These two independent variables are used in subsequent sections to determine water quality impacts on a macro analysis level for differentiating the magnitude of impact per alternative. A detailed analysis during final project design will incorporate side slope disturbances and other highway related factors. The existing and proposed number of lane-miles and impervious roadway surface area values were calculated in Microstation CADD within the general project area shown in Figure 4. Table 3 provides a summary of the increased lane-miles of roadway and impervious area for the build alternatives.



Table 3 - Summary of Roadway Lane Miles and Impervious Area Existing Alternative

2C Alternative 2(C) MOD

Alternative 2C(1)

Alternative 2C(2)

Alternative 2E

Lane-Miles (miles)

9.27 14.93 13.95 13.12 13.13 12.32

Percent Increase in Lane Miles

-- 61% 51% 42% 42% 33%

Net Impervious Area (m2)

60,840 128,226 129,719 108,113 122,447 104,372

Percent Increase in Impervious Area

-- 111% 113% 78% 101% 72%

7. Effects of De-Icing Chemicals on Water Quality Sodium and calcium chloride salts are used to maintain safe travel conditions during winter months. These de-icing salts reach surface water in the form of highway runoff and can affect the overall water quality of the drainage basin into which they drain. The Toler Method is a predictive methodology that can be used to determine potential chloride concentrations in surface water from existing and anticipated salt applications on adjacent roadways (Toler, 1973). It was assumed that all the applied salt is diluted by the runoff generated, and all salt enters the waterbody under consideration, the Wallkill River. The method requires, as input, the following variables: T= Tons of salt per lane-mile, applied, per year M= Number of lane miles P= Annual Precipitation = 42 inches I= Inches of surface runoff, per year = (runoff coefficient) x P A= Drainage area, in square miles K= Conversion factor to yield Chloride concentration in mg/L = 8.37 The deicing compounds and their application rates, are dependent upon the practices of agencies responsible for operations of the various roadways in the project area. The NYSDOT, New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA), and the Orange County Department of Public Works (OCDPW) were contacted to determine this information. The NYSDOT applies rock salt to NYS Route 17 at a rate of 27 tons per lane-mile per year (Schick, June 2005). It was assumed that NYSTA, who deices the Exit 121 entrance and exit ramps to I-84, applies rock salt at a similar rate. The OCDPW applies approximately half the tonnage of material as NYSDOT and NYSTA, and uses a 75%/25% rock salt/sand mix (Casino, June 2005). The OCDPW rock salt application rate is therefore 10 tons per lane-mile per year. This rate was also used for all other local roads and major commercial driveways within the drainage area.



The pavement surfaces from the project area, which extends from the edge of the Wallkill River to I-84, and from East Main Street to Crystal Run Road, discharge into both the Wallkill River and Phillipsburgh Creek (see project drainage area in Figure 4). The portion of the project area that discharges runoff to the Wallkill River (approximately 0.3 mi2) is less than 0.1% of the total 432 mi2 Wallkill River drainage area upstream of the project area. Calculations applying the Toler Method were performed for all of the alternatives and compared to an assumed existing conditions chloride concentration. The existing chloride concentration for the Wallkill River at the project area has been rounded up to 80 mg/L based on the measured chloride concentration of 76.5 mg/L recorded near the project site, as previously indicated in Section 5 of this report. Results indicate that the annual average chloride concentrations in runoff from the alternatives would increase from 80 mg/L for existing conditions to between 80.06 mg/L to 80.10 mg/L depending upon the alternative. The Toler Method was also used to analyze the portion of the project area discharging into Phillipsburg Creek (approximately 0.2 mi2), which is approximately 8% of the entire Phillipsburgh watershed area (2.4 mi2). The Toler Method was performed for all of the alternatives and compared to a calculated existing conditions chloride concentration of 158 mg/L. Results indicate that the annual average chloride concentrations of Phillipsburg Creek at the project area would change from 158 mg/L for existing conditions to between 158 mg/L to 162 mg/L depending upon the alternative. The results are presented in Table 4. The project alternative chloride concentrations are all below the NYS Drinking Water Standard chloride standard of 250 mg/L for both the Wallkill River and Phillipsburgh Creek. Detailed Toler Method calculations are provided in Attachment A. Table 4 – Summary of Toler Method Chloride Concentrations

Alternative Chloride Concentrations Wallkill River

(mg/L)

Chloride Concentrations Phillipsburgh Creek

(mg/L) Existing 80.00 158

Alternative 2C 80.10 161 Alternative 2C MOD 80.10 162

Alternative 2C(1) 80.07 160 Alternative 2C(2) 80.06 162

Alternative 2E 80.06 158



Figure 4 – Project Area Drainage Boundary for Toler Method Calculation

Project Area Drainage Boundary for Phillipsburgh Creek & Wallkill River Exit 122 at NYS Rout 17 PIN 8006.72



8. Highway Runoff and Pollutant Loading Analysis Urban highway runoff includes many vehicular by-products. Metals, oil and grease, and soluble compounds formed by the combination of precipitation and vehicle exhausts are some of the by-products. Potential water quality impacts may result from overland runoff that includes sedimentation, increased water temperatures and increased toxic substances, such as heavy metals, pesticides, oil and synthetic organic compounds. Many of these effects could be increased with an increase in impervious paved road areas. The “Simple Method” was utilized in providing gross analysis results of the existing conditions and each build alternative (see Table 5 below). Detailed calculations are provided in Attachment B. This analysis demonstrates the pollutant loading differences between the existing conditions and the build alternatives, evaluated only with regard to the area of disturbance from the alternatives within the watershed. The summary is provided as a method of comparison of the existing conditions and the effect caused by each build alternative, assuming that the remainder of the watershed remains unchanged. As a separate analysis, the water quality volume will be calculated for the Preferred Alternative to meet the pollutant removal goals under the SPDES General Permit requirements for New York State.

Table 5 - Annual Pollutant Loading Summary Pollutant Existing Alternative

2C Alternative

2C MOD Alternative

2C(1) Alternative

2C(2) Alternative

2E TSS 7,939

(17,503 lbs) 16,740

(36,905 lbs) 16,930

(37,324 lbs) 14,115

(31,117 lbs) 15,985

(35,239 lbs) 13,623

(30,034 lbs) TP 18

(39 lbs) 38

(83 lbs) 38

(84 lbs) 32

(70 lbs) 36

(79 lbs) 31

(68 lbs) TN 168

(370 lbs) 354

(780 lbs) 358

(789 lbs) 298

(687 lbs) 338

(745 lbs) 288

(635 lbs) Cu 3

(7 lbs) 6

(14 lbs) 6

(14 lbs) 5

(12 lbs) 6

(13 lbs) 5

(12 lbs) Pb 22

(49 lbs) 47

(104 lbs) 48

(105 lbs) 40

(88 lbs) 45

(99 lbs) 39

(85 lbs) Zn 18

(41 lbs) 39

(85 lbs) 39

(85 lbs) 33

(72 lbs) 37

(82 lbs) 32

(70 lbs) (1)Pollutant Concentrations are obtained from Table A.1 “Natural Median Concentrations for Chemical Constituents in Stormwater,” Appendix A of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, 2003. Common impacts associated with road construction and maintenance include habitat disruption, hydrologic alterations, and pollutant runoff. Runoff from road construction can cause erosion, sedimentation, and other changes disrupting aquatic habitats such as fish spawning areas and river bottom sediments (USEPA, 1996). The preservation of existing natural vegetative buffer strips along stream corridors is one way of reducing the impacts of highway runoff on receiving waterbodies and helping to maintain pre-development surface water quality. One way this can be accomplished is by providing retaining walls close to the roadways that preserve the vegetation along the stream corridor. Another way this can be accomplished is by minimizing the length of new culverts that enclose streams. Thus, in appropriate situations instead of having one



long culvert, multiple culverts may be provided with a shorter total length with a natural stream channel between the culverts. 9. SPDES General Permit Requirements and Concepts The requirements for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (E&SCP) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are determined using Figure 1 from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, Permit No GP-02-01. An E&SCP is required for this project because a disturbance of greater than 4047 sq. meters (1 acre) will result from the construction of any of the build alternatives. Three Conditions (A, B, and C) noted in Figure 1 of GP-02-01 are applied to determine the SWPPP requirements. The project does not meet Condition A because it is not located in a TMDL watershed or discharge to an impaired water on the NYSDEC 303(d) list. The project does meet Condition B because all of the build alternatives are expected to disturb more than 20,234 sq. meters (5 acres), therefore requiring a full SWPPP. There are two types of NYSDEC permit review periods under the SPDES General Permit: a 5-day and 60-day review. The time period is the time between when a Notice of Intent (NOI) is filed and when construction may begin. Depending upon the specific design details of the SWPPP components of the selected design alternative, either a 5-day or a 60-day waiting period is required before permit coverage begins. To obtain permit coverage after the 5-day review period, the water quality and quantity controls must meet the NY Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (NYSDEC, 2004) and achieve the technical criteria (Ch. 4) and required elements (Ch. 6) of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual (NYSDEC, 2003). For this project a 60-day review period before permit coverage begins would be needed only if a deviation from the standards is proposed. This will be determined as a part of the final design of the selected alternative. The SWPPP’s in New York State must consider the following sizing criteria:

Water Quality (WQv) Channel Protection (Cpv) Overbank Flood (Qp) Extreme Storm (Qf)

The unified approach for sizing Stormwater Management Practices (SMP’s) in the State of New York to meet pollutant removal goals requires the calculation of the Water Quality Volume (WQv). The WQv is a value designed to improve water quality sizing to capture and treat 90% of the average annual stormwater runoff volume. The following equation is used to determine WQv:



WQv= (P)(Rv)(A)/12

where: P = 90% Rainfall Event Number

RV= 0.05+0.009(I), where I is percent impervious cover A = site area in acres There are five groups of SMP’s available for providing treatment of the WQV (ponds, wetlands, infiltration, filters, or open swales). The suitability of SMP designs for any specific project is based on the following factors that are discussed in detail in Chapter 7 of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, and summarized below:

□ Land Use (Table 7.1) □ Physical Feasibility (Table 7.2) □ Watershed/Region (Tables 7.3a and 7.3b) □ Stormwater Management Capability (Table 7.4) □ Community/Environmental Factors (Table 7.5)

Since this project involves an interchange, more land is available for SMP’s that can be located between ramps and between NYS Route 17 and ramps, thus increasing the possible SMP’s that could be used for this project. Other physical factors (refer to Table 7.2 in Chapter 7 of the New York State Stormwater Design Manual, 2003) that affect SMP selection include soil types, water table, drainage area, site slope and available head. For this project, soils underlying the proposed roadways are primarily of Hydrologic Soil Group “C” , which is likely to preclude the use of infiltration SMP’s without importing material. Underground filter practices tend to require high maintenance. Ponds, wetlands and open channel SMP’s are likely to be the most suitable practices for this project. Wetlands SMP’s, where used, would be created upgradient of existing wetlands located between the project and the Wallkill River. Wet or dry swales may be used adjacent to roadways or between ramps. Ponds and wetland SMP’s could be used between ramps. All proposed water quality practices will be designed in accordance with the State’s Highway Design Manual, Chapter 8, Appendix B, and will achieve the required percent removal rates.

According to the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, the requirements for stormwater quality control (i.e. Channel Protection (Cpv), Overbank Flood (Qp) and the Extreme Storm (Qf)) do not apply, or may be waived when the site discharges directly into a fourth order (fourth downstream) or larger stream. The Wallkill River is greater than a 4th order stream at this location. Any stormwater discharges from the project area to Phillipsburg Creek may include post-construction stormwater quantity treatment methods, since it is less than a 4th order stream at the project location. The stormwater drainage designs for the selected alternatives will be geared



towards discharging as much of the drainage as is practicable through SMP’s that drain directly to the Wallkill River. However, stormwater quantity controls may be required that discharge into Phillipsburgh Creek, which is not a 4th order stream. Any required quantity controls will be designed in accordance with the State’s Highway Design Manual, Chapter 8, Appendix B. 10. Accidental Spills During Construction The construction of the roadway improvements should not encourage the proliferation of chemical or toxic materials. The NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Construction contain provisions and proper procedures to reduce the risk of spills during construction. Fuel/chemical storage should not be allowed on the job site unless the area is over impermeable ground and provides proper containment to protect against spill contamination. Adsorption materials should be available on-site, as necessary, to clean up any spills. In the event of an accidental spill, the incident would be remediated and reported to the appropriate environmental regulatory agencies according to the current NYSDOT policies. 11. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control The Soil Survey of Orange County, New York by Karl S. Olsson, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA, 1981) were reviewed to determine the types and characteristics of the different soils found in the project area. Table 7 describes the soil types within the project area. The soil maps indicate that the NYS Route 17 corridor within the project area is part of the Mardin-Erie Association, with the surrounding vicinity consisting of a multitude of soil types. Soils in the Mardin-Erie Association are dominantly gently sloping, deep, moderately well-drained soils and somewhat poorly drained, medium textured soils on uplands. The Mardin series (MdB, MdC, MdD, and MNE) are moderately well drained as opposed to the Erie series (ErA, ErB, ESB) which are somewhat poorly drained. Soil types along the Wallkill River mainly consist of the Wayland (Wd) series. The Wayland series consists of deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained, nearly level soils. Phillipsburg Creek lies mainly within the Erie series (ErB). The banks of the Phillipsburg Creek range from 45-90% slopes. Slopes within most of the project area are characterized as nearly level. East of NYS Route 17, there are soil types that are characteristic of gently sloping to very steep slopes and are poorly drained. These soils include MdD, MNE, OVE, and RhD (see Figure 5 for soil locations). The measure of a soil’s ability to erode is determined by its K factor. This value indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill. This value is used to predict the annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. Estimates are based on the percent of sand, silt and organic matter, soil structure, and permeability. Where new roadways or expanded roadway footprints pass over steep slope areas with high K values, greater erosion rates are expected and measures will need to be included during the final design to reduce their potential negative impacts.



Table 6 - Description of Soil Types within the Project Area Soil

Name/Hydrologic Group

Map Symbol Drainage Slope Erosion

Factor* Additional Information

Alden (D) Ab Poorly drained

0-3% 0.37-0.43 Water table is at or near the surface for prolonged periods;

runoff is very slow Canandaigua (D) Ca Poorly to

very poorly drained

<2% 0.17-0.49 Water table is at or near the surface for prolonged periods;

runoff is slow

ErA Somewhat poorly

drained

0-3% 0.24-0.28 Seasonal high water table; runoff is slow

ErB Somewhat poorly

drained

3-8% 0.24-0.28 Seasonal high water table; runoff is medium

Erie (C)

ESB Somewhat poorly

drained

3-8% 0.24-0.28 Extremely, stony soils; Seasonal high water table;

runoff is medium Hoosic (A) HoB Somewhat

excessively drained

3-8% 0.17 Depth to water table is more than 2m (6ft.);runoff is slow

Madalin (D) Ma Poorly to very poorly

drained

Nearly level

0.28-0.49 Water table is at or near the surface for prolonged periods;

runoff is very slow

MdB Moderately well drained

3-8% 0.24-0.28 Seasonal high water table; runoff is slow to medium

MdC Moderately well drained

8-15% 0.24-0.28 Seasonal high water table; runoff is medium

MdD Moderately well drained

15-25% 0.24-0.28 Seasonal high water table; runoff is rapid

Mardin (C)

MNE Moderately well drained

25-35% 0.24-0.28 Seasonal high water table; runoff is rapid to very rapid



Table 6 (continued) - Description of Soil Types within the Project Area Soil

Name/Hydrologic Group

Map Symbol Drainage Slope Erosion

Factor* Additional Information

Middlebury (B) My Moderately well drained

to somewhat

poorly drained

<3% 0.17-0.49 Flooded in spring; seasonal high water table; runoff is

slow

Otisville (Otisville and Hoosic soils) (A)

OVE Somewhat excessive to excessively drained

25-45% 0.17 Water table is below 1.5m (5ft.); runoff is rapid

Riverhead (B) RhB Well drained

3-8% 0.17-0.28 Depth to water table usually more than 2m (6ft.); runoff is

slow to medium RhC Well

drained 8-15% 0.17-0.28 Depth to water table usually

more than 2m (6ft.); runoff is medium

RhD Well drained

15-25% 0.17-0.28 Depth to water table usually more than 2m (6ft.); runoff is

rapid Suncook (A) Su Excessively

drained <3% -- Subject to flooding in spring;

depth to water table is usually greater than 1m (3ft.); runoff

is slow Udorthents (none) UH -- Nearly

level -- Soils formed in manmade cut

and fill areas Wayland (D) Wd Poorly to

very poorly drained

<3% 0.49 Subject to flooding; water table is at or near the surface for prolonged periods; runoff

is very slow Source: United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey for Orange County, NY, 1981. *Erosion factor is listed as a range for actual soil depths were unknown.



Figure 5 – Project Area Soils Locations



Discussion of Soil and Erosion Potential All of the Build Alternatives for this project involve the removal of existing road cover or natural materials in areas of reconstruction and where tie-ins to existing features would be required. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (E&SCP) will be prepared during the final design phase to reduce erosion potential and reduce the rate of runoff during construction. The focus of the plan will be to minimize erosion and ensure that the quality and quantity of runoff reaching downstream surface waters is not altered from existing conditions. Erosion and sedimentation will be further managed by such practices as minimization of disturbed areas that lack proper erosion and sediment controls. All design and mitigation measures will incorporate the requirements of the NYS Department of Transportation Standard Specification for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control and the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Adherence to design standards, inspection and quality control during construction, and periodic maintenance of erosion control features will minimize and mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation. During construction, every reasonable attempt will be made to minimize impacts on the environment. Impacts to water quality during construction will be controlled by temporary soil erosion and water pollution control measures. Practical temporary measures include, but are not limited to those listed below:

• Erosion control methods will be installed prior to construction activities, including access roads. Methods will include silt fences, temporary check dams, turbidity curtains, stabilized construction entrances, and drop inlet protection.

• Temporary seeding and mulching. • Access roads will be constructed in such a manner to minimize clearing and

grubbing.

• Use of a staged E&SCP.

• Excavated materials will be disposed of in an approved disposal area outside the 100-year flood plain.

• Sediment laden water will be pumped to a de-watering basin and water

released downstream will be clear or clearer than the receiving water.

• Where construction activities occur within the limits of Ordinary High Water (OHW), water discharge control cofferdams are specified and turbidity curtains will be used in areas adjacent to the cofferdams to prevent sediment from entering the river.



Permanent measures such as stone check dams and vegetative swales, water quality ponds, and bioengineering treatments (brush layers, live stakes, etc.) that minimize/ control soil erosion and sedimentation will be considered during final design. 12. Preservation of Riparian Buffers Riparian zones provide flood storage, improved water quality through sediment and nutrient reductions, pollution and noise-abatement, wildlife habitat and travel corridors, aquifer recharge, recreation and aesthetics (Fischer et al., 1998). Preservation of riparian zones are often examined in terms of vegetation type and minimum width needed to protect water quality. Buffer zone widths influence the capacity to filter and buffer nonpoint source pollution in runoff before it enters the aquatic system. Research has indicated that riparian buffers or vegetated buffers are most effective on flood plains, near wetlands, along streambanks, and on unstable slopes (www.epa.gov). This form of Best Management Practice (BMP) is also effective in separating land use areas that are not compatible and in protecting wetlands or waterbodies by displacing activities that might be potential nonpoint sources of pollution. Design criteria are highly variable and there are few criteria guides that define water quality width requirements with conservation and wildlife values. Investigators have used soil characteristics and slope to calculate variable buffer widths to protect water quality though there is limited information available for design criteria when planning for restoration and management (Xiang, 1996; Hanowski et al., 2002). Many studies have looked at the benefits of buffer strips and their effectiveness in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Dillaha et al. (1989) showed buffer widths of 9.1m (30 ft) were nearly 100% effective for sediment reduction, and between 82-90% for 4.6m (15 ft) buffers. Mendez et al. (1999) also evaluated buffers widths of 4.3m (14 ft) and 8.5m (28 ft) for sediment reduction and nutrients from tilled cornfields. Statistically, they reduced sediment concentrations when compared to no buffers but there was no significant difference between the width sizes. This resulted in the two buffer widths performing at the same level. Ghaffarzadeh et al. (1992) found that the first 3m (10 ft) of a vegetated filter strip filtered 70 percent of runoff sediment, and a 9m (30 ft) buffer strip filtered 90% of runoff sediment. Table 8 summarizes the recent scientific literature on buffer width recommendations. Overall, riparian BMP implementation can improve the physical habitat conditions of a stream, where buffers and bank stabilization are used. They can also increase fish biomass, avian and macroinvertebrate density and wildlife populations. Several researchers have measured greater than 90 percent reductions in sediment and nitrate concentrations (www.epa.gov). Buffer/filter strips do a reasonably good job of removing phosphorus attached to sediment, but are relatively ineffective in removing dissolved phosphorus (Gilliam, 1994).



Table 7 - Recommended Widths of Buffer Zones and Corridors for Water Quality Considerations

Authors State Width Buffer Type Benefit Woodard and Rock (1995)

Maine ≥15m Hardwood Buffer

Effective in reducing phosphorus conc. adjacent to single family homes

Horner and Mar (1982)

≥61m Grass filter strip and Vegetated buffer

Removed 80% of suspended sediment in stormwater

Dillaha et al. (1989)

≥9 Vegetated buffer

Removed an average of 84% of suspended solids, 79% phosphorus and 73% of nitrogen

Lowrance et al. (1992)

≥7 Vegetated buffer

Nitrate concentrations were almost completely reduced due to microbial denitrification and plant uptake

Doyle et al. (1977)

Arkansas ≥7m Grass filter strips and forested buffers

Reduced nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and fecal bacteria from runoff

Shisler, Jordan and Maryland Wargo (1987)

≥19m Forested riparian buffer

Removed as much as 80% or excess phosphorus and 89% of excess nitrogen

Source: Fischer and Fischenich, 2000. For this project, flood plains and lands outside of the flood plain area on the Wallkill River and Phillipsburg Creek that are purchased as part of right-of-way acquisition to construct and assure long term efficient operations of the highway improvement project will be preserved as riparian zones to the maximum extent possible. These areas will help maintain the existing water quality conditions within the Wallkill River and Phillipsburg Creek as well as maintain the natural environment of riparian zones surrounding these areas. The preservation of these lands has no impact on any of the alternatives, and is considered to be consistent with the NYSDOT’s Environmental Initiative. The area of interest is bounded by the Wallkill River, Midway Road, East Main Street Extension and south of NYS Route 17, and the resources include:

The project’s proposed canoe launch; Some of the project’s proposed stormwater treatment areas;



The Wallkill River, downstream of the NYS Route 17 bridge, which is listed on the Nationwide River Inventory, making it potentially eligible for nominations as a Wild and Scenic River.

A healthy riparian buffer that already exists, providing aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and water quality benefits;

Flood plains (depending on the selected alternative) located within this area; The area adjacent to the Wallkill River includes wetlands that include functions

and values as wildlife habitat, sediment/toxicant retention, groundwater recharge, and excess nutrient removal. Wetland areas adjacent to the river south of NYS Route 17 include 1.22 hectares (3.02 acres). Wetland areas adjacent to the river north if the NYS Route 17 include 1.48 hectares (3.65 acres).

13. Permits / Approvals All project alternatives meet or exceed the thresholds for the following permits and approvals. In accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, a Section 404 permit will be required from the USACE for protection from discharge of dredged or fill material into water of the U.S. (including Federal Wetlands). A Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required from the NYSDEC in conjunction with the issuance of the 404 permit. As discussed previously, a NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit will be required since the project exceeds the current threshold disturbance area of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) from the construction of any of the build alternatives. Streams that are designated as C(t) or higher (i.e. C(t), C(ts), B, or A) are collectively referred to as “protected streams,” and are subject to the stream protection provisions of the Protection of Water regulations of the NYSDEC. Any excavation or fill activities that impact the streambed or banks (generally within 15 m (50 ft) of the mean high water line) would normally require an Article 15 Permit from the NYSDEC. However, consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NYSDOT and NYSDEC dated December 1996, NYSDOT is not required to obtain individual permits for projects regulated by Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 15 Protection of Waters, and 6NYCRR Part 608. The MOU does specify that coordination is required between the agencies regarding projects involved with protected streams. Compliance with EO 11990 is required for this project, as it is for all projects with federal involvement. To comply, the project must be designed to avoid impacts to wetlands as much as is practicable, and minimize impacts where they cannot be avoided. An EO 11990 individual wetland finding will thus be prepared as part of the environmental documentation. The findings will be included in a subsection of the DR/FEIS entitled “Only Practicable Alternative Findings” and will be prepared in accordance with FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8A.



REFERENCES: Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak, L.E. Abele. 1995. Biological Stream Assessment Wallkill River. DEC/DOW, Albany, N.Y. Litten, S. 2003. Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP). Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Bureau of Water Assessment and Management. Casino. June 2005. Personal Communication. Department of Environmental Conservation. 2000. The 1999 Lower Hudson River Basin Waterbody Inventory and Priority List. Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. 2004. 30 Year Trends in Water Quality of Rivers and Streams in New York State. Stream Biomonitoring Unite, Division of Water, NYSDEC. Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S.S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. (1989). Vegetative Filter Strips for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. Trans. ASAE 32:5130519. Doyle, R.C., G.C. Stanton, and D.C. Wolf. 1977. Effectiveness of Forest and Grass Buffer Strips in Improving the Water Quality of Manure Polluted Runoff. ASAE, Paper 77-2501. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. Fischer, R.A., C.O. Martin, D.Q. Barry, K. Hoffman, K.L. Dickson, E.G. Zimmerman, and D.A. Elrod. 1998. Corridors and Vegetated Buffer Zones: A Preliminary Assessment and Study Design. Technical Report EL-99- . U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Fischer, R.A. and J.C. Fischenich. 2000. Design Recommendations for Riparian Corridors and Vegetated Buffer Strips. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Ghaffarzadeh, M. C.A. Robinson, and R.M. Cruse. 1992. Vegetative Filter Strip Effects on Sediment Deposition from Overland Flow. In: Agronomy Abstracts, ASA, Madison, WI. Gilliam, J.W. 1994. Reparian Wetlands and Water Quality. Journal of Environmental Quality. 23:896-900. As cited in Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan Watersheds. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division, Lansing, MI.



Hanowski, J.M., P.T. Wolter, and G.J. Niemi. 2002. Effects of Prescriptive Riparian Buffers on Landscape Characteristics in Northern Minnesota, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(3): 633-639. Horner, R.R. and B.W. Mar. 1982. Guide for Water Quality Impact Assessment of Highway Operations and Maintenance. Rep. WA-RD-39.14, Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia. Litten, S. 2003. Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project Water. Bureau of Water Assessment and Management, DEC/DOW. Lowrance, R.R. 1992. Groundwater Nitrate and Denitrification in a Coastal Plain Riparian Forest. Journal of Environmental Quality 21:401-405. Mendez, T.D. and S. Mostaghimi. 1999. Sediment and Nitrogen Transport in Grass Filter Strips. Journal of American Water Resources Association August pp.867-875. NYSDEC. 1998. New York Classifications and Quality Standards for Surface Waters and Groundwater. NYSDEC. 2003. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. NYSDEC. 2005. NY Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Scaief, J and Murfee, G. 2004. Subdivision Design to Maximize Utilization of Stream Buffers from AWRA Summer Specialty Conference. Schnick, Peter, Jr. Assistant Resident Engineer, Western Orange County. Personal communication 6/3/2005. Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan and R.N. Wargo. 1987. Coastal Wetland Buffer Delineation. New Jersey Dep. of Environmental Protection. Toler, L. 1973. Effect of De-Icing Chemicals on Surface and Ground Water (Preliminary Guidelines for Estimating Chlorides). Research Project R-18-0 Interim Report. USEPA. 1996. Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation- Highway, Rail, Aviation and Maritime Transport. EPA 230-R-96-009. Wegner, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Widthm Extent and Vegetation. Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens Georgia. Woodard, S.E. and Rock, C.A. 1995. Control of Residential Stormwater by Natural Buffer Strips. Lake and Reservoir Management 11:37-45.



Xiang, W.N. 1996. GIS-Based Riparian Buffer Analysis: Injecting Geographic Information into Landscape Planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 34: 1-10. www.epa.gov www.dec.state.ny.us www.usgs.gov

ATTACHMENT AToler Method – Chloride Concentration

Calculations

Water Quality Study Report NYS Route 17 at Exit 122

Town of Wallkill Orange County P.I.N. 8006.72

May 2007

Toler Method - WALLKILL RIVER

C= ((TxM)/(IxA))xK

where:

C= Annual Average Concentration of Cl (mg/L)T= Tons of salt per Lane-mileM=Number of Lane-milesI= Inches of RunoffA=Drainage Area in square milesK=8.37

Step 1 Determine Existing Conditions Total Lane-Miles Based on a Chloride Concentraion (C) of 80 mg/L.

Assumptions1) 30% State Roads (w/ salt application = 27 tons per lane-mile); 70% County Roads (w/ salt application = 10 tons per mile). This results in an average 15 tons per lane-mile.2) Runoff coefficient for Wallkill watershed = 0.4, and annual rainfall in the watershed = 42 in.; therefore I = 0.4 * 42 = 16.8 in3) Wallkill drainage Area = 432 mi 2

80 = ((15 *M)/(16.8*432*))*8.37 M = 4625

Step 2 Determine Build Alternative Conditions Chloride Concentraion (C) of 80 mg/L based on additional lane-miles for each alternative (see attached sheets for lane-miles of eacjh alternative) .

Alt 2C M = 4630.2 C = 80.10Alt 2C(MOD) M = 4630.2 C = 80.10Alt 2C(1) M = 4628.6 C = 80.07Alt 2C(2) M = 4628.1 C = 80.06Alt 2E M = 4628.1 C = 80.06

Toler Analysis - Existing

Wallkill Drainage Area 432.00 sq. miles

No. of lanes Length Total Lane Milesmeters Length miles

metersState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17-EB-1 2 196 392Route 17-EB-2 3 216 648Route 17-EB-3 2 106 212Route 17-EB-4 3 103 309 0.19Route 17-EB-5 2 366 732 0.45Route 17-WB-1 2 87 174Route 17-WB-2 3 242 726Route 17-WB-3 2 93 186Route 17-WB-4 3 87 261Route 17-WB-5 2 553 1106 0.69Ramp A-1 2 89 178Ramp A-2 5 115 575Ramp C 3 172 516 0.32Ramp J 1 297 297Ramp K 1 455 455Total 6767 1.65


MetersCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing-1 6 87 522 0.32Crystal Run Crossing-2 4 137 548 0.34Ballard Rd. 4 202 808 0.50Crystal Run Rd.-1 3 83 249 0.15Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 657 2628 1.63Crystal Run Rd.-3 3 103 309 0.19Crystal Run Rd.-4 4 106 424 0.26East Main St.-1 2 681 1362East Main St.-2 3 113 339East Main St.-3 2 282 564 0.35Midway 2 52 104 0.06Sullivan 2 152 304 0.19Total 8161 4.01

Total Project Area Lane Miles 5.67

Exit 122 at NYS Route 17PIN 8006.72Town of Wallkill, Orange County, NY

Toler Analysis - Alt 2C



Proposed Meters ProposedState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 138 276Route 17 EB-2 3 132 396Route 17 EB-3 2 481 962Route 17 WB-1 2 68 136Route 17 WB-2 3 450 1350Route 17 WB-3 2 291 582 0.36Ramp A-1 1 239 239 0.15Ramp A-2 2 182 364 0.23Ramp AA 1 260 260 0.16Ramp B-1 1 279 279 0.17Ramp B-2 2 81 162 0.10Ramp C 1 245 245 0.15Ramp D-1 1 291 291Ramp D-2 3 119 357Ramp DD 1 332 332Ramp K-1 1 159 159Ramp K-2 2 142 284Ramp K-3 1 575 575 0.36Ramp K-4 2 170 340 0.21Ramp K-5 1 412 412 0.26Ramp J-1 1 446 446Ramp J-2 2 171 342Ramp J-3 1 254 254 0.16Ramp J-4 2 546 1092 0.68Total 10,135 2.99


Proposed Meters ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing 3 307 921 0.57Ballard Rd.-1 5 74 370 0.23Ballard Rd.-2 4 123 492 0.31Crystal Run Rd.-1 5 46 230 0.14Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 26 104 0.06Crystal Run Rd.-3 3 310 930 0.58Crystal Run Rd.-4 3 723 2169 1.35Crystal Run Rd.-5 4 80 320 0.20Crystal Run Rd.-6 2 126 252 0.16East Main St.-1 2 159 318 0.20East Main St.-2 4 274 1096 0.68East Main St.-3 5 246 1230East Main St.-4 4 240 960 0.60East Main St.-5 5 248 1240 0.77East Main St.-6 4 27 108 0.07East Main St.-7 3 914 2742 1.70East Main St.-8 4 74 296 0.18Midway 2 60 120 0.07Total 13,898 7.87



Toler Analysis - Alt 2C(MOD)



Proposed Meters ProposedState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 138 276Route 17 EB-2 3 132 396Route 17 EB-3 2 481 962Route 17 WB-1 2 68 136Route 17 WB-2 3 450 1350Route 17 WB-3 2 291 582 0.36Ramp A-1 1 239 239 0.15Ramp A-2 2 182 364 0.23Ramp AA 1 260 260 0.16Ramp B-1 1 279 279 0.17Ramp B-2 2 81 162 0.10Ramp C 1 245 245 0.15Ramp D-1 1 291 291Ramp D-2 3 119 357Ramp DD 1 332 332Ramp K-1 1 159 159Ramp K-2 2 142 284Ramp K-3 1 575 575 0.36Ramp K-4 2 170 340 0.21Ramp K-5 1 412 412 0.26Ramp J-1 1 446 446Ramp J-2 2 171 342Ramp J-3 1 254 254 0.16Ramp J-4 2 546 1092 0.68Total 10,135 2.99


Proposed Meters ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing 3 307 921 0.57Ballard Rd.-1 5 74 370 0.23Ballard Rd.-2 4 123 492 0.31Crystal Run Rd.-1 5 46 230 0.14Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 26 104 0.06Crystal Run Rd.-3 3 310 930 0.58Crystal Run Rd.-4 3 723 2169 1.35Crystal Run Rd.-5 4 80 320 0.20Crystal Run Rd.-6 2 126 252 0.16East Main St.-1 2 159 318 0.20East Main St.-2 4 274 1096 0.68East Main St.-3 5 246 1230East Main St.-4 4 240 960 0.60East Main St.-5 5 248 1240 0.77East Main St.-6 4 27 108 0.07East Main St.-7 3 914 2742 1.70East Main St.-8 4 74 296 0.18Midway 2 60 120 0.07Total 13,898 7.87



Toler Analysis - Alt2C(1)



Proposed meters ProposedState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 138 276Route 17 EB-2 3 132 396Route 17 EB-3 2 481 962Route 17 WB-1 1 49 49Route 17 WB-2 3 408 1224Route 17 WB-3 2 352 704 0.44Ramp A-1 1 263 263 0.16Ramp A-2 2 94 188 0.12Ramp AA 1 315 315 0.20Ramp B-1 1 254 254 0.16Ramp B-2 2 69 138 0.09Ramp C 1 245 245 0.15Ramp D-1 1 291 291Ramp D-2 3 119 357Ramp DD 1 332 332Ramp K-1 1 159 159Ramp K-2 2 142 284Ramp K-3 1 575 575 0.36Ramp K-4 2 170 340 0.21Ramp K-5 1 411 411 0.26Ramp J-1 1 370 370Ramp J-2 2 144 288Ramp J-3 1 391 391 0.24Ramp J-4 2 511 1022 0.64Total 9,834 3.01


Proposed meters ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing 3 312 936 0.58Ballard Rd. 4 150 600 0.37Crystal Run Rd.-1 5 164 820 0.51Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 42 168 0.10Crystal Run Rd.-3 5 553 2765 1.72Crystal Run Rd.-4 4 51 204 0.13Crystal Run Rd.-5 6 104 624 0.39Crystal Run Rd.-6 4 127 508 0.32Crystal Run Rd.-7 2 75 150 0.09East Main St.-1 2 159 318 0.20East Main St.-2 4 274 1096 0.68East Main St.-3 5 246 1230East Main St.-4 4 434 1736 1.08Midway 2 60 120 0.07Total 11,275 6.24






Proposed meters PropsoedState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 408 816Route 17 EB-2 3 339 1017Route 17 EB-3 2 413 826Route 17 WB-1 2 53 106Route 17 WB-2 3 384 1152Route 17 WB-3 2 312 624 0.39Ramp A-1 1 270 270 0.17Ramp A-2 2 78 156 0.10Ramp AA 1 393 393 0.24Ramp B 1 379 379 0.24Ramp C 1 435 435 0.27Ramp CA-1 1 249 249 0.15Ramp CA-2 2 102 204 0.13Ramp CA-3 1 93 93 0.06Ramp D-1 2 196 392Ramp D-2 1 244 244 0.15Ramp DD 1 227 227Ramp K-1 1 258 258Ramp K-2 2 146 292Ramp K-3 1 307 307 0.19Ramp K-4 2 172 344 0.21Ramp K-5 1 427 427 0.27Ramp J-1 1 290 290Ramp J-2 2 114 228Ramp J-3 1 479 479 0.30Ramp J-4 2 381 762 0.47Ramp J-5 1 155 155 0.10Total 11,125 3.43

No. of lanes Length Total Lane Milesmeter Length miles

Proposed meters ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing 3 265 795 0.49Ballard Rd. 4 181 724 0.45Crystal Run Rd.-1 3 145 435 0.27Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 245 980 0.61Crystal Run Rd.-3 4 141 564 0.35Crystal Run Rd.-4 4 23 92 0.06Crystal Run Rd.-5 2 169 338 0.21East Main St.-1 2 99 198 0.12East Main St.-2 4 157 628 0.39East Main St.-3 4 174 696East Main St.-4 3 74 222East Main St.-5 4 571 2284 1.42East Main St.-6 3 72 216 0.13East Main St.-7 1 255 255 0.16Midway 2 60 120 0.07Sullivan Lane 2 141 282 0.18Circle 1 2 25 50 0.03Circle 2 2 189 378 0.23Circle 3 2 189 378 0.23Circle 4 2 189 378 0.23Total 10,013 5.65



Toler Analysis - Alt 2E



Proposed meters ProposedState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 42 84Route 17 EB-2 3 177 531Route 17 EB-3 2 373 746 0.46Route 17 EB-4 3 161 483 0.30Route 17 WB-1 3 539 1617Route 17 WB-2 2 169 338 0.21Ramp A-1 1 222 222 0.14Ramp A-2 2 337 674 0.42Ramp B-1 2 584 1168 0.73Ramp B-2 4 152 608 0.38Ramp C 2 444 888Ramp D-1 1 249 249Ramp D-2 3 121 363Ramp DD 1 450 450Ramp K-1 1 106 106Ramp K-2 2 119 238Ramp K-3 1 609 609 0.38Total 9,374 3.01


Proposed meters ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Ballard Rd. 4 150 600 0.37Crystal Run Crossing 3 298 894 0.56East Main St.-1 2 90 180 0.11East Main St.-2 4 180 720 0.45East Main St.-3 5 68 340 0.21East Main St.-4 4 171 684East Main St.-5 6 142 852 0.53Midway 2 89 178 0.11Crystal Run Rd.-1 4 193 772 0.48Crystal Run Rd.-2 6 234 1404 0.87Crystal Run Rd.-3 5 501 2505 1.56Crystal Run Rd.-4 6 139 834 0.52Crystal Run Rd.-5 4 68 272 0.17Crystal Run Rd.-6 2 110 220 0.14Total 10,455 6.07



Toler Method - PHILLIPSBURGH CREEK

C= ((TxM)/(IxA))xK

where:

C= Annual Average Concentration of Cl (mg/L)T= Tons of salt per Lane-mileM=Number of Lane-milesI= Inches of Runoff (annual inches of rain {42 in} x 0.5)A=Drainage Area in square milesK=8.37

Determine Existing Conditions AND Build Alternative Chloride Concentraions (C).

Assumptions1) This analysis uses the "Project" drainage area (0.2 mi2) to Phillipsburgh Creek. In addition, the overall upstream Phillipsburgh Creek drainage area (2.4 mi2) has the same land use and roadway characteristics as the existing "Project" area. The increased alternaive lane-miles were added to the existing "total watershed" lane-miles, and the Toler Method was applied using the updated lane-miles.

Toler Analysis - Existing

Drainage Area 0.20 sq. miles 2.4 sq. miles

No. of lanes Length Total Lane Miles Lane Milesmeters Length miles miles

metersState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17-EB-1 2 196 392 0.24 2.92Route 17-EB-2 3 216 648 0.40 4.83Route 17-EB-3 2 106 212 0.13 1.58Route 17-EB-4 3 103 309Route 17-EB-5 2 366 732Route 17-WB-1 2 87 174 0.11 1.30Route 17-WB-2 3 242 726 0.45 5.41Route 17-WB-3 2 93 186 0.12 1.39Route 17-WB-4 3 87 261 0.16 1.95Route 17-WB-5 2 553 1106Ramp A-1 2 89 178 0.11 1.33Ramp A-2 5 115 575 0.36 4.29Ramp C 3 172 516Ramp J 1 297 297 0.18 2.21Ramp K 1 455 455 0.28 3.39Total 6767 2.55 30.60


MetersCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing-1 6 87 522Crystal Run Crossing-2 4 137 548Ballard Rd. 4 202 808Crystal Run Rd.-1 3 83 249Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 657 2628Crystal Run Rd.-3 3 103 309Crystal Run Rd.-4 4 106 424East Main St.-1 2 681 1362 0.85 10.16East Main St.-2 3 113 339 0.21 2.53East Main St.-3 2 282 564Midway 2 52 104Sullivan 2 152 304Total 8161 1.06 12.68

3.61 43.29

Chloride Concentration 158 mg/L


Total watershedProject AreaPhillipsburgh Creek

Toler Analysis - Alt 2C



Proposed Meters Proposed ProposedState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 138 276 0.17Route 17 EB-2 3 132 396 0.25Route 17 EB-3 2 481 962 0.60Route 17 WB-1 2 68 136 0.08Route 17 WB-2 3 450 1350 0.84Route 17 WB-3 2 291 582Ramp A-1 1 239 239Ramp A-2 2 182 364Ramp AA 1 260 260Ramp B-1 1 279 279Ramp B-2 2 81 162Ramp C 1 245 245Ramp D-1 1 291 291 0.18Ramp D-2 3 119 357 0.22Ramp DD 1 332 332 0.21Ramp K-1 1 159 159 0.10Ramp K-2 2 142 284 0.18Ramp K-3 1 575 575Ramp K-4 2 170 340Ramp K-5 1 412 412Ramp J-1 1 446 446 0.28Ramp J-2 2 171 342 0.21Ramp J-3 1 254 254Ramp J-4 2 546 1092Total 10,135 3.31 31.36


Proposed Meters Proposed ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing 3 307 921Ballard Rd.-1 5 74 370Ballard Rd.-2 4 123 492Crystal Run Rd.-1 5 46 230Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 26 104Crystal Run Rd.-3 3 310 930Crystal Run Rd.-4 3 723 2169Crystal Run Rd.-5 4 80 320Crystal Run Rd.-6 2 126 252East Main St.-1 2 159 318East Main St.-2 4 274 1096East Main St.-3 5 246 1230 0.76 9.17East Main St.-4 4 240 960East Main St.-5 5 248 1240East Main St.-6 4 27 108East Main St.-7 3 914 2742East Main St.-8 4 74 296Midway 2 60 120Total 13,898 0.76 12.38

4.08 43.74



Total watershedProject AreaPhillipsburgh Creek

Toler Analysis - Alt2C(MOD)

Drainage Area 0.20 sq. miles 2.4 sq. milesNo. of lanes Length Total Lane Miles Lane Miles

meters Length miles milesProposed meters Propsoed Propsoed

State Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 408 816 0.51Route 17 EB-2 3 339 1017 0.63Route 17 EB-3 2 413 826 0.51Route 17 WB-1 2 53 106 0.07Route 17 WB-2 3 384 1152 0.72Route 17 WB-3 2 312 624Ramp A-1 1 270 270Ramp A-2 2 78 156Ramp AA 1 393 393Ramp B 1 379 379Ramp C 1 435 435Ramp CA-1 1 249 249Ramp CA-2 2 102 204Ramp CA-3 1 93 93Ramp D-1 2 196 392 0.24Ramp D-2 1 244 244Ramp DD 1 227 227 0.14Ramp K-1 1 258 258 0.16Ramp K-2 2 146 292 0.18Ramp K-3 1 307 307Ramp K-4 2 172 344Ramp K-5 1 427 427Ramp J-1 1 290 290 0.18Ramp J-2 2 114 228 0.14Ramp J-3 1 479 479Ramp J-4 2 381 762Ramp J-5 1 155 155Total 11,125 3.48 31.53

No. of lanes Length Total Lane Miles Lane Milesmeter Length miles miles

Proposed meters Proposed ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing 3 265 795Ballard Rd. 4 181 724Crystal Run Rd.-1 3 145 435Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 245 980Crystal Run Rd.-3 4 141 564Crystal Run Rd.-4 4 23 92Crystal Run Rd.-5 2 169 338East Main St.-1 2 99 198East Main St.-2 4 157 628East Main St.-3 4 174 696 0.43 5.19East Main St.-4 3 74 222 0.14 1.66East Main St.-5 4 571 2284East Main St.-6 3 72 216East Main St.-7 1 255 255Midway 2 60 120Sullivan Lane 2 141 282Circle 1 2 25 50Circle 2 2 189 378Circle 3 2 189 378Circle 4 2 189 378Total 10,013 0.57 12.19

4.05 43.72


Project Area Total watershed


Phillipsburgh Creek




Proposed meters Proposed ProposedState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 138 276 0.17Route 17 EB-2 3 132 396 0.25Route 17 EB-3 2 481 962 0.60Route 17 WB-1 1 49 49 0.03Route 17 WB-2 3 408 1224 0.76Route 17 WB-3 2 352 704Ramp A-1 1 263 263Ramp A-2 2 94 188Ramp AA 1 315 315Ramp B-1 1 254 254Ramp B-2 2 69 138Ramp C 1 245 245Ramp D-1 1 291 291 0.18Ramp D-2 3 119 357 0.22Ramp DD 1 332 332 0.21Ramp K-1 1 159 159 0.10Ramp K-2 2 142 284 0.18Ramp K-3 1 575 575Ramp K-4 2 170 340Ramp K-5 1 411 411Ramp J-1 1 370 370 0.23Ramp J-2 2 144 288 0.18Ramp J-3 1 391 391Ramp J-4 2 511 1022Total 9,834 3.10 31.15


Proposed meters Proposed ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing 3 312 936Ballard Rd. 4 150 600Crystal Run Rd.-1 5 164 820Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 42 168Crystal Run Rd.-3 5 553 2765Crystal Run Rd.-4 4 51 204Crystal Run Rd.-5 6 104 624Crystal Run Rd.-6 4 127 508Crystal Run Rd.-7 2 75 150East Main St.-1 2 159 318East Main St.-2 4 274 1096East Main St.-3 5 246 1230 0.76East Main St.-4 4 434 1736Midway 2 60 120Total 11,275 0.76 12.38

3.86 43.53




Phillipsburgh Creek


Drainage Area 0.20 sq. miles 2.4 sq. milesNo. of lanes Length Total Lane Miles Lane Miles

meters Length miles milesProposed meters Propsoed Propsoed

State Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 408 816 0.51Route 17 EB-2 3 339 1017 0.63Route 17 EB-3 2 413 826 0.51Route 17 WB-1 2 53 106 0.07Route 17 WB-2 3 384 1152 0.72Route 17 WB-3 2 312 624Ramp A-1 1 270 270Ramp A-2 2 78 156Ramp AA 1 393 393Ramp B 1 379 379Ramp C 1 435 435Ramp CA-1 1 249 249Ramp CA-2 2 102 204Ramp CA-3 1 93 93Ramp D-1 2 196 392 0.24Ramp D-2 1 244 244Ramp DD 1 227 227 0.14Ramp K-1 1 258 258 0.16Ramp K-2 2 146 292 0.18Ramp K-3 1 307 307Ramp K-4 2 172 344Ramp K-5 1 427 427Ramp J-1 1 290 290 0.18Ramp J-2 2 114 228 0.14Ramp J-3 1 479 479Ramp J-4 2 381 762Ramp J-5 1 155 155Total 11,125 3.48 31.53

No. of lanes Length Total Lane Miles Lane Milesmeter Length miles miles

Proposed meters Proposed ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Crystal Run Crossing 3 265 795Ballard Rd. 4 181 724Crystal Run Rd.-1 3 145 435Crystal Run Rd.-2 4 245 980Crystal Run Rd.-3 4 141 564Crystal Run Rd.-4 4 23 92Crystal Run Rd.-5 2 169 338East Main St.-1 2 99 198East Main St.-2 4 157 628East Main St.-3 4 174 696 0.43 5.19East Main St.-4 3 74 222 0.14 1.66East Main St.-5 4 571 2284East Main St.-6 3 72 216East Main St.-7 1 255 255Midway 2 60 120Sullivan Lane 2 141 282Circle 1 2 25 50Circle 2 2 189 378Circle 3 2 189 378Circle 4 2 189 378Total 10,013 0.57 12.19

4.05 43.72




Phillipsburgh Creek

Toler Analysis - Alt 2E



Proposed meters Proposed ProposedState Roads (T= 27 tons/lane-mile)Route 17 EB-1 2 42 84 0.05Route 17 EB-2 3 177 531 0.33Route 17 EB-3 2 373 746Route 17 EB-4 3 161 483Route 17 WB-1 3 539 1617 1.00Route 17 WB-2 2 169 338Ramp A-1 1 222 222Ramp A-2 2 337 674Ramp B-1 2 584 1168Ramp B-2 4 152 608Ramp C 2 444 888 0.55Ramp D-1 1 249 249 0.15Ramp D-2 3 121 363 0.23Ramp DD 1 450 450 0.28Ramp K-1 1 106 106 0.07Ramp K-2 2 119 238 0.15Ramp K-3 1 609 609Total 9,374 2.81 30.86


Proposed meters Proposed ProposedCounty Roads (T= 10 tons/lane-mile)Ballard Rd. 4 150 600Crystal Run Crossing 3 298 894East Main St.-1 2 90 180East Main St.-2 4 180 720East Main St.-3 5 68 340East Main St.-4 4 171 684 0.43 5.10East Main St.-5 6 142 852Midway 2 89 178Crystal Run Rd.-1 4 193 772Crystal Run Rd.-2 6 234 1404Crystal Run Rd.-3 5 501 2505Crystal Run Rd.-4 6 139 834Crystal Run Rd.-5 4 68 272Crystal Run Rd.-6 2 110 220Total 10,455 0.43 12.05

3.24 42.91




Phillipsburgh Creek

ATTACHMENT B“Simple Method” – Pollutant Loading

Calculations

Water Quality Study Report NYS Route 17 at Exit 122

Town of Wallkill Orange County P.I.N. 8006.72

May 2007

The Simple Method- from the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual, Appendix A

L= 0.226*R*C*A

where: L= Annual Load in lbs.R= Annual Runoff in inches*C= Pollutant Concentration (mg/L)A= Area (acres)0.226= unit conversion factor

Runoff: R=P*Pj*Rv

where: R= Annual Runoff (inches)P= Annual Rainfall (inches)Pj= Fraction of annual rainfall events that produce runoff (usually 0.9)

R25= Runoff Coefficient

and Rv= (0.05)+(0.91*Ia)

where: Ia=Impervious Fraction**

* Annual rainfall was taken from USGS Report 90-4197 = 40 inches** Impervious areas include only the existing and proposed impervious areas thereforegiving you a total of 100% imprevious area.

Pollutant Concentrations from Urban HighwayPollutant Units Concentration

TSS mg/L 142.00TP mg/L 0.32TN mg/L 3.00Cu mg/L 0.05Pb mg/L 0.40Zn mg/L 0.33

* Concentrations taken from p. A-3 from the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual

Existing Conditions

15.03 acres

b. Impervious Fraction 1.00 ratio

c. Runoff Coefficient 0.96 dimensionless

d. Runoff 36.29 inches

e. Annual loadTSS 17,503.25 lbs. 7,939.48 kgsTP 39.44 lbs. 17.89 kgsTN 369.79 lbs. 167.74 kgsCu 6.66 lbs. 3.02 kgsPb 49.30 lbs. 22.36 kgsZn 40.55 lbs. 18.39 kgs

a. Area




Alternative 2C

a. Area 31.69 acres








Alternative 2C(MOD)

a. Area 32.05 acres








Alternative 2C(1)

a. Area 26.72 acres








Alternative 2C(2)

a. Area 30.26 acres








Alternative 2E

a. Area 25.79 acres





exit 122 app r cover - dot.ny.gov

Documents