CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

January 5, 2022

Landfill Site Selection Study in Ulster County, New York

Abstract of Landfill Study

The Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency (UCRRA) seeks a site in Ulster County to be used
for the disposal of municipal waste. HydroQuest conducted a study to identify potential sites in
the county that conform to NYSDEC landfill siting criteria, are protective of the environment, and
are not situated in heavily populated or Environmental Justice areas. This study examined
numerous siting restrictions, as well as features that were evaluated as being suitable for landfill
development. A step-wise elimination process was conducted using a combination of many GIS
databases (i.e., NYS GIS Clearinghouse, NYS Museum, Ulster County GIS, EPA, FEMA,
NYSDEC, CUGIR, NYRWA) and rigorous geologic and hydrologic assessment in the screening
process. For illustration purposes, sixteen GIS maps are presented that depict various landfill site
reduction features, target criteria, and the physical settings proximal to two sites that could be
considered for waste disposal. The many site selection criteria are plotted on a base elevational
map graciously produced by Ulster County GIS Information Services from a 2014 LiDAR dataset
and 2015 topographic one-meter digital elevation model.

Ulster County encompasses an area of 1,161 square miles that is subdivided into over 86,000 land
parcels. Vast expanses of the county are areas protected from development. Examples include
New York State and New York City lands, town and village lands, Potential Environmental Justice
Areas, agricultural districts, preserve lands, and aquifers. Other lands protected from development
are portrayed on map figures in this report. Review of report figures reveals that there are very
few land tracts in Ulster County that are of sufficient size (approximately 200 acres) on which to
construct a landfill. The few remaining large land tracts are either rapidly being subdivided due
to development pressures, are already developed, or are unsuitable for various reasons. From an
aesthetic and property value perspective, any target landfill site cannot be sited extremely close to
existing dense housing development.

While, together, all these features result in a great place to live that is riddled with protected natural
resources, little undeveloped land remains that has potential for a county landfill. In fact, every
year that passes results in even fewer areas suitable for potential landfill construction. This report
and its GIS maps document that situation. Furthermore, HydroQuest has identified two potential
target landfill sites that exhibit physical characteristics potentially suitable for development and
operation of a county landfill.

1
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Landfill Siting Criteria

Landfill siting in New York State is strictly regulated. The Codes, Rules and Regulations of the
State of New York Title 6. Department of Environmental Conservation Chapter IV. Quality
Services Subchapter B. Solid Wastes Part 360. Solid Waste Management Facilities Subpart 360-
1. General Provisions provide rules and regulations regarding landfill siting. 6 CRR-NY 360-1.7
(Permit requirements) and 360-2.12 (Landfill siting) provide numerous prohibited landfill permit
requirements that must be evaluated for the New York State Department of Environmental
Protection to issue a permit for a new solid waste management facility. These siting prohibitions
have been incorporated into this study. Specifically, NYSDEC prohibits landfill siting on
agricultural district land; in floodplains; in endangered species habitat; within the boundary of a
regulated wetland; within 500 feet of a reservoir or water supply; on bedrock subject to rapid or
unpredictable groundwater flow; on bedrock where a containment failure of the facility would
result in contamination entering the bedrock system; in the proximity of any mines, caves or other
anomalous features that may alter groundwater flow; on unconsolidated deposits less than 20 feet
thick with an in situ coefficient of permeability of more than 5 x 10-4 centimeters per second;
unstable areas; unmonitorable or irremediable areas; fault areas; seismic impact zones; and within
wetlands. 6 CRR-NY 363-5.1 (Siting requirements) provides similar landfill siting regulations.
Depending on the characteristics of potential landfill sites, NYSDEC reserves the right to modify
or impose additional requirements to assure that the permitted activity will have no significant
adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare, the environment or natural resources for
any site selected.

Key Desirable Features and Criteria in Landfill Site Selection

• Low permeability bedrock formation to which soil may be added or, alternately, which
may be hydraulically engineered for leachate collection and monitoring;
• Geologic setting not conducive to long distance contaminant migration should excursions
(spills, leaks) occur (e.g., no long-distance movement along bedrock joints toward
homeowner wells);
• Hydrologic setting where the volume of recharge incident to the landfill site is minimal
(e.g., small watershed area);
• Sufficiently large landfill footprint acreage that can be engineered as needed with or
without substantial excavation (e.g., cut and fill), ideally on the order of 100 acres;
• Conducive to engineered hydraulic controls for leachate collection;
• Proximity to hydrologic baselevel such that groundwater contamination is not an issue;
• Hydrologically able to be monitored for water quality (e.g., small surrounding watershed);
• Sufficiently large single land tract or multiple contiguous tracts to allow for several decades
of county landfill use (preferably 200 acres or more);
• Previously disturbed area (e.g., former landfill or hazardous waste site);
• Physically removed from densely populated areas, ideally with a surrounding buffer zone;
• Preferably close to a major road;

2
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

• Ability to meet NYSDEC landfill siting and contaminant containment criteria; and
• Avoidance of protected land criteria (e.g., agricultural lands, potential environmental
justice areas, NYS and NYC lands, preserved lands, aquifers, wetlands).

Landfill Siting Restrictions: Stepwise Elimination of Features

Many physical features were evaluated during a rigorous stepwise elimination process designed to
narrow down potential landfill target sites in Ulster County. Some of these are:

• Bedrock subject to rapid or unpredictable groundwater flow;

• Karst/carbonate bedrock geology;
• Primary aquifers;
• Proximity to public water supplies;
• Principal aquifers (based on mapped sand and gravel deposits);
• New York City owned watershed lands;
• New York State owned lands;
• Preserve and park lands;
• Steeply sloping land;
• Unstable areas;
• High permeability soils (i.e., sand and gravel);
• Parcel sizes less than 100 acres;
• Floodplains;
• Agricultural district land;
• Known threatened or endangered species habitat;
• Airports;
• Historic/archaeological sites;
• NYS and federal wetlands and buffer areas;
• Proximal to reservoirs, lakes, or major waterbodies;
• Sites underlain by active faults or located in seismic impact zones; and
• Potential Environmental Justice Areas (PEJAs) to comply with NYSDEC guidance
designed to avoid sensitive minority and low-income urban and rural communities.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of PEJAs in Ulster County, New York as of
December 2021.

3
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Bedrock Geology

A key landfill siting regulation states that landfills shall not be constructed on bedrock where a
containment failure of the facility would result in contamination entering the bedrock system.
HydroQuest’s experience with aquifer tests, contaminant migration cases, and litigation support in
Ulster County supports this regulatory criterium. Interconnected joint sets in sandstone sometimes
extend thousands of feet laterally and have allowed downward contaminant migration through less
permeable, but fractured, shale beds. As a result, many of the fractured or jointed sandstone
bedrock units of the Catskill Mountain area should not be considered as potential landfill target
sites.

The bedrock geology of Ulster County is comprised of a

series of sedimentary rock formations that range in age
from Upper Devonian (youngest) to Upper Ordovician
(oldest) (Figure 1). The youngest four groups at the top of
the series are the West Falls Group, Sonyea Group,
Genesee Group, and Hamilton Group. The hardened or
lithified beds of these groups consist predominantly of
alternating layers of sandstone and shale, with some
interbeds of conglomerate and siltstone. The sandstone
beds generally exhibit a network of near vertical and
interconnected fractures called joints (Photo 1 to right). Photo 1. Jointed sandstone bedrock.

Groundwater found in wells moves within these fractures, as well as along some near horizontal
bedding planes. Some of these vertical fractures extend downward into underlying shale beds.
However, they are generally much narrower and typically do not transmit as much groundwater as
fractured sandstone beds. Wells that penetrate vertically through interbedded sandstone and shale
beds commonly receive most of their water from joints within sandstone beds. Both the
Shawangunk Quartzite and Quassaic Group quartzites, sandstones and conglomerates exhibit the
same high potential for groundwater and contaminant migration as do the West Falls, Sonyea,
Genesee, and upper Hamilton group bedrock units. They too have been omitted from
consideration for potential landfill sites in Ulster County.

Reference to Figure 1 shows that the Hamilton

Group has been broken out geologically into
upper and lower sections. The reason for this is
because the lower Hamilton Group is
predominantly comprised of shale beds with
few thick sandstone beds (Photo 2). This results
in a much lower permeability and, hence,
provides a suitable substrate for potential
landfill sites. Like the lower Hamilton group,
the Normanskill and Austin Glen Formations
are shale rich which makes them suitable for
potential landfill sites due to their low
permeabilities. These geologic units, along with
Photo 2. Lower Hamilton Group shales.

4
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

low permeability glacial lake clays are highlighted on Figure 2 as geologic substrates suitable for
landfill development.

Figures 1 and 2 portray a southwest to northeast trending blue carbonate band. This band is
comprised of a number of carbonate-rich geologic formations that have the potential for rapid or
unpredictable groundwater flow, including through solution conduits (Photo set 3 below), caves,
and mines. Carbonate rocks such as limestone and dolostone are made up of calcium and
magnesium carbonates which are soluble in nature and more so in acidic rain waters. This geologic
setting is referred to as a karst terrain. Karst landscapes are those where, in places, groundwater
and any contaminants in them move rapidly through conduits with little or no dilution to down-
gradient receptors. These hydrogeologic conditions have the potential of degrading aquifer and
surface water quality. Groundwater resources present in bedrock formations with conduits
developed in them are referred to as karst aquifers. They represent the most vulnerable aquifers
anywhere. Contaminants in karst aquifers can travel miles in hours versus groundwater flow rates
in non-karstic (i.e., non-conduit or cave-bearing) aquifers of feet per day or less. In fact, potential
mega-dump Site L in the hamlet of Katsbaan was thwarted for this reason in 1995. This site is
located within the Saugerties Aquifer Protection Overlay District portrayed near the northern tip
of Figure 3. The carbonate band depicted on these two figures is not suitable for landfill
construction.

Photo set 3. Solution conduits in carbonate bedrock can rapidly transmit contaminants with little or
no dilution and cleansing. This is analogous to open pipe flow, resulting in the most vulnerable of
hydrogeologic settings.

More Stepwise Elimination of Potential Landfill Sites

Potential landfill sites within Ulster County were then sequentially and systematically reduced
following the criteria outlined above. The results are depicted on GIS map Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8. Features eliminated from consideration on these figures are summarized as follows:

5
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Figure 3 - Hydrologic Features: FEMA Flood Zone AE, FEMA Flood Zone A, NYS &
Federal wetlands, Sand & Gravel deposits, Well Yields >100 gpm, Primary Aquifer,
Saugerties Aquifer Protection Overlay District.

Figure 4 - Agricultural Districts: Agricultural Districts.

Figure 5 - Environmental Justice: Potential Environmental Justice Areas.

Figure 6 - Public & Private Lands: New York City lands, New York State lands, PIPC
lands, Town lands (e.g., Hardenburgh, Denning, Esopus, Gardiner, Hurley, Kingston,
Lloyd, Marbletown, Marlborough, New Paltz, Olive, Plattekill, Rochester, Rosendale,
Saugerties, Shawangunk, Ulster, Wawarsing), US of America lands, Village lands (e.g.,
Ellenville, New Paltz, Saugerties).

Figure 7 - Assorted Protected Lands: Scenic Hudson lands, Mohonk Preserve lands, Frost
Valley YMCA lands, Open Space Institute lands, Other Protected lands (e.g., Ulster
County, John Burroughs Association, Catskill Center for Conservation, D & H Canal
Historical Society, Wallkill Valley Land Trust, Shawangunk Conservancy, Century House
Historical Society, Catskill Animal Sanctuary, Esopus Creek Conservancy, Cragsmoor
Conservancy, Woodstock Land Conservancy).

Figure 8 - Additional Protected Lands: Critical Environmental Areas, NYS Historic Sites,
National Register Sites, Kingston Hermitage Area.

Combined Results

Figure 9 portrays all potential landfill target areas broken out from Figures 1 and 3 through 8. The
red area represents all areas determined to not be suitable for landfill construction in Ulster County.
Most of the red area is comprised of natural resources that, together, make Ulster County
wonderful to live in. The small white areas on Figure 9 depict potential landfill sites identified by
a Siting Subcommittee appointed by the Solid Waste Management Improvement Commission in
2015. Site selection in 2015 was based on a combination of tax map data, the criteria of a minimum
of 200 acres, and removal of lands that included features such as state park land, aquifers, and
protected wildlife habitats. Only one of these site areas correlates with a large land parcel
identified with the letter “A” on Figure 10. These site locations do not fall within the refined
criteria used in this study which had the advantage of hydrogeologic expertise, publicly available
information databases, and advanced Geographic Information System (GIS) technology.

The green areas on Figure 9 reflect those remaining areas that warranted further investigation for
potential landfill sites. Figure 10 examines the green areas portrayed on Figure 9, breaking it out
based on parcel sizes greater than 200 acres (yellow) and those ranging in size between 100 acres
and 200 acres (green). The Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency ideally seeks a land parcel
in excess of 200 acres in order to secure long-term landfill usage.

6
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Natural resource protection and development pressure in Ulster County has almost entirely
eliminated parcels in excess of 200 acres. Seven such parcels were identified through the
elimination process described above. They appear in yellow on Figure 10 with labels A through
G. None are suitable for landfill construction. Highlights relating to these seven sites are as
follows.

Site A
Town: Hurley
Underlying Geology: Mostly Lower Hamilton. Small portion of Upper Hamilton.
Potential Usable Acreage: Not suitable.
Parcel Information:
SBL: 55.2-3-17.121; 221.6 acres Dug Hill Road [Meltz Realty Corp]
Forest Exemption Plan 1

Site Features: Englishman Creek to southwest of parcel. Tributary within parcel. Very steep.
Narrow (1,900 feet). Not suitable. This parcel and one directly to the northwest are the only parcels
that match any 2015 study sites – both parcels being on steep, unusable, terrain.

Site B
Town: Rosendale
Underlying Geology: Austin Glen
Potential Usable Acreage: Not suitable.
Parcel Information:
SBL: 71.1-1-32; 256.3 acres North Side Wallkill River [Assessed as vacant land]
[Central Hudson Gas & Electric]

Site Features: Wallkill River. Not suitable.

Site C
Town: Esopus
Underlying Geology: Austin Glen and Glacial Lake Clays.
Potential Usable Acreage: Not suitable.
Parcel Information:
SBL: 72.1-2-13.100; 407 acres Broadway/Route 9W [Church Communities Foundation]
Includes Mount Saint Alphonsus Road

Site Features: The Mount Academy and Bruderhof Community with buildings and fields. Steep
slope to east down to Hudson River. Not suitable.

7
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Site D
Town: Lloyd
Underlying Geology: Mostly Austin Glen; some Normanskill.
Potential Usable Acreage: Not suitable.
Parcel Information:
SBL: 87.3-5-15.100; 200 acres South Street [David Roehrs]

Site Features: Much of site is developed farm land. Partially steep topography. A significant
portion of the property is a large wetland area. Not suitable.

Site E
Town: Gardiner
Underlying Geology: Normanskill
Potential Acreage if combined with SBL: 94.2-1-4.100: > 100 acres but with partial elimination
due to sand and gravel deposit to west.
Parcel Information:
SBL: 94.2-1-3; 264.7* acres S Ohioville Road [Ohioville Acres Corp]
SBL: 94.2-1-4.100; 128.8* acres Route 32 S [Joseph Trainor]
SBL: 94.2-1-4.300; 11.5 acres S Ohioville Road [Patrick Palcic]

*: Some of the identified parcels only partially lie outside protected eliminated areas of sand and
gravel.

Site Features: Developing area. Significant nearby development in surrounding area, especially
to the southeast, south, southwest, west, north, and northeast. SBL: 94.2-1-4.300 Landlocked.
SBL: 94.2-1-3 has a single house deep within the parcel, but as a separate parcel. SBL: 94.2-1-
4.100 has a house near its western side and perhaps 2 other unidentified buildings within the large
parcel. Remaining large potential land areas are being developed. Consideration could be given
to buying out one or a few homeowners that are central to otherwise large vacant land tracts.
However, not suitable due to significant nearby development and partial sand and gravel presence.

Site F
Town: Shawangunk
Underlying Geology: Austin Glen
Potential Usable Acreage: Not suitable.
Parcel Information:
SBL: 99.3-1-11.245; 277.6 acres New Prospect Road [Hudson Valley Wild LLC]

Site Features: Verkeerder Kill traverses through center of the parcel. Valley bottom width to
900± feet. Not suitable.

8
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Site G
Town: Wawarsing
Underlying Geology: Austin Glen; off property to east goes up Shawangunk escarpment towards
Lake Maratanza.
Potential Usable Acreage: Not suitable.
Parcel Information:
SBL: 91-1-20; 223.7 acres Woodside Dell [Lorraine Devore]

Site Features: Steep terrain below Shawangunk escarpment. Not suitable.

Combined Parcels and Potential Landfill Sites H and I

It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a single land tract of 100 acres or more suitable for a landfill
site in Ulster County. For this reason, areas potentially suitable for a landfill were examined based
on contiguous land tracts that were largely or completely undeveloped. Figure 10 also portrays a
number of green land parcels within the Potential Target Areas depicted on Figure 9. These parcels
range in size from 100 acres to 200 acres. While it is possible that some combination of contiguous
parcels might add up to a usable 200-acre land tract suitable for landfill construction, it is unlikely
due to the presence of nearby homes and insufficient land area. Extensive efforts in this direction
were unproductive with two notable exceptions: Site H and Site I (Figure 10).

Potential Landfill Site H

Site H is located in the Town of Plattekill adjacent to a remediated EPA superfund site (Figure
10). Figure 11 shows the site area and a number of parcels that could, in part, be combined to
make a site suitable for construction of an Ulster County landfill. This location would require
coordination with property owners to determine their willingness to sell land.

HydroQuest conducted an initial paper analysis of the site area using a combination of high
resolution orthoimagery, LiDAR-derived two-foot elevational contour data, GIS technology, and
hydrologic analysis. The site area meets 12 or 13 bulleted Key Desirable Features and Criteria
in Landfill Site Selection presented on pages 2 and 3 of this report. Figures 12, 13, and 14
examine the bulleted criteria: Physically removed from densely populated areas, ideally with a
surrounding buffer zone. Figures 12 and 13 plot house and building density in the area surrounding
potential landfill Site H on terrain and imagery-based maps, respectively. A key issue is whether
the Site H area would be reasonably shielded from view by a combination of tree cover, distance,
and terrain (e.g., elevated ridges). This requires field assessment and viewshed map construction.
However, as part of the initial paper review of the site Figure 14 was constructed by using Digital
Elevation Model (DEMs) data to create a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) to display and
analyze 3D surface information. Once generated, elevational ranges were selected and graphically
depicted so that the viewer can visually correlate home location with both topography and distance.
For example, reference to Figure 14 shows that many houses situated west of potential landfill Site
H would be shielded by an intermediary ridge.

9
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

As discussed above, this is a first step in what would be a more comprehensive ground-truthed
evaluation process. The evaluation process would also consider shielding by tree cover and
distance. In terms of potential landfill site locations in Ulster County, much of this particular site
would be at a greater distance away from many houses as compared to other areas where Ulster
County development has already or is currently constructing homesites close to or within
remaining land tracts.

Highlights of this potential landfill site are:

Site H
Town: Plattekill
Underlying Geology: Austin Glen
Potential Landfill Acreage: 108±
Parcel Information:
SBL: 95.3-4-36.1; 166.2 acres Tuckers Corners Road [Habitec 2002 LLC]
SBL: 95.3-5-40; 25.1 acres Tuckers Corners Road [Donna Nowak]
SBL: 95.3-5-42; 3.8* acres Tuckers Corners Road [John Husted]
SBL: 95.3-5-43.2; 10.2* acres Tuckers Corners Road [Jasper Scalise]
SBL: 95.3-5-43.1; 8.9* acres Tuckers Corners Road [Jasper Scalise]
SBL: 95.3-5-45; 34.2* acres Tuckers Corners Road [Sanicola]
SBL: 95.3-8-1; 20 acres Tuckers Corners Road [John Husted]
SBL: 95.3-8-2.1; 119.2* acres Milton Tpk [Albert Angelilo]
SBL: 95.3-4-37; 73.9* acres Rt 44/55 [Hves Inc]
SBL: 95.3-4-8.1; 2.1* acres Rt 44/55 [Mildred Cerra]

*: Some of the identified parcels are only partially included on the potential landfill site.

2016 Imagery Numbers:

06151034 06181034 06211034
06151036 06181036 06211036
06151038 06181038 06211038
06151040 06181040 06211040

Two-foot elevation contour files: 18TWM790140, 18YWM805140, 18TWM805155,

18TWM790155, and 18TWM790125 were used in site assessment.

Site Features: EPA Superfund Landfill (Hertel Site 14.6 acres) to north-northwest of potential
landfill site. Potential 108± acre landfill area is hummocky with elevations ranging between 610
and 734 ft msl. Engineered cut and fill excavation and grading would be required but is feasible.
Wetlands are the nearby hydrologic baselevel. Raised site area, small recharge area, favorable
bedrock geology, and site’s physical location at some distance from surrounding homes are of
note.

Contaminant Containment: As discussed in this report and within NYSDEC regulations, site
selection should not occur on bedrock where a containment failure of the facility would result in
contamination entering the bedrock system. Geologically, this criterium is particularly important

10
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

in areas underlain by highly fractured and permeable fracture or joint sets, especially in areas where
contaminant transport could occur over many thousands of feet to downgradient homeowner wells.
This is why many of the Catskill sandstone formations have been omitted from landfill site
selection.

Should containment failure occur due to rippage or chemical damage of an underlying

geomembrane (Photo set 4) or failure of soft wetted clays it is desirable to have a geologic or
engineered substrate with a low permeability where contaminants can be readily contained and
collected. The low permeability bedrock present at this site may be engineered to hydraulically
meet NYSDEC containment criterium. Furthermore, the limited site recharge area and a nearby
hydrologic base level are favorable landfill siting criteria.

Photo set 4. Ripped and resealed geomembrane material that was physically accessible.

Site H Conclusion and Background Story

Site H is a viable potential Ulster County landfill site worthy of further investigation. There is an
interesting background story that goes with the former Hertel Landfill situated just north-northwest
of potential landfill Site H. In 1987, the author of this report worked as a hydrogeologist in the
Environmental Protection Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office. Major news
at that time focused on what to do with a 230-foot-long barge loaded with garbage. No one wanted
it. At the AGs Office, we received a telephone call asking for a special meeting to discuss this
garbage situation. A small group met with an older gentleman who proposed an interesting plan.
Clearly, he knew there was money to make in garbage, as did the group he represented. He wanted
to coordinate with us to purchase the Hertel Landfill, to spend whatever money was necessary to
remediate it, and to then expand the landfill site. The follow-up is beyond the scope of this report.
However, the site was remediated and has not been expanded. Now is an excellent time to
investigate this Ulster County landfill option.

11
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Potential Landfill Site I

Site I, also located in the Town of Plattekill, presents another potential landfill site worthy of
further investigation and consideration (Figure 10). Figures 15 and 16 show similar initial paper
investigation of this site as was conducted for potential landfill Site H. Site I is bounded by a state
wetland to the west and a powerline corridor to the east. Wetland boundaries portrayed proximal
to Sites H and I were reasonably delineated while using high resolution orthoimagery and, as such,
are almost certainly more accurate than wetland boundaries presented in a New York State GIS
wetland database. If further consideration is given to either Site H or Site I, full on the ground
wetland delineation will be needed.

Hydrologically, a drainage divide within the site area splits surface runoff eastward into the
headwaters of the Black Creek and southward into the Quassaic Creek drainage. Lake Sunset is
northwest of the potential landfill site area.

Site I
Town: Plattekill
Underlying Geology: Austin Glen.
Potential Usable Acreage: Approximately 96 acres.
Parcel Information:
SBL: 101.2-2-12.92; 95 acres Camp Sunset Road [Mohegan Avenue Corp]
SBL: 101.2-2-13; 153.7 acres Plattekill Ardonia Road [MPZ Holding Corp]
SBL: 101.2-2-14; 58.6 acres Plattekill Ardonia Road [Fred Schiller]

2016 Imagery Numbers:

06061028 06091028 06121028
06061026 06091026 06121026
06061024 06091024 06121024
06061022 06091022 06121022
06061020 06091020 06121020

Two-foot elevation contour files: 18TWM775095 and 18TWM775110 were used in site
assessment.

Site Features: Lake Sunset area. A portion of potential landfill site area I lies in the headwater
watershed area of Black Creek. Analysis of LiDAR derived 2-foot contours and high resolution
orthoimagery reveals that the site area encompasses a hydrologic divide between Black Creek to
the northwest and Quassaic Creek to the south. The large New York State wetland west of the site
area was mapped via imagery analysis and would require field delineation. While headwater
drainage areas afford little contaminant dilution should excursions occur, they also provide
controlled settings where excursions can be monitored, contained, and collected. The elevation
range of the potential site area is between 650 and 734 feet above mean sea level.

A topographic map of the area shows a dashed road traversing from Fosler Road to the south
trending northward through the potential site area to Camp Sunset Road and beyond labeled
“Rabbit Run Road.” This dashed road is labeled on Figure 16.

12
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Conclusion and Recommendations

The primary goal of this landfill site investigation study was to identify one or more sites in Ulster
County, New York that exhibit physical characteristics potentially suitable for development and
operation of a county landfill. Extensive use of GIS technology, coupled with geologic and
hydrogeologic expertise, has identified two sites worthy of further investigation: Sites H and I.

As graphically documented in this report, most of Ulster County is either developed or protected
in various ways. Five recommendations follow:

• Contact NYSDEC and discuss Sites H and I as potential landfill site options;

• Conduct viewshed analyses of Sites H and I and the surrounding areas if they are
considered suitable for additional investigation;

• Contact landowners regarding their interest in selling required land;

• Conduct site-specific, field-based, geologic and hydrologic investigations of Sites

H and I if UCRRA and NYSDEC consider them worthy of further investigation.
Include assessment of soil mantle type, thickness, and permeability; bedrock
geology; and morphological evaluations of the landforms present; and

• Look beyond Ulster County if Sites H and I are determined to not be suitable sites
for an Ulster County landfill.

Qualifications: Paul Rubin has forty years of professional hydrologic and geologic experience
and is a licensed Professional Geologist in New York State. During much of this time he lived
and conducted professional work within Ulster County. His experience includes responsibility for
the design, protocols, coordination, implementation, evaluation, characterization and remediation
of many major water and soil contamination sites throughout New York State (e.g., Love Canal,
Superfund sites). He has designed, performed and supervised chemical field sampling at
hazardous waste sites. This included the evaluation of geotechnical and chemical data sets while
working in the Environmental Protection Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office
(e.g., at a number of municipal landfills across NYS). Mr. Rubin has also testified in court
regarding contaminant transport in varied geologic and hydrogeologic settings. His familiarity
with contaminant concerns and the geology of Ulster County makes him well-suited for assessing
potential landfill sites throughout the county. In 1995, Mr. Rubin provided the technical
hydrogeologic expertise that was instrumental in thwarting development of a regional mega-dump
at Site L in Saugerties over what is now the Saugerties Aquifer Protection Overlay District.
Additional information specific to his experience may be viewed at his HydroQuest web site
(http:/hydroquest.com).

13
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

µ
Bedrock Geology in
Ulster County, New York

S
T
32A

Bi
rc
T
S32
h Big Indian
C
r e%
2
ek
Dry

k
Phoenicia Saugerties
Kill%
2 ll
er K i Lake Hill
T
S 2
%
Bro

anth 212

Es
P a ve r 2
%
Be

op
Glasco
ok

Pl
BearsvilleWoodstock
G

us

att
2
% 2375
% 2
%
T%
S
ok

47
Zena

ek
Cree
Bro

B
2

i ll C
e a er K i ll
v
er West Hurley

k
ck

iv

ree
kR 2
%
Bla

in
roo k

vers

k
Ne i n k R iver Shokan 2
%
ch Ne
v er s 2
% S
T
28A Lake Katrine
F a ll B

ch
G
an
East Kingston%
n

2
ra

k 42
£
¤
tB

Ulster Olivebridge
B

st Hurley 9W

G
es

a 2
%
E M 2
% 2
%
W

5
County et
ta Kingston
Sundown
ca
ho T BloomingtonPort Ewen
S213 2
%
2
%
G ¨
¦
§%2
nt

46 87
sC

Ulster Park
Stone RidgeRosendale % 2
G
ree

2
%
3
e High%
2Falls
k

Sw
k
T
S Tp 2
%
¨
55A
¦
§

ar
a s

t e Kill
87
uc
B ro o k ek L
Cre
il l
K
dy d ou t ll
n Ron
g

ra K ill
Co i

T
S
xi n
sK

Be B
er 55 in e
Napanoch Kle New Paltz
er

Ki
S
T ll
£
¤
Fa

2 299
%
et

52 2
% 44
S
T T
S
P

299
nt

l
Kil
ine

Ellenville k Highland
ro
o
T
S208 2
%
ra

2
%
£
¤
Ki

B 9W
Ma
ll

y
Fl
unk
So

Gardiner
ut

2
%
Ki
ang
h

ll
Gu

aw

D wa
lly

Sh

Walker Valley
ar

2
%
Kill

S
T
52 Wallkill
2
%
Marlboro
2
%

Legend
West Falls Group Carbonates
Shawangunk
Sonyea Group Quartzite
Genesee Group Quassic Group Miles
0 2 4 8 12 16
Hamilton Group Normanskill
Formation
Lower Hamilton HydroQuest Graphic
Group Austin Glen
Formation
Figure 1
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Geologic Substrates Suitable

for Landfill Development in
Ulster County, New York µ
Blue: Carbonates NOT
Suitable for Landfills
S
T
32A

Bi
rc
T
S32
h Big Indian
C
r e%
2
ek
Dry

k
Phoenicia Saugerties
ll2 ll
r Ki %
nth e
K i Lake Hill
T
S 2
%
Bro

212

Es
r
Pa av e 2
%
Be

op
Glasco
ok

Pl
BearsvilleWoodstock
G

us

att
2
% 2375
% 2
%
T%
S
ok

47
Zena

eki
Cree
Bro

B
e a er K ill 2

ll C
v
er West Hurley

k
ck

R iv

ree
2
%
Bla

nk
ers i
roo k

k
Ne
v i n k R iver Shokan 2
%
ch Ne
vers 2
% T
S
28A Lake Katrine
F a ll B

ch
G
East Kingston%
n

an 2
ra

k 42
£
¤
tB

Ulster Olivebridge
B

t Hurley 9W
as
G
es

E M 2
% 2
% 2
%
W

5
County et
ta Kingston
Sundown
ca
ho T
S
213 2
%
BloomingtonPort Ewen
2
%
G ¨
¦
§%2
nt

46 87
sC

Ulster Park
Stone RidgeRosendale % 2
G
ree

3 2
% 2
%
k e High Falls
k

Sw
T
S Tp 2
%
¨
55A
¦
§
ar
as

t e Kill
c 87
e kLu
B ro o k Cre
il l

K
dy ou t ll
n ond
g

ra R K ill
Co i

S
T
xi n
sK

Be B 55 e
er in
Napanoch Kle New Paltz
er

Ki
T
S ll
£
¤
Fa

2 299
%
et

52 2
% 44
S
T T
S
P

299
nt

l
Kil
ine

Ellenville ok Highland
ro T
S
208 2
%
ra

2
%
Ki

B
£
¤
Ma
ll

y
Fl 9W
unk
So

Gardiner
ut

2
%
Ki
ang
h

ll
Gu

aw

D wa
lly

Sh

Legend Walker Valley

ar

2
%
Kill

Glacial Lake T
S
52 Wallkill
2
%
Marlboro
2
%
Clays
Normanskill
Shale
Austin Glen
Shale & Miles
Graywacke 0 2 4 8 12 16
Lower HydroQuest Graphic
Hamilton Shale
& Siltstone
Figure 2
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

µ
Hydrologic Features
in Ulster County, New York

S
T
32A

Bi
rc
T
S32
h Big Indian
C
r e%
2
ek
Dry

k
Phoenicia Saugerties
ll2 ll
r Ki %
nth e
K i Lake Hill
T
S 2
%
Bro

212

Es
r
Pa av e 2
%
Be

op
Glasco
ok

Pl
BearsvilleWoodstock
G

us

at t
2
% 2375
% 2
%
T%
S
ok

47
Zena

eki
Cree
Bro

B
e a er K ill 2

ll C
v
er West Hurley

k
ck

R iv

ree
2
%
Bla

nk
ers i
roo k

k
Ne
v i n k R iver Shokan 2
%
ch Ne
vers 2
% T
S
28A Lake Katrine
F a ll B

ch
G
East Kingston%
n

an 2
ra

k 42
£
¤
tB

Br

t Ulster Olivebridge Hurley 9W

as
G
es

E M 2
% 2
% 2
%
W

5
County et
ta Kingston
Sundown
ca
ho T
S
213 2
%
BloomingtonPort Ewen
2
%
G ¨
¦
§%2
nt

46 87
sC

Ulster Park
Stone RidgeRosendale % 2
G
ree

3 2
% 2
%
k e High Falls
k

Sw
T
S Tp 2
%
¨
55A
¦
§
ar
as

t e Kill
c 87
Primary e kLu
B ro o k Cre
il l

K
dy ou t ll
Aquifer n ond
g

ra R K ill
Co i

S
T
xi n
sK

Be B 55 e
er in
Napanoch Kle New Paltz
er

Ki
T
S ll
£
¤
Fa

2 299
%
et

52 2
% 44
S
T T
S
P

299
nt

l
Kil
ine

Ellenville ok Highland
ro T
S
208 2
%
ra

2
%
Ki

B
£
¤
Ma
ll

y
Fl 9W
unk
So

Gardiner
ut

2
%
Ki
ang
h

ll
Gu

aw

D wa
lly

Sh

Legend Walker Valley

ar

2
%
Kill

FEMA Flood Zone AE T

S
52 Wallkill
2
%
Marlboro
2
%
FEMA Flood ZONE A
NYS & Federal Wetlands
Sand & Gravel Deposits
Well Yield >100 gpm
Miles
Primary Aquifer 0 2 4 8 12 16
Saugerties Aquifer
Protection Overlay District HydroQuest Graphic
Railroad Line
Figure 3
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

µ
Agricultural Districts
in Ulster County, New York

S
T
32A

Bi
rc
T
S32
h Big Indian
C
re %
2
ek
Dry

k Phoenicia Saugerties
ll 2 ll
the r Ki % K i Lake Hill T
S 2
%
Bro

er 2 212

Es
Pan e a v %

op
ok

B Glasco

Pl
BearsvilleWoodstock
G

us

at t
2
% 2
% 2
%
ok

47
T
S

eki
375 Zena

Cre e
Bro

B
e a er K ill 2
%

ll C
v
ver West Hurley
ck

ree
i
kR 2
%
Bla

sin
roo k

k
eve i n k R iver Shokan 2
%
ch
N
Ne
vers 2
% 28A T
S
Lake Katrine
F a ll B

ch
G
East Kingston%
n

an 2
ra

k 42
£
¤
tB

Br

as
t Ulster Olivebridge Hurley 9W
G
es

E M %
2 %
2 2
%
W

5
County et Kingston
Sundown
ta
ca
ho
T
S 213 2
%
BloomingtonPort Ewen
Co

%
2
G ¨
¦
§
un

2
%
nt
sC

46 87 Ulster Park
ty

Stone RidgeRosendale % 2
Rt

G
ree

2
%
e

3 2
%
k

High Falls

Sw
T
S
55A 2
%
¨
¦
§
ar
t e Kill
87
B ro o k e ek
il l

dy t Cr l K
n o n d ou K il
g

ra R y K ill
S
T
xi n

Be B 55 t on in e
er S Kle
Co

Ki Napanoch New Paltz

T
S
B
52
ll
%
2 £
¤44
S
T %
2
ee

299
Ki
l
Kil
r

l lEllenville
ok Highland
ro T
S 2
%
ra

2
% 208
B
£
¤
Ma

y
Fl 9W
unk
So

Gardiner
ut

Ki
ang

2
%
h

ll
Gu

aw

D w aa
lly

Sh

Walker Valley
r
Kil l

2
%
T
S
52 Wallkill
2
%
Marlboro
2
%

Miles
0 2 4 8 12 16
Legend
HydroQuest Graphic
Agricultural Districts
Figure 4
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

µ
Potential Environmental
Justice Areas in
Ulster County, New York

S
T
32A

Bi
rc
T
S32
h Big Indian
C
r e%
2
ek
Dry

k
Phoenicia Saugerties
ll2 ll
r Ki %
nth e
K i Lake Hill
T
S 2
%
Bro

212

Es
r
Pa av e 2
%
Be

op
Glasco
ok

Pl
BearsvilleWoodstock
G

us

att
2
% 2375
% 2
%
T%
S
ok

47
Zena

eki
Cree
Bro

B
e a er K ill 2

ll C
v
er West Hurley

k
ck

R iv

ree
2
%
Bla

nk
ers i
roo k

k
Ne
v i n k R iver Shokan 2
%
ch Ne
vers 2
% T
S
28A Lake Katrine
F a ll B

ch
G
East Kingston%
n

an 2
ra

k 42
£
¤
tB

Ulster Olivebridge
B

t Hurley 9W
as
G
es

E M 2
% 2
% 2
%
W

5
County et
ta Kingston
Sundown
ca
ho T
S
213 2
%
BloomingtonPort Ewen
2
%
G ¨
¦
§%2
nt

46 87
sC

Ulster Park
Stone RidgeRosendale % 2
G
ree

3 2
% 2
%
k e High Falls
k

Sw
T
S Tp 2
%
¨
55A
¦
§
ar
as

t e Kill
c 87
e kLu
B ro o k Cre
il l

K
dy ou t ll
n ond
g

ra R K ill
Co i

S
T
xi n
sK

Be B 55 e
er in
Napanoch Kle New Paltz
er

Ki
T
S ll
£
¤
Fa

2 299
%
et

52 2
% 44
S
T T
S
P

299
nt

l
Kil
ine

Ellenville ok Highland
ro T
S
208 2
%
ra

2
%
Ki

B
£
¤
Ma
ll

y
Fl 9W
unk
So

Gardiner
ut

2
%
Ki
ang
h

ll
Gu

aw

D wa
lly

Sh

Walker Valley
ar

2
%
Kill

T
S
52 Wallkill
2
%
Marlboro
2
%

Legend Miles
0 2 4 8 12 16
Potential
Environmental HydroQuest Graphic
Justice Areas
Figure 5
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Public & Private Lands

in Ulster County, New York
µ
S
T
32A

Bi
rc
T
S32
h Big Indian
C
r e%
2
ek
Dry

k
Phoenicia Saugerties
ll2 ll
r Ki %
nth e
K i Lake Hill
T
S 2
%
Bro

212

Es
r
Pa av e 2
%
Be

op
Glasco
ok

Pl
BearsvilleWoodstock
G

us

att
2
% 2375
% 2
%
T%
S
ok

47
Zena

eki
Cree
Bro

B
e a er K ill 2

ll C
v
er West Hurley

k
ck

R iv

ree
2
%
Bla

nk
ers i
roo k

k
Ne
v i n k R iver Shokan 2
%
ch Ne
vers 2
% T
S
28A Lake Katrine
F a ll B

ch
G
East Kingston%
n

an 2
ra

k 42
£
¤
tB

Ulster Olivebridge
B

t Hurley 9W
as
G
es

E M 2
% 2
% 2
%
W

5
County et
ta Kingston
Sundown
ca
ho T
S
213 2
%
BloomingtonPort Ewen
2
%
G ¨
¦
§%2
nt

46 87
sC

Ulster Park
Stone RidgeRosendale % 2
G
ree

3 2
% 2
%
k e High Falls
k

Sw
T
S Tp 2
%
¨
55A
¦
§
ar
as

t e Kill
c 87
e kLu
B ro o k Cre
il l

K
dy ou t ll
n ond
g

ra R K ill
Co i

S
T
xi n
sK

Be B 55 e
er in
Napanoch Kle New Paltz
er

Ki
T
S ll
£
¤
Fa

2 299
%
et

52 2
% 44
S
T T
S
P

299
nt

l
Kil
ine

Ellenville ok Highland
ro T
S
208 2
%
ra

2
%
Ki

B
£
¤
Ma
ll

y
Fl 9W
unk
So

Gardiner
ut

2
%
Ki
ang
h

ll
Gu

aw

Legend D wa
lly

Sh

Walker Valley
ar

2
%
Kill

New York State

Lands
T
S
52 Wallkill
2
%
Marlboro
2
%
New York City
Lands
PIPC Lands
US of America Miles
Lands 0 2 4 8 12 16
Town Lands HydroQuest Graphic
Village Lands
Figure 6
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

µ
Assorted Protected Lands
in Ulster County, New York

S
T
32A

Bi
rc
T
S32
h Big Indian
C
r e%
2
ek
Dry

k
Phoenicia Saugerties
ll2 ll
r Ki %
nth e
K i Lake Hill
T
S 2
%
Bro

212

Es
r
Pa av e 2
%
Be

op
Glasco
ok

Pl
BearsvilleWoodstock
G

us

att
2
% 2375
% 2
%
T%
S
ok

47
Zena

eki
Cree
Bro

B
e a er K ill 2

ll C
v
er West Hurley

k
ck

R iv

ree
2
%
Bla

nk
ers i
roo k

k
Ne
v i n k R iver Shokan 2
%
ch Ne
vers 2
% T
S
28A Lake Katrine
F a ll B

ch
G
East Kingston%
n

an 2
ra

k 42
£
¤
tB

Ulster Olivebridge
B

t Hurley 9W
as
G
es

E M 2
% 2
% 2
%
W

5
County et
ta Kingston
Sundown
ca
ho T
S
213 2
%
BloomingtonPort Ewen
2
%
G ¨
¦
§%2
nt

46 87
sC

Ulster Park
Stone RidgeRosendale % 2
G
ree

3 2
% 2
%
k e High Falls
k

Sw
T
S Tp 2
%
¨
55A
¦
§
ar
as

t e Kill
c 87
e kLu
B ro o k Cre
il l

K
dy ou t ll
n ond
g

ra R K ill
Co i

S
T
xi n
sK

Be B 55 e
er in
Napanoch Kle New Paltz
er

Ki
T
S ll
£
¤
Fa

2 299
%
et

52 2
% 44
S
T T
S
P

299
nt

l
Kil
ine

Ellenville ok Highland
ro T
S
208 2
%
ra

2
%
Ki

B
£
¤
Ma
ll

y
Fl 9W
unk
So

Gardiner
ut

2
%
Ki
ang
h

ll
Gu

aw

Legend D wa
lly

Sh

Walker Valley
ar

2
%
Kill

Scenic Hudson
Lands T
S
52 Wallkill
2
%
Marlboro
2
%
Mohonk Preserve
Lands
Frost Valley YMCA
Lands
Miles
Open Space
0 2 4 8 12 16
Institute Lands
Other Protected HydroQuest Graphic
Lands
Figure 7
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

µ
Additional Protected Lands
in Ulster County, New York

S
T
32A

Bi
rc
T
S32
h Big Indian
C
r e%
2
ek
Dry

k
Phoenicia Saugerties
Kill%
2 ll
er K i Lake Hill
T
S 2
%
Bro

anth 212

Es
P a ve r 2
%
Be

op
Glasco
ok

Pl
BearsvilleWoodstock
G

us

att
2
% 2375
% 2
%
T%
S
ok

47
Zena

eki
Cre e
Bro

B
e a er K ill 2

ll C
v
er West Hurley

k
ck

R iv

ree
2
%
Bla

nk
ers i
roo k

k
Ne
v i n k R iver Shokan 2
%
ch Ne
v er s 2
% S
T
28A Lake Katrine
F a ll B

ch
G
an
East Kingston%
an

k 42 2
r

£
¤
tB

Ulster Olivebridge
B

st Hurley 9W

G
es

a 2
%
E M 2
% 2
%
W

5
County et
ta Kingston
Sundown
ca
ho T BloomingtonPort Ewen
S
213 2
%
2
%
G ¨
¦
§%2
nt

46 87 Ulster Park
sC

Stone RidgeRosendale % 2
G
ree

2
%
3
e High%
2Falls
k

Sw
k
T
S Tp 2
%
¨
55A
¦
§

ar
as

t e Kill
c 87
ree kLu
B ro o k
il l
dy ut C ll
K
an Ro nd o
g

K ill
Co i

r
S
T
xi n
sK

Be B
er 55 in e
Napanoch Kle New Paltz
er

Ki
S
T ll
£
¤
Fa

2 299
%
et

52 2
% 44
S S
T T
P

299
nt

l
Kil
ine

Ellenville k Highland
ro
o
T
S
208 2
%
ra

2
%
£
¤
Ki

B 9W
Ma
ll

y
Fl
unk
So

Gardiner
ut

2
%
Ki
ang
h

ll
Gu

aw

Dwa
lly

Sh

Walker Valley
ar

2
%
Ki ll

T
S
52 Wallkill
2
%
Marlboro
2
%
Legend
Critical
Environmental
Areas Note: There is some overlap
NYS Historic between sites portrayed on this
Sites figure and those on other figures.
National Miles
Register Sites 0 2 4 8 12 16
Kingston HydroQuest Graphic
Hermitage Area
Figure 8
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

µ
Potential Landfill Target
Areas Broken Out From
Figures 1 and 3 to 8;
Ulster County, New York

S
T
32A

Bi
rc T
S32
h
C Big Indian
r e%
2
Dry

ek Phoenicia Saugerties
k l l2 ll
the r Ki % K i Lake Hill 2
%
Bro

Es
Pan ve r 2
%
ea

op
Glasco
ok

B BearsvilleWoodstock
G

us
2 %
% 2375 Zena 2
%
T%
S
ok

47

Cree k
Be
Bro

a v er K il l 2
iv er West Hurley
ck

kR 2
%
%S
T
in
Bla
roo k

v ers k R iver Shokan 2 32

Ne v er s in
ch Ne 2
% Lake Katrine
F a ll B

h
nc
G
an

k East Kingston%
2
r

42
ra
tB

Ulster Olivebridge Hurley

B

t
as
G%2
es

E M 2
% 5 2
%
W

County et
Kingston
Sundown
ta
ca
ho T BloomingtonPort Ewen
S213 2
%
Co

2
%
G ¨
¦
§%2
un
nt

46 87 Ulster Park
sC

ty

Stone RidgeRosendale %2
Rt

G
re e

2
%
e

3 2Falls
%
High
2

Sw
k

T
S 2
%
¨
¦
§
55A

ar
87

t e Kill
e ek
ll

t Cr
Ki

d ou
Ron
g

K il
S
T
in

Be l
in e
ox

er 55
Napanoch Kle New Paltz
C

Ki
S
T
Fa

ll
52 2
% £
¤ 44 S
T T
S 2299
%
nt

299
l
Kil

Highland
ine

Ellenville o o k
r T
S208 2
%
ra

2
%
Ki

B
£
¤
Ma

y
ll

Fl 9W
So

unk Gardiner
ut

ang

2
%
K
h

ill
Gu

aw
lly

Sh

Walker Valley
2
%
T
S
52 Wallkill
2
%
Marlboro
2
%
Legend
None Target
Areas
Potential Miles
Target Areas 0 2 4 8 12 16
2015 Possible
HydroQuest Graphic
Landfill Site
Locations
Figure 9
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

µ
Large Parcels Within Geologically
Desirable Land Areas in Ulster County, New York

Big Indian
2
%
Phoenicia Saugerties
2
% Lake Hill 2
%
2
%
BearsvilleWoodstock Glasco
2
% 2
% 2
%
Zena
2
%
West Hurley
2
% Lake Katrine
Shokan 2
%
2
% East Kingston
A 2
%
Olivebridge Hurley Kingston
2
% 2
% 2
%
Port Ewen

Sundown
2
%
Bloomington
2
% 2
%
Ulster Park
Stone Ridge
Rosendale 2
%
2
% 2
%
2
%
High Falls
B C

Napanoch New Paltz

2
% 2
%
Ellenville Highland
2
% 2
%
E D
G 2
%
Gardiner
- Site H

Walker Valley
- Site I
2
%
F Wallkill Marlboro
2
% 2
%

Legend
200 Plus Acre Parcels
Miles
100 to 200 Acre Parcels 0 2 4 8 12 16
Possible Landfill Site H HydroQuest Graphic
Possible Landfill Site I
Figure 10
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Ma p le A v e

il l R d
d
Site H: Possible Future

ts R
Av e
Mi l l
St
Town of Plattekill;

Oa k H
eigh
Clif f
Ro ut e 4 4 55
Ulster County, New York

se H

r
Landfill Site

La r r y D
Mo r
n

le Ln
oL
Fa r
Sta
te

Ma p
Ro
ute
44
£
¤
44

55
H u ll A

Je
nk
i ns
Av
e
Be d Ln
ve

e ll
o Ln

Rd
r
Va c c a

rs
rne
Co
rs
kec
Tu
G15
Da
vid
Ct

App
le wo
od C
t

o r n ers R d
er s C
Tuck

Mi l
ton
Tpk w Ln
e H ig h v ie

µ
n
iL
isc
Cr

Legend
g O a ks Dr
W h is p e ri n
Possible Landfill Watershed
Site (~108 acres) Surrounding
C ir

St

Possible Landfill Feet

S to n e O Hertel Superfund
o ck

aSite Site (~437 acres)

ut h

k s D(14.6
r acres) 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
R
So

Parcels
Wetlands G le n N
e lli
(approx. Streams es Pl
boundaries)
HydroQuest Graphic Figure 11
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
2
%2 %
% 2
2
% 2%
%2%2 % 2 % 2
%
2
% 2
%
%
2 2
% 2%
% 2 2 2%
% 22
% 2%
%
2 %
% 22
%

Ma p le A v e
2
% 2%

il l R d
d
2% 2
% 2%
% 2% 2 House Density Surrounding

ts R
2
% 2
%

Av e
2
%
2
% M 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2 2
%2
%
2
% 2
% i l
2
% l S t 2
%2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%
2 %
%
2
%
2 %
% 2%
2% 2 Potential Landfill Site H

Oa k H
2%
%

eigh
22 2 ut e% 2 2
%

Clif f
2
%2 22% % 2
% 2
% % 2%
% 2
%
2
%2
% 2%
% 2%
% 2
%
2%2
Ro
2
% 2
% 2
% 4 4 55 %
2
% 2 2%
% 2% 22
%
2
% 2 Ulster County, New York

se H
2 %
% 2
% 2
%2
% 2
%2
% 2
%2
% 2
%
2%
% 222
% 2
% 2%
% 2%2% 2%
%
22% 2%
2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
2%
2%
2%2% 2 2
%

r
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%2
%

La r r y D
2
%

Mo r
2%
%2% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2%
%

n
2

le Ln
2%
% 2
% 2 % 2
% 2 2% 2%
2%
2%2%
oL
2 2% 2%2% 2%
% 2% 2
%2%2%
22
%2
%
2
%2 %
% 2S t a %
%
2
% Fa r 2 %
% 2
% 2%
% 2%
%2%2 2
% 2 t2
2%
%
2
% 2 2
% 2
% 22

Ma p
2 %
% 2%2 2
% 2
% e R
2%
% %
2
%
2%
% 2
2
% 2
% 2 2
% 2o u t
%
2 2 % £
¤44
2 2
% 2
% 2
%
2%
% 2
%
2 % 2
2
% 2%
% 2 2 %
%
2
% 2e%
24 4 %
2 55 %
% 2
%
2Je% 2%
% 2 2%
2
2
%
2%2% 2% 2 2
% %
H u ll A

% 2% 2 2
% 2 %
% 2 2%
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2 2
%
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%nk
2
%
2%2% 2%2% 2% 2B %
2%
2%
2% 22%2
i
% 2 % 2%
% e2 2 v %
% 2 % 2%2% 2n% sL %

e
2 2
% d e ll A 2
%
2
% 2
% 2
% 2 n %
2
%
ve

2%
% 2 2
% 2
% 2%
% 2% 2% 2
%
2
% 2%
% 2% 2%
o Ln

2%
% 2 2% 2 2 % 2
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%

Rd
2%
% 2 2%
% 2
%
r

2 2
%
Va c c a

rs
2
% 2
%

rne
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%

Co
2%
% 2 2
% 2
% 2
%
2
%
2%
% 2
%

rs
2
% 2

ke
2
%
2%2% 2 % 2

c
%

Tu
2
%
2%
%
2
%
2 G2
%
2
%
15

2
% 2%
% 2
Da

2
% 2
%
2%
%2
vid

2%
% 2
%
Ct

2
% 2
App
2 l%
% 2
e w o%
2
%
2od %
2
Ct
2
% 2
% 2
%
2%
% 2% 2% 2
%
2 2
%
o r n ers R d
2
%
2
% 2
%
2 %
% 2% 2
2%
%
2 %
% 2 22
% 2
%
2
%
er s C

2 %
% 2 2
% 2
%
2
%
2 %
% 2 %2 %
2% 2%
2 2
%
2%
%
Tuck

2
% 2
2%
%
2%
% 2 2
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%
2
% 2 %
% 2 2
%
2%
% 2 2
% 2
%
Mi l %
2
% 2 2
% 2 %
%
2
% 2%
% t%
2
on
2
% 2
% 2 n%
2
2 2 2High%
%
T
2%
% pke
2
% 2w L%
2v ie% 2

µ
2
% 2
% 2%
% 2 % 2
% 2
% 2
%
n

2
% 2%
% 2 % 2 % 2%22 2%2%2 %
% 2 2
%
iL

2%
% 2 2%
2 2
% 2%
% 2%
% 2%
2% 2 2%
% 2
%
2
% 2
isc

2
% 2%
% 2 % 2
% 2%
% 2 2%
% 2%
2
Cr

2
% 2 2
% 2%
% 2
% 2
%2
% 2%
%
2 %
% 2 2% 2 2
% 2
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%
2% 2% 2
2 % 2 2
% ks %2 2%
%
2%
% 2
% %
2
%
22
%
W h%
2
%
is%
2 e ri n g O a%
p%
2 2%
% 2
2
2
%
2
%
Dr %
2 2
2%
%2
2%
%2%
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
Houses
2%
%
&
2
Buildings Watershed Surrounding
C ir

Possible Landfill Site

St

Possible Landfill Site (~437 acres)

S to n e (~108
o ck

O a k acres)
ut h

s Dr Site H Area
Hertel Superfund Site
R
So

(14.6 acres) n Parcels N

Wetlands (approx. G le Streams HydroQuest
e lli
es Pl Graphic
boundaries)
Feet
100 Ft Wetland Buffer Figure 12 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
2%
2% 2 % 2% 2 %
% 2 % 2%
% 2
%
%
2% 22
% 2
% 2
% 2 2
2
% 2%
% 2%2%
2

d
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%

h ts R
2
% 2
%

Av e
2%
%
St
2
%2%
% 2 M i l l S%
2 2
%2
% 2%
% 2 %
% 2
% 2 House Density Surrounding
2
%2%
%2 2 %
2%
%
ut h
2%22
%2%
% t
2 2 %
% 2 2
% 2 2%
2
% 2%
2%2

Clif f
2 %
% 2
% 2
% Potential Landfill Site H

Heig
2%2 % 2%
2 5% 22
% 2%
% Ro ut e 4 4 55 % 2% 2%
% 2
So

2o u %
% 5 2% 2%
22
%
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2%2%2%
2 2
%
2%
% R 2 4 4 2
%2%
2% 2%
%2% 2
% 2
% 2% 2%2% 2% 2
% 2% 2% 2
% 2
% Ulster County, New York
2% 2t e %
% 2%
%
2%
% 2%
% 2 2%
2% 2% 2 % 2%
2%
2%
2 2
% 2
%

r se
2% 2 2

r
2 2
% 2
% 2%
% 2%
2 2
%

La r r y D
2%
2 % 2%
% 2 2%
2 % 2%
% 2%
%
22

n
% 2%
% 2%
2 2%
%2% 2

Mo
oL
2 %
% 2
%2
% 2%2 2
% 2 2
%2
%2
% 2 2
%
2
%2
%2
%
2
%2S t%
% 2
%
2
% 2
%
2 %
% 2%
% 2
%2
%2%
% ate %
2 2

Fa r
2
% 2
% 2
%22 2 2
%2
% 2
% 2R%
% 2o%
2u%
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%
te
2%
% 2 2
%
2
% 2%
% 2 2 4%
24%
25 5 % 2£
% 2%
% 2%2 % 2%
2
2% 2%
2
% 2 %
% 2 2
% 2
% 2 2
% ¤2
%
44
2
% 2
% 2
%2
%
2
%
H u ll A

% 2% 2 2 %
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% J e%
2 2%
%
2%
% 22 % 2% 2B %
% 2 %
% 22%2 2%
% 2%
2%
2% 2
%nk
22%2
%
r s P t% 2
% i ns
2Tu c k e%
% 2 2 2
% 2 2 2
% v % 2
% 2 %

e
a h
2
% 2
%e A 2
%
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% L n 2
2
%
ve

2%
% 2 2
%
d
2
%e l l
2%
% 2% 2% 2
%
2
% 2%
% 2% 2%
o Ln

2%
% 2 2% 2 2 % 2
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%

Rd
2%
% 2 2%
% 2 % 2
r

2 %
Va c c a

rs
2
% 2
%

rne
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
%

Co
2%
% 2 2
% 2
% 2
%2
%
22
% 2
%

rs
2%

ke
%
2 % 2

c
2%
% 2%

Tu
2
%
2%
%
2
%
2 G 2
%
2
%
15

2
% 2%
% 2
Da

2
% 2
%
2%
%2
vid

2%
% 2
%
Ct

2
% 2
App
2 l%
% 2
e w o%
2
%
2od %
2 2
% 2
% 2
%
2%
% 2% 2% 2C t 2
%
2
%

r n ers R d
2
%
2
% 2
%
2 %
% 2%2
2%
%
2 %
% 2
2
% 22
% 2
%
ers Co
2 %
% 2 2
%2
%2
%
2 %
% 2 %2 %
2% 2%2% 2
2
%
T uc k

2
% 2
%
2%
%
2
% 2%
% 2 2
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2%
%
2%
% 2 % 2
% 2
2% 2 %
% 2 2
% 2
%
2 2
% 2
% 2
%
2
%
Mi l
2
%
t 2
% 2
% 2iew Ln%
%
2%
% 2% 2 o n 2Tpk e
% 2High%
% 2
Rd

2%
% 2 v %
2 %

µ
2 2
% 2
2 % 2 2 % 2% 2%
% 2 % 2%2% 2% 2
un

2 %
n

% 2%
% 2 % 2%22 2% 2 %
%
2%
iL

2% 2 2%2 2% 2%2%
2% 2
%
tR

% 2
% % % 2
% 2 2 %
% 2
%
isc

2
% 2%
% 2%
% 22
bi

2 % 2
% 2 2%
%
ab

Cr

R % 2 2 2
% 2
%2
%
2 %
% 2 2
% 2%
% 2%2 2
%2%
%
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 22
%
2
% 2% 2 2 % 2 2
% ks %2 2%
%
2
% 2%
% 2
% %
2
%
2h%
%
W
2
%
2 e ri n g O a%
p%
is%
22 2
% 2
2
%
2
%Dr %
2 %
%
2 2
2%
22%
%2%
2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
% 2
2
% 2
%
C ir

2 Houses & Buildings

% Watershed Surrounding
St

S to n eLandfill Possible Landfill Site

o ck

Possible O ak s Site (~437 acres)

Dr
ut h

(~108 acres)
R
So

Hertel Superfund Site n N

(14.6 acres) l e H Area Parcels
GSite HydroQuest
e l l i Graphic 2016 Imagery
Parcels
es P l
Wetlands (approx.
boundaries) Streams Feet
100 Ft Wetland Buffer
Figure 13 0 5001,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Topographic Elevations
Proximal to Potential
Landfill Site H

900 Ft Crest

Houses &
!
( Buildings
Possible
Triangulated Irregular Network 635 - 675 Landfill Site H
Elevation (~ft msl) 595 - 635 Watershed
795 - 900 555 - 595 Surrounding
Hydro- Possible
755 - 795 Quest 515 - 555
Landfill Site
715 - 755 Graphic 0 - 515
Hertel
Miles
675- 715
0 0.15 0.3 0.6
Figure 14 Superfund Site
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

House Density Surrounding 2

% 2
%

R ab bi t R un
2%
% 2
%
2 Potential Landfill Site I %
2
2
%
%
2
2
%
2
% 2
%
2
%
22
% % Ulster County, New York % 2
2
%
2
% 2
%2
% 2
% 2
%
2
%
2
% 2
% 2 %
%
2
%
2
%
2
%
2
%
2
%
2
%
2
% Bla
2
% 2 %
% 22

Rd
2
%
2
% 2
%
2
% ck
C%
2%2%
2 2
% 2
%
2
%
2
%
2
%
2
% 2%
% 2d

re
2
%
2
% C a mp S un s e t R 2%
% 2

ek
%
2 Lake Sunset 2
%
2
% %
2
P l at t
2
% %
2
2%
%2 ek i 2 %
% 2
%
2
2
% ll A
2
%
2
%
2
% %
2
r do n

2
%
2
% 2
%
ia Rd

%
2
2
% 2
%
2
%
2
%
2 %
% 2
%
2
2
%

r Rd
2
% 2
%
%
2

Fo s l e
% re s R d
2
Ac
Su2nn y%
% 2
¨
¦
§
87 2 %
% 2 % 2% 2% 2%2
2 2
%
2%
%
%2
2
%
2
% ¨
¦
§ 2
% 2%
% 2
d

87
2
%
Ve n u to R

2 %
% 2
% % %
2 2%
2%
2
% 2 % 2 2%
2% 2 2
%
%%
2
2%
%
2 2%2
2%
% 2% 2%
2%2
%
2
%
2%
2 % 2
2%2%
2 2%
% 2
2
% 2 %
% 2%2 % 2 %
2% 2 % 2 % 2
%
2
% 2
% 2%
% 2
2% 2 2 %
% 2
2 %
% 2
%
D e m br o

2%
% 2
% 2 %
% 2
2
% 2 Jo
% 222 %
% 2 % 2 2
%
2 % %T i
2 be r
m C2
%t
% 2
% 2e Ln%
rg% 2 2
%

c C re e k
2%
% 2% 2%
% 2 %T %
2
2
% 2
% 2 im b e %
2 2
s k i O rc h

Ac 2
% 2
% 2
% %
2 2
% r Ct
am
po r 2
% 2%
% 2%
ai
2
% aD 2%2% 2 as
s
2%
% r %2 %
2 Qu
2
% 2%
2%2 % 2 2
%
ards

% Pom
2 2
%
o R ge L n
id
Rd

C o tt e r R

n
s tL
Ne
d

es
gl
Ea

Houses & Site I Parcels

2
% Buildings
Parcels ek
Possible Landfill
e
Cr

Site (~96 acres) Surface Runoff S o u th S t

aic

Wetland (approx. Power Line

as s

boundary) Corridor
Qu

100 Ft Wetland Figure 15 Feet

Buffer
HydroQuest
C h e a n d a Graphic
Ln 0 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000
 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
2 %
% 2
%
2 House Density Surrounding %
2
2
% 2
%
Potential Landfill Site I 2
%

R a b b it R
%
2
2
% 2 2
% %
2
%
2
% %
2
2
% Ulster County, New York 2
%
2
%
2
% 2
%
2
% 2
% 2 %
%
2
%
2
% 2
%
2
% 2
2
% 2
%
2
% 2 %
% 2

un Rd
2
%
2
% 2
%
2
%
Bla
ck %%
2 2
2
%
2
% 2
% Cr
e
2%
%2 2
%
2
%
2
% 2%
% 2

ek
2
%2
% Lake Sunset

P la tt ek
2
% C a m p S u n se
t Rd 2
%
2
% 2
% %
2
2
%
%%
2
ill A
%
2 2
2
% rd oni a
2
%
2
%
2
%
2
% %
2
2
%
Rd

2
%

%
2
2
%
2
%

¨
¦
§ 87
2
%

¨
¦
§
87 2
%
Su nn y Ac re s
%
2 2
%
Rd
2 % 2 2 %%
2
2
% 2 %
% %%2 22
2%
L in d s e ll W

2 %
%
2
% %
2 2 %
% 2
%
2
d
Ve n u to R

2 %
% 2
% %
2 2%2%
2
% 2 % 2 2 %
2%
% 2 2
%
ay

2
% 2%
% 2 %
2
2 %
% 2 % 2 2%
%2 2 %
2 % 2%
2
2
% 2
% 2
% 2% F o s le r R d %
2
% 2
% 2 %
% 2
2 %
% 2%2 2
%
2 %
% 2
2%
% 2 %
% 2 %
D e m b ro s ki

2
% 2
% 2 2
2 %
% Jo e Ln %
2rg%
2 2
2 %
% 2 %
22 % 2 2
%
2
% 2 %
% 2 %
% %
2
Ac 2
% 2
am 2
% 2%
%
O r c h a r ds

po r %
a2D 2
2 %
% r 2
% 2
%
2
% 22%
% 2 2 &
%
2
% 2
% 2
% Houses Site I Parcels
2
% Buildings
P om
Rd

Parcels
o R ge Ln Possible Landfill
id
Site (~96 acres) Surface Runoff

Wetland (approx. Power Line

Ln boundary) Corridor
HydroQuest Graphice s t
N Feet 100 Ft Wetland Rabbit Run
s
le
0 250 500 Ea g
1,000 1,500 2,000 Buffer
Figure 16