|
|
|
|
|
WIDEWATERS COMMONS
WATER & SOIL EVALUATION OF THE DEIS BECAUSE THE DEIS DID NOT ADDRESS MANY OF THE WATER AND SOIL ISSUES ON THE PROPOSED WIDEWATERS SITE -THIS KNGG EVALUATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN THE SDEIS . IT WAS NOT. IT THEREFORE REMAINS UNRESOLVED. Alpha Geoscience was retained by KNGG to evaluate the water and soil section of the Widewaters DEIS. Below is their evaluation: ALPHA GEOSCIENCE, 670 Park Road, Clifton Park, NY 12065 July 29,
2002
Mr. Allen Schaefer Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth Kinderhook NY 12106 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Widewaters Commons Shopping Center Town of Kinderhook, New York
Dear Mr. Schaefer Alpha Geoscience (alpha) prepared this letter at the request of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth to present an opinion regarding the completeness of the DEIS and the need for additional information to assess the environmental impact of this project. Alpha is a consulting firm located in Clifton Park, New York that specializes in geology and hydrogeology. The opinion provided herein is focused on geologic and hydrogeologic issues as they relate to the DEIS description of water supply, soils, surface water, ground water and sewage disposal. The primary geologic and hydrogeologic issues associated with this project are 1) the availability of ground water to support the project and the impacts of well production on existing water supplies; 2) storm water and sewage disposal impacts on ground water quality and local water supplies; 3) the impact to surface water flow downstream from the site caused by the infiltration within the proposed detention/infiltration basin. The following are Alpha’s comments regarding whether the DEIS is complete with respect to geologic hydrogeologic issues and regarding deficiencies that should be addressed by the developer. WATER SUPPLY The DEIS does not adequately address whether the operation of the two water supply wells will result in impacts to local ground water users. The following data would be necessary to assess the potential impact: The aquifer system that the project will be relying on needs to be described in order to adequately assess impacts. The necessary information includes the depth to the water production zone, the geologic unit that is the water source and the means of recharge to the aquifer. The water supply sources for the adjacent properties and the properties in the vicinity of the project need to be identified and described through a well and water supply survey. Monitoring of neighboring water supplies during on-site well testing would be helpful to evaluate the potential for hydraulic connection to these supplies. Observation wells should have been installed and the water level in these wells monitored during the pumping test of the on-site well to evaluate its zone of influence and safe yield. It is apparent from the DEIS review that no monitoring wells were installed. The potential pumping impacts to existing water supplies produced by a backup well should also be assessed. The developer will need to demonstrate that a second well can provide that necessary backup water supply. The environmental impact evaluation should address the potential adverse ground water quality effects from the infiltration of storm water in the detention/infiltrated basin. Ground water quality impacts to the on-site wells and other ground water supplies in the vicinity of the project site need to be considered. The well pumping test record (Appendix C) does not support the statement on page 36 that the well recovered to its pre-pump static level within a one hour period. The well recovered to a depth of 27 feet in the first hour of recovery and not to the pre- pump depth of 18 feet. The signifance of the nine feet of uncovered water level should be addressed. The driller's log shows that the on-site well taps a bedrock source; therefore, the statement that the pumping test confirms the anticipated yield from an unconsolidated aquifer (page 37) of the DEIS) is not correct. A better description of the geology and hydrogeology of the aquifer will be necessary in order to adequately address the potential impacts to that system by water withdrawal for the project. TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS A maintenence plan should be developed to remove the sediment and pollutants collected in the catch basin sumps during and after construction. The potential need for special handling and disposal of pollutants removed by the sumps should be addressed. The DEIS should clearly state the range of percolation rated that were apparently measured during the deep hole percolation tests. SURFACE WATER AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE The potential impact to downstream receiving waters caused by the reduction of storm water flow by the storm water infiltration/retention basin should be addressed. The DEIS needs to address how the storm water management system will remove pollutants, how the pollutants will be handled once removed and if these pollutants will impact ground water. GROUND WATER There is a statement in the DEIS (page 17) that there are no designated sole source, primary or principal aquifers contained in Columbia County. The abscence of a previous aquifer designation does not mean that the unconsolidated deposits beneath the site and adjacent area should not be considered a primary water supply aquifer or principal aquifer if these deposits meet the NYSDEC's guidance criteria. The interpretation of the NYSDEC's guidance by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES)is not correct. The April 9, 2002 correspondence prepared by TES references the yield of wells tapping a bedrock aquifer. The NYSDEC primary water supply aquifer and principal aquifer designations are restricted to unconsolidated aquifers. A description of the hydrogeologic system in the area containing the site will be necessary to adequately assess potential impacts to ground water. The hydrogeology of the site as presented in the DEIS is not adequately defined to address potential impacts nor have the potential impacts been fully identified and evaluated. SEWAGE DISPOSAL The availability of the site to provide treatment of wastewater has not been adequately addressed. The available data from the county soil survey and from correspondence contained in the DEIS indicate that the soils have a high infiltration rate and are unsuitable as septic leach fields; consequently, some degree of soil modification or amendment may be necessary for proper septic disposal. It is not aparrent in the DEIS whether the soil at the proposed leach fields will be amended (slowing the infiltration rate) as described in Napierala Consulting's correspondence dated May 24, 2002. The correspondence by Mr. Napierala and the January 7, 2002 corresponcence of Michael DeRuzzio, of the Columbia County Department of Health point out that the rapid permeability of site soils could lead to poor filtering and cause a potential ground water pollution hazard. An assessment of the septic discharge rates, direction of ground water flow from the leach fields, the distance to the nearest ground water users and interpreted ground water flow rates will be necessary in order to assess potential impacts of septic discharges to the neighboring and site water supplies. None of this information has been provided in the DEIS. Sincerely, Michael D. Palleschi, Senior Hydrogeologist The highlighting in red has been added by KNGG for emphasis. It is not on the origional document presented by the consultant. * * * |
