ADOPTION OF DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN CONNECTION WITH THE POU DEVELOPMENT, LLC AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT THE HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT

PUBLIC WORKS & CAPITAL PROJECTS RESOLUTION NO. 2025068 RE: ADOPTION OF DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN CONNECTION WITH THE POU DEVELOPMENT, LLC AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT THE HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT Legislators METZGER, TRUITT, HOUSTON, POLASEK, PAOLONI, D'AQUANNI, FAUST, GORMAN, VERSACI, and CASWELL offer the following and move its adoption: WHEREAS, in December of 2023, the County entered into a ground lease (the "Lease") with POU Development, LLC, whose parent company is Sky Harbour Group ("SHG"), to develop, lease and manage general aviation hangars at the Hudson Valley Regional Airport ("HVRA"), and WHEREAS, the HVRA is in the Town of Wappinger, identified as Tax Parcel No. 135689- 6259-03-225301-0000, and POU Development, LLC intends to build a commercial hangar facility with offices, associated aviation ramp and taxiways, a ground support equipment building, and a land side vehicle parking area, and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works ("DP W") has received from the developer's consultant, and reviewed a full environmental assessment form and has determined that the proposed project (1) constitutes an Unlisted Action pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Part 617 of the NYCRR ("SEQRA"), and (2) will have no significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, in a contemporaneous resolution, DPW seeks this Legislature's authority for the County to be the Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project, and WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the Legislature in adopting this resolution, to adopt and confirm the findings of the Department of Public Works, and WHEREAS, a true copy of the SEQR full environmental assessment form and the Negative Declaration reflecting the finding of non-significance are annexed hereto and made a part hereof, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Legislature hereby adopts and confirms the determination of the Dutchess County Department of Public Works that the POU Development, LLC aviation hangar project at the Hudson Valley Regional Airport, will not have a significant effect on the environment. APPROVED CA-048-25; EMW/rjw; R-1071 04/15/2025; Fiscal Impact: Attached Susan Sereno STATE OF NEW YORK SUSAN J. SERINO sS: COUNTY EXECUTIVE COUNTY OF DUTCHESS 'This is to certify that 1, the undersigned Clerk of the I egislature of the County of Detes 2 15/ 2025 the original resolution now on file in the office of said clerk, and which was adopted by said Legislature on the 12 day of May 2025, and that the same is a true and correct transcript of said original resolution and of the whole thereof. IN WITNESS WHERIOR, I have hereunto set my hand and scal of said Legislature this 12'h day of May 2025. BIGHWAG FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT • NO FISCAL IMPACT PROJECTED APPROPRIATION RESOLUTIONS, Total Current Year Cost $ Total Current Year Revenue $_ and Source Source of County Funds (check one): • Existing Appropriations, •contingency, • Transfer of Existing Appropriations, [ Additional Appropriations, Z Other (explain). Identify Line Items(s): Related Expenses: Amount $ Nature/Reason: Anticipated Savings to County: Net County Cost (this year): Over Five Years: Additional Comments/Explanation POU Development LLC intends to build a commercial hangar facility with offices, associated aviation ramp and taxiways, a ground support equipment building, and a land side vehicle parking area. The Department of Public works has completed the environmental assessment and has determined that the project will have no significant adverse environmental impact and has prepared Parts 2 and 3 of an Environmental Assessment Form to document the assessments and findings. The project is determined to be a SEQR Unlisted Action. The Department is requesting that the Legislature adopt a determination of no significant adverse environmental impact (Negative Declaration) for this project. The SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form and preliminary plans are attached to this memo. Prepared by: Robert H. Balkind, P.E. Prepared On: 4/1/25 Dut pif SUE SERINO COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROBERT H. BALKIND, PE. COMMISSIONER DAVID C. WHALEN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DUTCHESS COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: Rachel Kashimer, Deputy County Executive FROM: Robert H. Balkind, P.E., Commissioner DATE: April 1, 2025 RE: RESOLUTION REQUEST - ADOPTION OF SEQR DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE POU DEVELOPMENT LLC'S AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT On April 1, 2025, the Department of Public Works circulated a Lead Agency Notice for 30 days to Involved and Interested agencies. No agencies responded back indicating that they wanted to assume Lead Agency status for the review of this project. DPW has submitted a tangential resolution request for the May Legislative meeting, providing authority for Dutchess County to be the Lead Agency for the environmental review of a project for POU Development LLC's aviation hangar project at Hudson Valley Regional Airport. This property is within the Town of Wappinger, identified as Tax Parcel No. 135689-6259-03-225301-0000. The project is a SEQR Unlisted action. POU Development LLC intends to build a commercial hangar facility with offices, associated aviation ramp and taxiways, a ground support equipment building, and a land side vehicle parking area. Their engineer completed Part I of the Full Environmental Assessment Form, which describes the project's potential impacts. The Department of Public works has completed the environmental assessment and has determined that the project will have no significant adverse environmental impact and has prepared Parts 2 and 3 of an Environmental Assessment Form to document the assessments and findings. The project is determined to be a SEQR Unlisted Action. The Department is requesting that the Legislature adopt a determination of no significant adverse environmental impact (Negative Declaration) for this project. The SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form and preliminary plans are attached to this memo. Please contact this office with any questions. c: Mary F. Aldrich, MA, CPFO, Director of Fiscal Services David C. Whalen, Deputy Commissioner Jeff Durand, Airport Director Attch. Full SEQR EAF (1, 2, 3) Location Map 60% Plans 626 Dutchess Turnpike, Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 | (845) 486-2085 | www.dutchessny.gov Full Environmental Assessment Form Part / - Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional rescarch or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist. or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that nust be answered cither "Yes" additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part lis accurate and complete A. Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: POU Airport Hangar Development Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map): Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU), Citation Dr. Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 Tax ID: 6259-03-225301-0007,0008,0014,0018,0020 Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): The project involves the design and construction of two prefabricated hangars, each measuring 36,612 SF. The east hangar will have an attached 3,165 SF ground support equipment (GSE) building. Each hangar will also include approximately 6,058 SF of office space with bathrooms. Additionally, the project includes the construction of an aircraft apron, approximately 90,000 SF, providing access from Taxiway D to both hangars. The project will also involve the removal of 9 taxiway lights. The installation of the hangars will require a 4-6 ft gravity block retaining wall, located to the west of the hangars to stabilize grade for development. The expanded apron will encompass the existing apron space, and the current tie-downs will be removed. A proposed Hangar to provide a complete security to the airside of the new development. Water, gas, and electric services will be provided to both hangars. See Exhibit A for a Location Map and project sketch. Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Steve Martinez, POU Development LLC Address: 136 Tower Road, Hangar M, Suite 205 Westchester County Airport City/PO: White Plains Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Nathan Herzog, Environmental Planner (Passero Associates) Address: 242 W Main St Apartment 100 City/PO: Rochester Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): County of Dutchess, Robert H. Balkind, P.E., DPW Commissioner Address: 625 Dutchess Turnpike City/PO: Poughkeepsie Telephone: 646-235-6045 E-Mail: [email protected] State: NY Telephone: 585-760-8559 E-Mail: [email protected] Zip Code: 10604 State: NY Telephone: 845-486-2085 E-Mail: [email protected] Zip Code: 14614 State: NY Zip Code: 12603 Page 1 of 13 B. Government Approvals B. Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. ("Funding" includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approvals) Required Application Date (Actual or projected) a. City Counsel, Town Board, or Village Board of Trustees b. City, Town or Village Planning Board or Commission c. City, Town or Village Zoning Board of Appeals d. Other local agencies Dutchess County IDA (funding approval) Spring 2025 c. County agencies Spring 2025 f. Regional agencies DYes No g. State agencies NYSDEC (SWPPP, soil management plan) Spring 2025 h. Federal agencies MYes•No FAA (approvals) Spring 2025 i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront arca of a Designated Inland Waterway? •Yes/No ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? •Yest No C. Planning and Zoning C.1. Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the •Yes/No only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? If Yes, complete sections C, F and G. • If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part I C.2. Adopted land use plans. a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land usc plan(s) include the site Yes•No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action •YesINo would be located? b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway; DYes•No Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes, identify the plan(s): Remediaton Sites:314101, Remediaton Sites:314078, Remediaton Sites:C314129, Remediaton Sites:314129 c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes, identify the plan(s): Page 2 of 13 C.3. Zoning a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district? lighting will be installed outside on all buildings and aprons for safe movement of aircraft ØYes•No b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? If Yes, i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? C.4. Existing community services. a. In what school district is the project site located? Wappingers Central School District b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Village of Wappingers Falls Police Department c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? New Hackensack Fire Company d. What parks serve the project site? Stanley Still Sr Town Sport Park •Yes&No D. Project Details D.I. Proposed and Potential Development a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential. industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all components)? Commercial (Airport) b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 8.89 acros 8.89 acres 448.21 acres c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or usc? i. If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (c.g., acres, miles, housing units, square feet)? d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? If Yes. i. Purpose or type of subdivision? (c.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types) ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? •Yes•No iti. Number of lots proposed? iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum Maximum c. Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? i. If No, anticipated period of construction: 15 months ii. If Yes: Total number of phases anticipated Anticipated commencement date of phase I (including demolition) month _year • Anticipated completion date of final phase Cienerally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: Page 3 of 13 f. Does the project include new residential uses? If Yes, show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more) Initial Phase At completion of all phases g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? i. Total number of structures ii. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: 48' height; 161 width; and 269' longth ili. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: 69.680 square feet • Dies th set as eation of alualeourtion croit, rat vike has ve lages or other sporandment of an quids, such as creation of a water supply •YesØNo i. Purpose of the impoundment: ii. If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: • Ground water • Surface water streams Other specify: ili. If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. million gallons; surface area: v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: height: vi Contrastion methodinitials for the proposed dan on impounding structure feE. eith fil rock, wood.comete@ acres D.2. Project Operations a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? MYesONo (Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) i. What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? foundation and utility construction site grading ii. How much material (including rock, carth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site? Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): 13,500 cubic yards Over what duration of time? 6 months ili. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them. excavated materials will be treated as regulated soils due to PFAS iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? If yes, describe. v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? viti. Will the excavation require blasting? ix: Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: restore site with topsoil and seed < 8.89 acres ≤ 8.89 acres 11 feet b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area? i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic description): Page 4 of 13 i. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, o alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres iii. Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? If Yes, describe: •Yes•No iv. Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? •Yes•No • acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: • expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion: • purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): • proposed method of plant removal: chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product: Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbanc c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? 354.02 gallons/day • Name of district or service area: Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? • Is the project site in the existing district? • Is expansion of the district needed? • Do existing lines serve the project site? iti. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: •Yes No Source(s) of supply for the district: iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? If, Yes: • Yes•No Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: Central Dutchess Water Line, Town of Poughkeepsie v: If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), what is the maximum pumping capacity: d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? _ gallons/minute. i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: 354.02 gallons/day il. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (c.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of cach): Sanitary wastewater iti. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? If Yes: Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: • Name of district: Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? • Is the project site in the existing district? Is expansion of the district needed? •Yes•No •Yes•No •Yes•No Page 5 of 13 Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? • Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: •Yes•No •Yes•No iv. Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site? •YesZNo If Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? . If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposes eceiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans) subsurface on-site sewage disposal system vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: subsurface on-site sewage disposal system e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction? MYes•No i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? Square feet or 3.34 acres (impervious surface) Square feet or 448.2 acres (parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources, one, proposed project ties into existing airport stormwater infrastructure ili. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties, groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? Stormwater runoft will be directed into on-site stormwater management facilities/structures and will be daylighted to the Wappinger Creek which is a sth • If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: • Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? iv. Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations? If Yes, identify: i. Mobile sources during project operations (c.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles) increase in 395 total aircraft operations per year ii. Stationary sources during construction (c.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers) iii. Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation) g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit, or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate: Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide (CO.) Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (NO) Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Tons/ycar (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF,) Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) Tons/year (short tons) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) •Yes No DYesONo See Exhibit B for Air Quality Analysis Page 6 of 13 h. Will the proposed action gencrate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities)? i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (c.g., combustion to generate heat or electricity, flaring): i. Will the proposed action result in the relcase of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as quarry or landfill operations? If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust): The addition of new hangers may increase vehicular landside capacity and result in some additional traffic trips to the airport: which will result in diesel. carbon dioxide, and other emissions during operation. j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial new demand for transportation facilities or services? DYesNo i. When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): • Randomly between hours of ii. For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g., semi trailers and dump trucks): iii. Parking spaces: Proposed Net increase/decrease iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? •yesONo v. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe: i. Are public/privad train intatide acrists) or facilies available vitin mile orth eproposed sibei, electri •YesNo i Will the proposed action include access to p or other alternative fueled vehicles? vili. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing •Yes•No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand for energy? If Yes: i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: total demand of 1438 KW for the site il. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (c.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or other): Grid/local utility iii. Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade, to an existing substation? I. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i. During Construction: Monday - Friday: 7 am - 5 pm • Saturday: Sunday: • Holidays: ii. During Operations: Monday - Friday: Saturday: • • Sunday: Holidays: 2417 24/7 24/7 2417 Page 7 of 13 m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, operation, or both? See Exhibit C for Noise Analysis i. Provide details including sources, time of day and duration: The hangars will house additional aircraft (~4-5/hangar) Operation of these aircrafts will not significantly exceed the current noise levels produced by the lairport. ii. Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? Describe: n. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? i. Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: lighting will be installed outside on all buildings and aprons for safe movement of aircraft ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? •YesZNo Describe: o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i. Products) to be stored ii. Volume(s) per unit time (c.g., month, year) iii. Generally, describe the proposed storage facilities: q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.c., herbicides, insecticides) during construction or operation? If Yes: i. Describe proposed treatments): •Yes Z No • Yes ENo ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)? • Yes •No Z Yes •No i. Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: • Construction: week (unit of time) • Operation : 0.1 tons per week (unit of time) ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: Construction: On-site Cutting and Reuse,Designated Dumping Areas:Waste Sorting Stations • Operation: Designated Dumping Areas:Waste Sorting Stations ili. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: . Construction: Diodegrad no materials cande nhao comps sing fat designated municipal or private landils. Organic waste and • Operation: Dispose of non-recyclable and non-hazardous waste at designated municipal or private landfills Page 8 of 13 s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? • Yes 2 No If Yes: i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (c.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or other disposal activities): ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: • Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or • Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment ili. If landfill, anticipated site life: 1. Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial gencration, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous •Yes No waste? If Yes: i. Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated tons/month iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? If Yes: provide name and location of facility: If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: •Yes•No E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.I. Land uses on and surrounding the project site a. Existing land uses. i. Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site. • Urban • Industrial / Commercial • Residential (suburban) • Forest • Agriculture • Aquatic Z Other (specify): Airport ii. If mix of uses, generally describe: • Rural (non-farm) b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Covertype • Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious surfaces Forested • Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non- agricultural, including abandoned agricultural • Agricultural (includes active orchards, field. greenhouse etc.) • Surface water features (lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.) Wetlands (freshwater or tidal) Non-vegetated (bare rock, carth or fill) • Other Describe: Current Acreage 8.89 Acreage After Project Completion 8.89 Change (Acres +/-) Page 9 of 13 c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? i. If Yes: explain: d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i. Identify Facilities: •YesENO •Yes No c. Does the project site contain an existing dam? If Yes: i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: Dam height: Dam length: • Surface area: • Volume impounded: ii. Dam's existing hazard classification: iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: •YesZ No feet feet acres gallons OR acre-feet f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i. Has the facility been formally closed? • Ifyes, cite sources/documentation: ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: •Yes• No iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoi roperty which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste MYes•No If Yes: i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities. including approximate time when activities occurred: PFOS has been found at the project site. Coordination with the NYSEC has commenced on this project. Since this project involves soil disturbance, a soil sampling plan will be submitted to the NYSEC during the final design of the project h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site Remediation database? Check all that apply: • Yes - Spills Incidents database 7 Yes - Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): Provide DEC ID numbers): 314101, 314078, C314129 • Neither database ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures: See Exhibit D iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): 314101, 314078, C314129 iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s): Active, Coordination with the NYSDEC has commenced MYcsONo Page 10 of 13 v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? • If yes, DEC site ID number: • Describe the type of institutional control (c.g., deed restriction or casement): • Describe any use limitations: • Describe any engineering controls: • Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? • Explain: •Yes•No E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project sitc? If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: Udorthents, smoothed (Ud) > 6.5 feet See Exhibit E 100 % % d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: e. Drainage status of project site soils: Well Drained: • Moderately Well Drained: • Poorly Drained f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: V 0-10%: 10-15%: 15% or greater: 4.5 feet 100% of site % of site % of site 100% of site % of site % of site g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? If Yes, describe: •Yes No h. Surface water features. i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers. VIYesNo ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? See Exhibit F MYesONo If Yes to either i or it, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i. ili. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, MYesONo state or local agency? iv. For cach identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information: Name 857-19, 857-2, 857-14, 857-15, 857-18 Classification C(T), B, B(T) • Lakes or Ponds: Name Wetlands: Name Federal Waters, NYS Wetland, Federal Waters, Fe... Approximate SireNS Wear . .... • Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) PV-51 V. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of'NYS water quality-impaired •YesNo waterbodies? If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway? As shown in Exhibit G, areas of the airport parcel are j. Is the project site in the 100-year Floodplain? within the 100 and 500 year floodplain. However, the k. Is the project site in the 500-ycar Floodplain? proposed project site does not all within either I. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? If Yes: i. Name of aquiter: Principal Aquifer MYes•No MYes•No MYes•NO Page 11 of 13 m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: Deer, squirrels, various bird species fox, snakes, frogs, etc n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? •Yes/No If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): ii. Source(s) of description or evaluation: iii. Extent of community/habitat: Currently: Following completion of project as proposed: • Gain or loss (indicate + or -): acres acres acres o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? V Yes•No If Yes: i. Species and listing (endangered or threatened): Pied-billed Grebe, Indiana Bat See Exhibit H p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of special concern? If Yes: i. Species and listing: q. Is the project site or adjoining arca currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ii. Source(s) of soil rating(s): c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: • Biological Community • Geological Feature ii. Provide brief description of landmark. including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: •Yes/No DYesNo d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? If Yes: i. CEA name: ii. Basis for designation: Inactive landfil toxic polluntants present, Inactive landill, toxic pollutants present ili. Designating agency and date: Agency:Dutchess County, Date:6-19-85, Date: 7-18-85 Page 12 of 13 i. Nature of historic/archacological resource: •Archaeological Site ii. Name: ill. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: •Historic Building or District • Is the priet sies an e Suf i itrid ese alient tie sea do anted as sensit i ventury? g. Have additional archacological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? i. Describe possible resource(s): ii. Basis for identification: h. Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource? Yes•No i. Identify resource: Hudson River ii. Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): historic river iii. Distance between project and resource: 3 miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers •Yes&No Program 6 NYCRR 666? i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: il. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? DYes•No As shown in Exhibit I, areas of the airport F. Additional Information parcel are adjacent to a listed SHPO Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. property. The historic site is located ~ 4000 ft from the project site. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any mcasures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Steven T.Martinez Signature Date 04/04/25 Title VP Development PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13 EAF Mapper Summary Report Sunday, March 23, 2025 2:06 PM Millis Ter S,00g Poughkeepsie Airport Or Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations. Sand Barrin Kingston Montpe Toronto Hamiton Rochester on BisiteD Win Vort Jackson Fo Sources. Esti China tHong Kf Due Tee County Alpart Perk Wappin ger Hackensack Heighs R° 300-0565, internap INCREMENT P. NRCan, Be Japar, MET, Ex Fagkorea Est Thailand: NGCE, ic) OpenStreetMap controutors, and the GIS User Community Albeny Tharanda NGOCE OperStreetiap cantrdators and the GIS User Commodit, Es HERE Garin NeW YODeS, NAS B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area] B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area] C.2.b. [Special Planning District] No Yes Yes - Digital mapping data are not available for all Special Planning Districts. Refer to EAF Workbook. C.2.b. [Special Planning District - Name] Remediaton Sites: 314101, Remediaton Sites:314078, Remediaton Sites:C314129, Remediaton Sites: 314129 E. 1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Yes - Digital mapping data for Spills Incidents are not available for this Potential Contamination History] location. Refer to EAF Workbook. E. 1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Yes Listed] E. 1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Yes Environmental Site Remediation Database] E. 1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - 314101, 314078, C314129 DEC ID Number] E. 1.h.ili [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation Yes Site] E. 1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation 314101, 314078, C314129 Site - DÈC ID] E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features] E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] No Yes Yes Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. 857-19, 857-2, 857-14, 857-15, 857-18 E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Stream Namel E. 2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Stream Classification] C(T), B, B(T) Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Wetlands Federal Waters, NYS Wetland Name] E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Wetlands NYS Wetland (in acres):47.0 Size] E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - DEC PV-51 Wetlands Number] E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies] No E.2.i. [Floodway] Yes E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain] Yes E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain] Yes E.2.I. [Aquifers] Yes E.2.I. [Aquifer Names] Principal Aquifer E.2.n. [Natural Communities] No E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species] Yes E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species - Pied-billed Grebe, Indiana Bat Name] E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals] E.3.a. [Agricultural District] E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark] E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] No No No Yes E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area - Name] E.3.d.ii [Critical Environmental Area - Inactive landfill toxic polluntants present, Inactive landfill, toxic pollutants Reason] present E.3.d.iii [Critical Environmental Area - Date Agency:Dutchess County, Date:6-19-85, Date:7-18-85 and Agencyl E.3.e. [National or State Register of Historic Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Places or State Eligible Sites] E.3.f. [Archeological Sites] E. 3.i. [Designated River Corridor] Workbook. Yes No Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 2 Exhibit A Millba Raker Rd Pleasants CHUCKS Vassar Ra New Hackensack Rd Daley Rd Autumn Dr Hillis Ter Maloney Rd Airport Dr Spring Ro Lori St Vassar Rd citation Dr. 376 Smith Crossing Ra Dutchess County Airport New Hackensack Route 376 Daisy Ln New Hackensack Ra Satna Michoke Ed Widmer-Rd All Angels Hill Ra Degarmo Hills Rd Top O HiT Rd ger 0:25 0.5 Widmer Rd Legend d Hudson Valley Regional Airport • Proiect Area Miles Hudson Valley Regional Airport Location Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: Dutchess County GIS Myero Corners Rd PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: Sources: Esri, Tomiom, Garmin, FAO. NOAA the GIs User Community. New York State. Date: 1/15/2025 PROPOSED (2) NEW HANGARS APRON AND AUTOMOBILE ACCESS. LEACH FIELD ROPOSSO SKY HARBOUR 37 HANGAR 2(268" x 130) NOSE NOTCHES (30' X 40') SKY HARBOUR 37 HANGAR 11248 y 1201| NOSE NOTCHES (30 X 40) • PROPOSED LEASE AREA 4.64 ACRES 268 PROPOSED APRON AXIWAYD PASSERO architecture engineering HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT SKY HARBOUR SH-37 1268 X 130 & NOSE NOTCHES 130" X 40) CONCEPT (REV. 3) AUGUST 2024 DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY 01 Exhibit B PASSERO engineering architecture 242 West Main Street, Suite 100 Rochester, NY 14614 585.325.1000 | passero.com March 26, 2025 Attn: Robert H. Balkind, P.E. Commissioner Dutchess County Department of Public Works 626 Dutchess Turnpike Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Re: Air Quality Analysis - POU Airport Hangar Development Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU), NY4 Citation Dr. Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 Passero Associates has completed an air quality analysis for the construction of two ~ 34,840 square foot pre-fabricated hangars at the Hudson Valley Regional Airport to evaluate air quality impacts associated with this project in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), last amended in 1990, was enacted by the U.S. Congress to protect the health and welfare of the public from the adverse effects of air pollution. As required by the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to compare and evaluate ambient air quality. Based on measured ambient criteria pollutant data, the EPA designates areas as having air quality better than the NAAQS (attainment), worse than the NAAQS (nonattainment), or unclassifiable. Air quality impacts are evaluated based on General Conformity with a State Implementation Plan (SIP), assessment of the NAAQS, and construction emissions. The FAA's Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook' provides the following 4-step process to determine when an air quality assessment is necessary, identify the appropriate type and level of analysis needed, and provide guidance, procedures, and methodologies for carrying out air quality assessments in accordance with NEPA and applicable requirements of the CAA: • Step 1: Determine if the Federal Action falls within an exemption to General Conformity • Step 2: Determine if the Federal Action qualifies as Presumed to Conform • Step 3: Determine if the Federal Action is an EPA-designated nonattainment area or maintenance area • Step 4: Evaluate if Attainment Screening Criteria is exceeded The General Conformity Rule, published under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93, only applies to a federal action located in a designated nonattainment or maintenance area. The net increase in emissions of the applicable pollutants is compared against the threshold levels established in the rule, known as the de minimis thresholds, published at 40 CFR Part 93.153(b)(1)-(b), Applicability Analysis. If the net increase in emissions due to a federal action exceeds the USEPA-established de minimis thresholds, a General Conformity Determination would be required. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook, Version 4, July 2024, https://www.faa.gov/regulations _policies/policy guidance/envir_ policy/airquality handbook (accessed Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU) Air Quality Analysis NY4 Citation Dr. The proposed project does not qualify under the List of Presumed to Conform Actions. The Project is in Dutchess County, which is in attainment for all criteria pollutants regulated by the NAAQS? Therefore, demonstration of General Conformity is not required since the Project would not cause or contribute to any new violation of the NAAQS or interfere with provisions contained in a SIP. Step 4 utilizes Screening Criteria to determine whether an inventory of projected emissions is required. During this step, it is also necessary to determine if the Federal Action will occur in a state that is designated as an Ozone Transport Region (OTR), as attainment areas located in an OTR have more restrictive air quality requirements under the Clean Air Act. As described in Chapter 4 of the FAA's Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook, the State of New York is in the OTR. Step 4 identifies the following questions to evaluate Screening Criteria: A. If the project is not in the OTR, will the FAA Federal Action cause an increase in all aircraft operations of more than 14,000 operations per year? If the project is in the OTR, will the FAA Federal Action cause an increase in GA aircraft operations of more than 5,000 operations per year, or an increase in all aircraft operations of more than 14,000 operations per year? B. Will the FAA Federal Action cause a projected annual increase of aircraft delay exceeding 340,000 minutes? C. Will the FAA Federal Action cause an additional 25 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from on-road vehicles per year? D. If the project is not in an OTR, will the FAA Federal Action result in the use of an average of more than 125 pieces of construction equipment and GSE during a year? If the project is in an OTR, will the FAA Federal Action result in the use of an average of more than 50 pieces of construction equipment and GSE during a year? When aggregating emissions, each of the four Screening Parameters is normalized by dividing the anticipated activity level by the Screening Criteria for that Screening Parameter. The formula for this aggregation within the OTR is shown below: In a given year, if A' + B' + C' + D'≥ 1.0, prepare an emissions inventory: • A'= Increase in Aircraft LTO's / 5,000 - B' = Increase in Aircraft Taxi/Idle/Delay (minutes) / 340,000 • C'= GAV Trips (VMT) / 25,000,000 • D'= Number of pieces of GSE and Construction Equipment / 50 The proposed project is anticipated to have an additional 395 total operations per year by various business jet aircraft. The following table assesses the results of all 4 screening parameters: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Green Book National Area and County-Level Multi-Pollutant Information, data as of October 31, 2023, PASSER ba green book nak onal-area anc-county tavel mali polliant information. Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU) Air Quality Analysis NY4 Citation Dr. Airport Aggregation Results Variable A D Variable Description Project-Specific Change Aircraft Operations + 197.5 LTOS Aircraft Taxi/Idle/Delay No change Ground Access Vehicles 395 VMT Construction Equipment 4 pieces Normalization Calculation 197.5 / 5,000 395 / 25,000,000 4 / 50 Total Normalization 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.12 Since the aggregated results are below 1.0, the proposed action does not exceed the Screening Criteria, and no further action is required. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at [email protected] or (585) 760-8559. Sincerely, Nathan Herzog Nathan Herzog Environmental Scientist 585-760-8559 [email protected] PASSERO Exhibit C PASSERO engineering architecture 242 West Main Street, Suite 100 Rochester, NY 14614 585.325.1000 | passero.com March 26, 2025 Attn: Robert H. Balkind, P.E. Commissioner Dutchess County Department of Public Works 626 Dutchess Turnpike Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Re: Noise Analysis - POU Airport Hangar Development Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU), NY4 Citation Dr. Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 Passero Associates has completed a noise analysis for the construction of two ~ 34,840 square foot prefabricated hangars at the Hudson Valley Regional Airport to evaluate noise impacts associated with this project in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). To estimate the potential increase in noise levels, an Area Equivalent Method (AEM) analysis was conducted for Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU). The AEM is a screening tool designed to streamline the assessment process and determine whether further, more detailed noise analysis is warranted. The analysis began by establishing a baseline for aircraft operations using data from the 2024 Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMS') and The Operations Network for Tower Operations (OPSNET-). This baseline represents the existing operational levels at the airport. Next, the anticipated increase in aircraft operations was incorporated based on projections provided by the developer of the proposed hangars. The developer estimated an additional 395 annual operations, distributed as follows: • 40% Aircraft Design Group (ADG') III (e.g., Global 7500) • 35% ADG II (e.g., Challenger 350) • 25% ADG | (e.g., Cessna Citation (J4) These projected operations were added to the existing baseline to model the future operational scenario. The AEM model then calculated the expected change in noise levels, revealing a 13.2% increase in noise exposure within the 65 DNL contour. According to the AEM User Manual, a 17% increase in the 65 DNL contour area serves as the threshold for requiring further noise analysis. Since the projected increase falls below this threshold, the results indicate that the anticipated operational changes will not require further noise analysis and are not expected to result in a significant noise impact. ' This is a database that tracks aircrali movements based on flight plan and radar data. It provides information on flights, including their routes, and aircraft types. helping to analyze traffic patterns at airports. This is a system used by the FAA to track air traffic operations at airports with air traffie control towers. It records the number of takcoffs and landings. delays. and other operational data to help monitor airport activity. A classitication system used by the BAA to group aircraft based on their wingspan and landing gear width. It helps determine airport design standards, such as runway and taxiway spacing. Smaller planes like private jets fall into ADG I or Il, while larger aircraft. like airliners. are in higher ADO categories. *A measurement of'average noise exposure over a 24-hour period, with extra weight given to nightime noise (10 PM - 7 AM) since it is more disruptive. In the U.S.. 65 DNI. is commonly used as the threshold for assessing significant noise impacts near airports. Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU) Noise Analysis NY4 Citation Dr. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at [email protected] or (585) 760-8559. Sincerely, Nathan Herzog Nathan Herzog Environmental Scientist 585-760-8559 [email protected] PASSERO Exhibit D 314022 314023 314129 C314129 314078 314101- 0 5001,000 2,000 JUS Feet Legend Remediation Sites Remediation Parcels Hudson Valley Regional Airport Project Area Remediation Sites Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: NYS DECinfo locator PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: New York State. Maxor Date: 1/15/2025 6/23/22,3:13 PM Environmental Site Remediation Database Search NEW YORK STATE OF OPPORTUNITY Department of Environmental Conservation Environmental Site Remediation Database Search Details Site Record Document Repository Site-related documents are available for review through the DECInfo Locator on line at DECInfoLocator Administrative Information Site Name: Dutchess County Airport Site Code: 314129 Program: State Superfund Program Classification: P* EPA ID Number: Location DEC Region: 3 Address: 18 Griffith Way City:Wappinger Falls Zip: 12590 County: Dutchess Latitude: 41.627605556 Longitude: -73.884186111 Site Type: Estimated Size: 510.8 Acres Site Owner(s) and Operator(s) Site Description Location: The site is located in a rural area approximately 5 miles south of the City of Poughkeepsie. The site is the entire airport property which covers 510.8 acres. In 2017, the Dutchess County Airport was renamed the Hudson Valley Regional Airport. Site Features: The site property is a public use airport with a parking lot, airport terminal and various support buildings. Current Zoning: The site property is zoned airport development according to the Town zoning map. Surrounding properties are used for residential and commercial purposes with areas of open, unoccupied land. Past use of the Site: Originally built in the late 1930s, the airport was, and is currently capable of handling small general aviation aircraft as well as larger business jets from former tenants like IBM and Command https://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/derexternal/haz/details.cfm?pageid=3 1/3 6/23/22,3:13 PM Environmental Site Remediation Database Search Airways (American Airlines). See Site No. 314078 Dutchess County Airport Hangar Facility and 314101 Flagship Airlines Hangar for additional past information. The Site also includes two closed former landfills, 314022 Dutchess County Airport Landfill and 314023 Dutchess County Balefill. At the start of World War Il the field was taken over by the Army Air Corps. It functioned as a satellite base to Stewart Airfield. A control tower was added and its main use was to function as a training field for West Point cadets. On April 4, 1947 the field was deeded to Dutchess County by the War Assets Administration under provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944. Dutchess County agreed to keep the field open to aviation. Site Geology and Hydrogeology: This information will be provided once it is available. Contaminants of Concern (Including Materials Disposed) Contaminant Name/Type Perfluorooctane Sulfonate perfluorooctanoic acid Site Environmental Assessment Based on the initial site characterization, soil, sediment groundwater and surface water on-site, and public and private wells off-site have been impacted by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which require additional investigation. Soil - PFOA was found up to 129 ppb. PFOS was found up to 369 ppb. Sediment - Sediment was collected from an on-site fire pond near one of the hangers with impacted groundwater. PFOA was detected up to 0.637 ppb. PFOS was detected up to 11.6 ppb. Groundwater - PFOA was detected up to 500 ppt. PFOS was detected up to 3,240 ppt. 1,4 dioxane was detected up to 15,400 ppt. Surface water - Surface water was collected from an on-site fire pond with PFOA up to 26.1 ppt and PFOS up to 214 ppt. PFOA at 4.33 ppt and PFOS at 17.2 ppt were found in surface water collected from a stream which discharges to Wappinger Creek, with low levels (PFOA: ND to just over 1 ppt and PFOS up to 2.53 ppt) in Wappinger Creek. PFOS and PFOA were detected in off-site private wells. Sampling off-site is ongoing. Site Health Assessment As information for this site becomes available, it will be reviewed by the NYSDOH to determine if site contamination presents public health exposure concerns. * Class P Sites: "DEC offers this information with the caution that it should not be used to form conclusions about site contamination beyond what is implied by the classification of this site, namely hat there is a potential for concern about site contamination. Information regarding a Class P site (potential Registry site) is by definition preliminary in nature and unverified because the DEC's investigation of the site is not yet complete. Due to the preliminary nature of this information, significant conclusions or decisions should not be based solely upon this summary." https://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/derexternal/haz/details.cfm?pageid=3 213 Exhibit E Pg B/D 375 750 1,500 Legend • Hudson Valley Regional Airport C Project Area Soas OA C B/D We B 2,250 BeD C/D We BeC C/D BeB C/D NyA B/D Fr B/D PwB C Fr B/D Ha B/D HeA A Ud DWB 3,000 US Feet Soil Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS, TR CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: New York State. Maxor Date: 1/17/2025 Exhibit F N PFO1E PEMUF PSSIE PUBHh PFO1/EM1E PEMIF -PUBH PUBHh PFOTE PFOTE PFOIE PEMIE PFO1C PSS1E PEMIE PUBHh PUBH PUBHX PFOIE PFOIC PSSI/EMTE PEMIC PSSTE 375 U750 1,500 Legend Ba Hasksen Valley Regionrs dinor O foject Aeo Wetkaus @ fregwate Emergien: Wetiged freshiwate: forestect/Strut E) freshwater Ponct S lara ES Otrer PFOIE PEMIF PUBHh- PUBEX PUBHX PUBH 2,250 3,000 US Feet PEMIE USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: Soetrir Dala som Date: 1/15/2025 N Hillis Ter Hampton Ra. Vassar. Rd Toddy is Route 376 Wappinger 376 Citation Dr. Dutchess County Airport Jackson to Jackson- 375 750 1,500 Legend * NYSDEC Wetlands 100ft Buffer Hudson Valley Regional Airport Project Area -New Hackensack Rd Greens Pond 2,250 гл Padasana Ct Stone wall o, 3,000 US Feet NYSDEC Wetlands Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: NYSDEC Maloney Airport Dr 376 376 *New Hackensack Lane PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: Sources: Esti, fomtom. Garrin. FAO. NOAA uscs. OpenStreetmop contritutors. and the GIS User Community. New York State. Maxer Date: 1/15/2025 Exhibit G 375 750 ~ 1,500 Legend © Hudson Valley Regional Airport 2a Project Area 0.2% Annual Chance Floodi Hazard 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazardi My Regulatory Floodway 2,250 3,000 → US Feet FEMA Flood Areas Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: FEMA PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: Date: 1/15/2025 Exhibit H 750 1,500 Legend 3 Hudson Valley Regional Airport - Project Area I Significant Natural Communities Rare Plants & Animals L Indiana Bat C Pied-billed Grebe No Significant Natural Communities present in project vicinity 3,000 - Feet Environmental Resource Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: Environmental Resource Mapper PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: How York State. Moxer Date: 1/15/2025 MARCHA United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New York Ecological Services Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045-9385 Phone: (607) 753-9334 Fax: (607) 753-9699 Email Address: fw5es [email protected] In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2022-0057122 Project Name: Dutchess County Airport Hangar Development June 23, 2022 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 06/23/2022 2 (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.E.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php. The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to- birds.php. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. 06/23/2022 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: New York Ecological Services Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045-9385 (607) 753-9334 06/23/2022 2 Project Summary Project Code: 2022-0057122 Event Code: None Project Name: Dutchess County Airport Hangar Development Project Type: New Constr - Above Ground Project Description: Develop two 12,000 SF hangars, inclusive of adjoining office space and automobile parking for each hangar, along with additional impervious surface for adjoining apron space. A connection auto drive, approximately 350 LF will tie into an existing parking lot. Remove 32 LF of existing fence and install a 32 LF sliding gate. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@41.628407100000004,-73.88680332716073,14z Pathose Counties: Dutchess County, New York 06/23/2022 3 Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 2 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries- , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Mammals NAME Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949 STATUS Endangered Insects NAME Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION STATUS Candidate 06/23/2022 IPaC User Contact Information Agency: County of Dutchess Name: Lisa Cheung Address: 242 West Main St Address Line 2: Suite 100 City: Rochester State: NY Zip: 14614 Email [email protected] Phone: 5857608506 4 Exhibit I N 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 LUS Feet National Register Building Jason voley kecondl an Airport • Project Area Legend Historic Builcing Points O Eligible • listed Historic Building Districts Eligible Listed Archeological Sensitive Areas Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: Cultural Resource Information System PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: New York State, Maxor Date: 1/15/2025 KATHY HOCHUL Governor SANYORK Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation ERIK KULLESEID Commissioner June 23, 2022 Austin Goodwin Civil Engineer Il Passero Associates 242 W. Main St #100 Rochester, NY 14614 Re: FAA Dutchess County Airport Hangar Development 263 New Hackensack Rd, Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 22PR04063 Dear Austin Goodwin: Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have reviewed the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be considered as part of the environmental review of the project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and/or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York Environmental Conservation Law Article Based upon this review, it is the opinion of the New York SHPO that no historic properties, including archaeological and/or historic resources, will be affected by this undertaking. If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above. Sincerely, R. Daniel Mackay Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Division for Historic Preservation New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Division for Historic Preservation, Peebles Island, PO Box 189. Waterford. New York 12188-0189 (518) 237-8643 • https://parks.ny.gov/shpo Wbs .r s ar =. ASIA-03: 1 LOENEN SAE CERAN ONAS IRASE FASAE tus: de i21:44D 1006310289902 00307407 Cr84022 Merie rare GENERAL WORK SCOPE: ENCACODON PLACEMEN OE CRESMEO AGGRIGA = UTILTY INSTALLATION 1. CONCRETE FOUNDATION 4. MANGAR INSTALASON M HON AN PAtNO •AVENANI MARENG ; CARIANENI IN PACE :westing rCaekce50xi024t01.ie.nc 4: 1010 1543167 8.189 107 721 ELEV: 152.20 sa'ss CONTROL POINTS (NAD 83) POINT NUMBER LEVATION IET) 422379 31 50 81 51 DESCRIPIION COS MAG. STATION OISC RUNWAY END OFT/W G STATION DISC BETWEEN R/W 15-33 L T/WE STATION DISK NEAR XUNWAY 1S ENO) EO CAPPRO IRON ROS REO CAPPEO HON ROD 1 20 20 <195 151.04 15035 BASTING 560 059 5100 1.018.385,4300 659,800.4300 CAPL - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPOILE & CONTRACIOR SAGING AREA INAL LOCATIONTO BE COORDINATED WITH OWNER SPOILS ACCESS ROUTE F CONRACTOR ACCESS ROUTE HANGAR 1 aApACsr JANCAR- AE2380-- N: 1.019.477.8140 IPN 122 98 'ROPOSEO SKY HARROHD NONAN 1 2A1 201 X 19 iT LYUIY • VVS Conc. tomi 29:xY Araz. ain2 AchAY9i PASSERO engineering architecture SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Hudson Valley Regional Airport 263 New hackensack Ro. Wappegers Falk, NY 12590 Sky Harbour LLC 136 Tomer Rd., Suite 205 23000149.0019 General Plan & Survey Control C-002 March 2025 CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE S0 FEET OF WORK AREA PHASE NOTES WORK AREA 1 MONADES ALL MOZA GUISIDE TAL AXINAT O TO% AND HEXAGON MANGAR NOLDIE CLOSURE OF G A TARLANE TOL WORE WINN GA TAOLANE WORX ARRA 2 *STALL BROSION AND SECUMENT CONTROL RACEMENT. WORK AREA 2 H TARAN RUNWAY 7-25 (TURF) CLOSURE DETAIL SCOES ROUTE CONTRACIOR ACCESS ROUTE • PROPOSED ROPOSED APRON TAXINAY OBJECI OSS ARCA "AXINAY SAFETY AREA WORK AREA 2 (CONT.) ALANS CLOSES OF SUNAT :28 14XINAY DAND MIXACON HANGAR INSTALL MORE AREA I & MORE ARLA I CARRIGADES AS SMONN TOA CLOSURES. USAGE DOWN THE IOR LASAY UGHING BICONAIGURATION ANO ALL OTHER MORATE COVEESAAWAY UGHTS AND SIGNS ON DOSING AXIWAY O WIDEN DANOR MORE AREA SHALL A COMUTIO BY TO CORNCUM MONKAG GENERAL PHASING & WORK AREA NOTES: SA COON AS UNCONSUME TED 1O OF 150 S30-2 OPERATIONAL THESE A MOE AT I HEARING ALL BUSING AND OTHER PERMITS ONCHO AN ACHER AN ACE MANAGE LACINATIO OR COREO AS * AMAN A ARE OOD A ALL PAVEMENT LOGES PROR 1O 1ª CORONEROS EQUIPMENT SHAL: NOT EXCIEO 2 HEET & HECHI UNESS GEHENSE 12 SOONE A HONOR ON AND DIPRISON, IN EXCESS OF 3 INCHES PEOR 12 ARMIN SHADE A ON OUR ONE DIRT ADORE TO HECKA ... EMOTE PERSON DE NO NOR OPTOE AGNATIO MORE AREAS *. HOTTA DACIA A EXCAVAIONS WIL BE ALONE WITHIN AN ACTIVE SA. I CANNING OR MATERIAL SHAL NOT BE STORED INADE THE OBICT REE AKA • DRACONOM MOONET TO MISTAN SHE MORE AND JONES 20. IOURMENT NOTEN USE SHALL BE SMOT OFF. FROM OPERATOR HALL AT ALL TIMES CONERO: GUST, MOD AND RUNOR RESUEING KEY NOTES ASIAL LOW PROFE BARRICAOS WISEN WORKING IN WORE AREA 1. INSTALL COW PROFE BARRCADES WHEN WORKING IN WORK AREA 2 PASSERO engineering architecture SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Hudson Valley Regional Airport 263 New nockensock Ro. Sky Harbour LLC 26 TowN 8d Suite 20. 10com.a5a 2200 Construction Safety & Phasing Plan C-031 March 2025 :E:059341.524811 - 95.17 N 1018660.8274 S:620360.3526 E459401.4349 RETAINING WALL SHET C-BAT ND DE TO HE AS PEANIN HE H (SEE NOTES ON SHEET C-541) - 41.67 - 1.85(6 N: 1018725.4273 58598373110 - SURE CUT SCE PAVEMENT EDGE ROVIDE NEW CORNER POSE AT END OF - 41.67 Hur (У). 37 3867- $2.29 K.17 PARACEN - 3067 - 110189154760 11978 41388 N101864064S E:660007.1681 LE 48001331025 KEYNOTES 3 COROSED S WIDE SIDEWALK SEE OETAIL S ON ORAWING * PROTING FOES POST AT CONNECTON POINT TO SOMAL ON DRAWING C-S ENCE WITH BARBEO WIRE: SEE § PROPOSED RETAINING WALL CONIRACIOR 10 SUBMIT KOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CIVIL ENGINEER OF RECORO (E.O.R.) & ARCHITECT. S-SEES SHES FOR SOLARO DEALERS FOR PAD DETAILS 8: PROPOSEO ELECTRIC MANHOLE. SEE UNUTY SHEET C-121 ¡ PROPOSED CANOPY STRUCTURE SEE ARCHITECTURA: PLANS 1 PEONTO RUBBER WHEEL STOP WITH REBAR PRES INTO 11 PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURE. SEE UTILITY SMEET C-121. 12 O/W/S CONCRETE PAD. SEE DETAIL 51 ON SHEET C-SO:. I3 SHOOSED GREEN INTRASTRUCIURE SEE C-SSO SERIES PASSERO engineering architecture SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Hudson Valley Regional Airport Sky Harbour LLC 136 Tower Rd., Suite 205 20099-059 i in Site Pian C-101 March 2025 - PROPAOMR 14 + 124 20 SE INV • 136.20 • INV • 136.20 SLE STORM REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT VIEWS. SHEET C-122 PROP. 16OIF30 SICP/N 031% AT DMH I: CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE RCP TO NEAREST JOINT. км = 147.00 INSTALL HOPE OUTLET FROM SW INV + 135.20 STRUCTURE CONNECTTO EXISTING RCP WITH CONCRETE COLLAR IM • 149 a0 WINY • 14S S0 wannels - AOS MYD., ни вас 62 STM. SWR. $ 0.09% 790 12° SCH POlF iS SICPP StM. SWE • 11.52% IN : 1437 PROP. 92 IF 12 SICPP a 0.337. PROP 371 L/ 30 31CPP 50.30% ADS HYD. SEPARATOR - RM = 14500 NE INV - 135.70 - 3 (тYР.) SM SWR*0.33% ya care. Ma 121 12. DONATE CHOP DRAWINGS DEWAR AND SPAINAGE CRUCTRES COMPATIAIETY - WYE ROOF LATERAL INTO STORM NETWORK (TYP.) LANCAR S (SM37 269 × 161") 20 PROT. & CK9C0 YYC W.M. NW INV = 137.30 SE INV • 142.60 PROP. 39 UF 24: SICP2 & 0.45% PROP. 15S LF 24" SICP? & 285% 2141 = 148,.00 3 INV = 137.80 - PROPOSED LIGHT | 5 - SO O GRADE PROVIDE T SPLASH BLOCK MOReOSEN CATE VAINE AND 1MM NEINVES PROP. 14P LE 15 SICPP & 0.545 PROP. 1591118 SICRE 9 9.405 .. 3 (тУР.) / PARENTY 1A PROF. 297 LF 12 SICP* • 0.89% ELECTRICA: MANHOLE 25 INAL SARACER PAVEMENT (TYP.) (TYP.) 37- (тYР.) 34 4 EQUAL SPACES AT 75.55 EACH -==-0-3 -TON SHEET C-122 SLE PVC SOR-35 21.07. MIN. SLOPE 15: 5 FPVC 308.35 SEPTIC TANK 14 NV IN: 145.65 • (TrP.) INV OUT: 145.40 er 0.74% * 1,x2 с808 I • 128 000 S INV - 144,50 28OP. 5' DMH & WINY = 144.40 KEYNOTES: & INCH UNDERDRAIN, SEE DETAIL 2 ON DRAWING C-50: a COBRAVING SONAGE PIPE TO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. SEE DETAIL? * C:9OSEO 2A INCH SQUARE CATCH BASN, SEE DETAL & ON OZAWING * COMRAN ON ENORE HANCE PRESENTE FENCE • DIRECHIONAL DRILE FOR PROPOREO WATER UNS 8 INCH C90O PVC WATER UNE, SEE DETAIL 2 ON DRAWING C.311 DEN CUT AND REPAIR ASPHAL GAS UNE, SEE DETAIL 4 ON DRAWING C-514. SUGGESTED LOCATION Of GAS METER. COORDINATE WITH UTIUTY PROVIDER 1 GREN SENCE BOR PROPOSED UTILTY TRENCHING. REPLACE IN XIND SINCH COPE CHOP PID CE DEAR SON DRAWING CRA BRACING C-S SD*-35 SANITARY SEWER & 0.50% SEE DETAR 3 ON 000 GALLON SEPTIC TANK, SEE DETAIL 1 ON DRAWING C.513 S DISTRIBUTON BOX SEE DETAR 3 ON DRAWING C.S!3 CANARY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM SEE SHERT C.513 EXPANSION REPLACEMENT AREA NON CONTRACT. 18, MATCH INVERTS TO EXISTING SWALE. I SARDION TID VE ALARMS, ON SERATOR CONTROL PANES INSTALLED INSIDE GSE. 20 SODING SE FLEMING PLANSION DEVICE WITHIN 21: INSTALLATION OF THRUSI BLOCKS. SEE DETAIL 6 AND 7 ON SHEET C-511. 22: 3000 GALLON OIL/WATER/SEPARATOR WITH VENTED COVERS 23 TRENCH ORAINS. 25 2550SAMETER ELECTRICAL MANHOLE LOAD RATED. SEE DETAIL S ON DWG 27 BANK OF ELECTRIC FEEDS. 3 TOTAL COORDINATE WITH UTILITY PROVIDER. 28 FOR TRANSFORMLA PAD. A SEES OR SOLAR DEAR SERIES SHEETS 2 HONER AND CARE RENCHING REQUIEMEN MECHANICAL PLANS FOR 30 ROOF DOWN OUT CEM UNDERGROUNO DRAINAGE LATERAL SEE 31: INFILTRATION BASIN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE. SEE C-$50 SERIES SHEETS 32 CONNECT EXISTING UNDERDRAIN PIPE TO PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN. 23 COAL ON SHEE CSUNDERORAIN TO PROPOSE 12 STOKM PIPE, SEE 3 PRANSOME DETONAL CONTE BASE, AND 34: PROPOSED CABLE TO BE FED THROUGH EXISTING AGS CONOUR. 37 PROPOSED 46 AWG COUNTERPOISE. SEE DETAIL 4 ON DWG C-514. 38: 23x50×41" IT DISTRIBUTION MANOHOLE SEE IT SERIES SHEETS. 39 TORONATI 3-CEL MAXCEL FABRIC INNERDUCT. SEE IT-SERIES NO: CHUTY POL SET SEE SHE EU MAXCEL FABRIC INERDUCTS TO PASSERO engineering architecture 22- SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Hudson Valley Regional Airport Kopangers Fate, 32590 Sky Harbour LLC 136 Tower Rd., Suite 205 23000149.0019 Vir seal Utility Plan C-121 March 2025 -PRO 8 0MN 2 Tesa l wiry. sae or BW (NEW): 149.09 TW: 151.00 SW INEW} 149.81 1: 15100 TW: 150.50 SW (EX): 145.55 W INEW): 130 <0 . MAM 2W (EX): 100 86 TW: 149.5. W (NEW): 148.00 шrCy 1ey 12 SW (NEW): 147.38 L PROP. 6' OMH 3 R3M = 147.00 2X2 C8 04-/ ADS HYD. SEPARATOR RIM = 145.00 2x2 C8e2- RIM = 149.80 PROPOSEO MANGAR : OFFICES F.F.E • 150.10 PROPOSEO MANGAR I F.F.E. = 149.5 → OVERMEAD DOOX 148,40 -3 1 ROP S'OMH 1- RM & 1A7 0 TWE129 W 15Y7: 142 08 SW INfW: 147 80 PROP. 6' DMH 7 --. RW = 149.75 SW (NEW): 149.59 PROPOSED GSE F.F.E. = 150.10 F.RE 9195 DO0R PRO SOMH7 - 22 4765- a8 n0.l As ee - ADS MTO-2 -H.P. 147.50 INV • 124 71 -14s -148.82 -143 8: - 149 01C 149.03 X2 C9FS EOVEeSsos OVER E8 3505 : 4 i0 127.s: • CAC AMA N MY OPERATE EQUIPMENT OR AREA -149.57 MÜNETE NORIR RaNSC PASSERO engineering architecture (5) EYNOTES EXISTING GRADE CONTOURS PROPOSED GRADE CONTOURS PROPOSED SWALE • 5 - 10 RIP RAP STONE WEIR. ELEV • 144.00 HP RADEINED SEMENT HARIN ОНОН QE RAN 1 7 SKY MARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Ae 1 e = 10 s 0/W/3 02 RUMS = 148.97 8 SEPTIC IANK RIMS - 148.00 DIST TANYS 1' MAX SELOW TRADE TOP OF BOX • 45.70, GRADE = 146.70 RESET PURE OUTLET TO BACK AS NEEDEO LV CRONN =-PROP. S OMM 5 ELM = 149.35 ELECTRICAL MANHOLE H H0 1E -149 149.07 T-149.03 PROPOSED MANGAR 2 OFFICES PROPOSEO MANGAR 2 - 2x2 cans HM A TAR CO TV ChOM 148 0-J REV. CROWN -15036 149.40 - 149.40- 149 50- 1 SAR 2C xa CrAY - HM = 148.75 14870 J REV. CROWN PROP. S OMM6 RIM - 150.50 -IK1 00 MACH EING PAVING 49.05 + C→ с соїти тн ..... Hudson Valley Regional Airport kapanges ala, N 2590 Sky Harbour LLC 136 Tower Rd., Suite 205 .ce Maris, NY :0604 23000149.0019 Grading Plan C-201 March 2025 Agency Use Only (If applicablel Full Environmental Assessment Form Project: Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts Date: Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency's reviewers) will not necessarily be environmental rofessionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions tha an be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2: Review all of the information provided in Part I. Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2. • Ifyou answer "Yes" to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section. • If you answer "No" to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question. • Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. • Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box "Moderate to large impact may occur." • The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. • If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general question and consult the workbook. • When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the "whole action". • Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. • Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 1. Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, ONO AYES the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.I) If "Yes", answer questions a -j. If "No", move on to Section 2. Relevant Part 1 Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur E2d E2F E2a a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet. b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or generally within S feet of existing ground surface. d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons D2a of natural material. e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area. h. Other impacts: D2e, D2q Bli Page 1 of 10 FEAF 2019 2. Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part I. E.2.g) !! "Yes", answer questions a - c. If "No", move on to Section 3. a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: VINO Relevant Part I Questions) E2g E3C No, or small impact may occur •YES Moderate to large impact may occur 0 b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: c. Other impacts: 3. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part I. D.2, E.2.h) If "Yes". ", answer questions a - L. If "No", move on to Section 4. a. The proposed action may create a new water body. b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body. d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intakes) for withdrawal| D2c of water from surface water. g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfalls) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s). • The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source o tormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receivin water bodies. i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities. Page 2 of 10 ANO Relevant Part I Questions) D2b, Dih D2b D2a E2h / D2a, D2h D2d D2e •YES No, or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 0 D2q, E2h Dia, D2d I. Other impacts: 4. Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) ", answer questions a - h. If "No", move on to Section 5. VINO DYES Relevant Part I Question(s) D2C No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand D2c on supplies from existing water supply wells. b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. Cite Source: c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater. e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated. f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products over ground water or an aquifer. g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. h. Other impacts: Dla, D2c D2d, E21 D2c, EIf, Elg, Elh D2p, E21 E2h, D2q, E21, D2C 0 0 5. Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. (See Part 1. E.2) If "Yes" , answer questions a - 8. If "No", ", move on to Section 6. VINO a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway. b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain. c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain. d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns. Relevant Part I Question(s) E2i E2j E2k D2b, D2e e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. D2b, E2i, E2j, E2k f. If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair, Ele or upgrade? Page 3 of 10 •YES No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur 0 g. Other impacts: _ 6. Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. (See Part I. D.2.f., D.2.h, D.2 g) If "Yes", , answer questions a - f. If "No", ", move on to Section 7. VINO Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur •YES Moderate to large impact may occur a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2) ii. More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (NO) ill. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs) emissions vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous air pollutants. • he proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emission: ate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 Ibs. per hour, or may include a hea source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. d. The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in "a" through "c", above. e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. f. Other impacts: D2g D2g D2g D2g D2g D2h D2g D2f, D2g D2g D2s 0 Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.) If "Yes", answer questions a -j. If "No". ''. move on to Section 8. Relevant Part I Question(s) / E20 VINO •YES No, or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over. or near the site. b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by E20 any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government. c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any E2p species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. d. The proposed action on real in roducit or ded sise far lair sad yor E2p the Federal government. Page 4 of 10 0 e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. r. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type & information source: i. Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides. j. Other impacts: E3c E2n | E2m Elb D2q 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part I. E.3.a. and b.) !! "Yes". , answer questions a - h. If "No". . move on to Section 9. a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System. b. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hay fields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc). c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of active agricultural land d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District. e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system. f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development potential or pressure on farmland. & The erion el project is not consent with the adoped municipal Farmiland h. Other impacts: Relevant Part I Question(s) E2c, E3b Ela, Elb ЕЗЬ Elb, Е3a El a, Elb С2с, C3, D2c, D2d C2c Page 5 of 10 VINO No, or small impact may occur D DYES Moderate to large impact may occur 0 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.l.a, E.l.b, E.3.h.) !! "Yes", answer questions a - 8. If "No". go to Section 10. ENO •YES a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) il. Year round d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work il. Recreational or tourism based activities e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project: 0-1/2 mile ½-3 mile 3-5 mile 5+ mile g. Other impacts: Relevant Part I Question(s) E3h E3h, C2b E3h No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur E3h Elc E3h Dia, Ela, DIf, DIg Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.) If "Yes", answer questions a - e. If "No", go to Section 11. VINO Relevant Part I Question(s) The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or E3e State Register of Historical Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. . The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous E31 o, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous | E3 o, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory Source: No, or small impact may occur •YES Moderate to large impact may occur Page 6 of 10 d. Other impacts: If any of the above (a-d) are answered "Moderate to large impact may e. occur", continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3: i. The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property. ii. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property's setting or integrity. ili. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting. 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1. C.2.c, E.I.c., E.2.q.) If "Yes", answer questions a - e. If "No", go to Section 12. a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or ecosystem services", provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat. b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource. c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area with few such resources. d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. e. Other impacts: 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area (CEA). (See Part I. E.3.d) If "Yes", answer questions a - c. If "No", go to Section 13. a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. c. Other impacts: Page 7 of 10 E3e, E3g, E3f Е3e, E3f, E3g, Ela, E16 Е3e, E3f, E3g, E3h, C2, C3 VINO YES Relevant Part I Question(s) D2e, Elb E2h, E2m, E20, E2n, E2p C2a, ElC, c2c. E2g (2a, C2c E1c, E2q C2c, EIC impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur 0 ENO Relevant Part I Question(s) E3d E3d •YES Moderate to large impact impact may may occur occur 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. (See Part I. D.2.j) If "Yes", " answer questions a -f. If "No". go to Section 14. a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles. c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access. d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. e. The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. f. Other impacts: Relevant Part I Question(s) D2j D2j D2j D2j D2j No, or small impact may occur ]YES Moderate to large impact may occur 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. (See Part 1. D.2.k) If "Yes", answer questions a -e. If "No", go to Section 15. a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation. b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity. d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square Dig feet of building area when completed e. Other Impacts: NO Relevant Part I Question(s) D2k Diq, D2k D2k [YES No, ar Moderate small to large impact impet may may occur occur 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. (See Part I. D.2.m., n., and o.) If "Yes", answer questions a - f. If "No". : go to Section 16. a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. ). The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence ospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. Page 8 of 10 VINO Relevan Part Question(s) D2m D2m, Eld D20 •YES No, or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions. f. Other impacts: D2n D2n, Ela 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part I.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.) If "Yes". , answer questions a - m. If "No", " go to Section 17. a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community. b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action. d. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the property (e.g., easement or deed restriction). e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste management facility h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste. i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of solid waste. j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill site to adjacent off site structures. 1. The eroposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the m. Other impacts: VINO Relevant Part I Question(s) Eld Elg, Elh Elg, Eth Elg, Elh Elg, Elh D2t No,0r small impact may cecur •YES Moderate to large impact may occur 0 0 D2q, Elf D2q, ELF D2r, D2s Elf, Elg Elh Elf, E1g D2s, EIf, D2r 0 0 Page 9 of 10 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. (See Part 1. C.I, C.2. and C.3.) If "Yes", ", answer questions a -h. If "No", go to Section 18. a. The proposed action's land use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use patterns). . The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or villag which the project is located to grow by more than 5% c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use plans. e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. r. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action) h. Other: 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. (See Part I. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) If "Yes", answer questions a - g. If "No" proceed to Part 3. a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools. police and fire) The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area whe ere is a shortage of such housin d. The esignased action rea interfer with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized . hararoposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. g. Other impacts: PRINT FULL FORM Page 10 of 10 VINO Relevant Part I Question(s) C2, C3, Dla Ela, Elb C2 C2, C2, C3 c2, C2 C3, DIc, DId, DIf, DId. Elb C4, D2c, D2d D2j C2a YES No, or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 0 VINO Relevant Part 1 Question(s) E3e, E3f, E3g C4 C2, C3, DIf Dig, Ela C2, E3 C2,C3 C2, 03 Ela, Elb E2g. E2h ]YES impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur 0 0 0 l Agency Use Only (IfApplicable) Project: Date: Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts Determination of Significance Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. ased on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further asses: he proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will no have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page, the lead agency can complete its determination of significance. Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section: Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact. • Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impact occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact * For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result. Attach additional sheets, as needed. The project will not have any significant impacts on the environment, culture or natural and historic resources. The construction of aircraft hanger uldings is consistent with the current land use at Hudson Valley Regional Airport. PFAS contamination is present at the project site. The property owne (Dutchess County) is working with NYSDEC in order to develop work plans and soil management plans to address the handling and disposition of DAS-containing solls and water during and after construction. By following NYSDEC direction and regulations, the site will be developed and maintained n a manner that poses no increased risk to public heath or the environment. Based on the information presented in Part 1 of the FEAF, and the evaluation done in Part 2 of the FEAF, this project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts. Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions • Unlisted SEOR Status: • Type 1 Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project: [E] Part I E Part 2 [ Part 3 FEAF 2019 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, plus this additional support information nan seep bad pand approval from Dutchess Conly Health Dept. and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact, it is the conclusion of the Dutchess County Department of Public Works, on behalf of the County of Dutchess as lead agency that: • A. • This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued • B. Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, that impact will be avoided ( ubstantially mitigated because of the following conditions which will be required by the lead agency Soil and. water disturbed. during construction. will.be handled in accordance with NYSDEC's requirements. There will, therefore, be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned, and, therefore, this conditioned negative declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.7(d)). _ C. This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment, and an environmental impact statement must be prepared to further assess the impacts) and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts. Accordingly, this positive declaration is issued. Name of Action: Sky Harbour Hanger Development at Hudson Valley Regional Airport Name of Lead Agency: County of Dutchess (Dept. of Public Works) Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Robert H. Balkind, P.E Title of Responsible Officer: Commissioner of Public Works Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Plat Sell Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert H. Balkind, P.E., Commissioner Address: 626 Dutchess Turnpike, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Telephone Number: 845.486.2085 E-mail: [email protected] Date: Date: 4/8/2025 For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g., Town / City / Village of) Other involved agencies (if any) Applicant (if any) environmental Notice Bulletin: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.htm PRINT FULL FORM Page 2 of 2 Public Works and Capital Projects Roll Call District Name District 7 - Hyde Park and Pleasant Valley •Truitt* District 25 - Amenia, Washington, Pleasant Valley & Millbrook Houston* District 3 - LaGrange Polasek* District 16 - Fishkill and Beacon Valdés Smith* District 9 - City of Poughkeepsie Atkins* District 1 - Town of Poughkeepsie | Gorman District 10 - City of Poughkeepsie Johnson (VC) District 12 - East Fishkill Metzger (C) District 13 - East Fishkill and Wappinger Paoloni District 15 - Wappinger Faust District 20 - Red Hook, Tivoli, and Rhinebeck Munn District 23 - Pawling, Beekman and East Fishkill Rolison H Present: Absent: Vacant: Resolution: Motion: Total: Abstentions: Yes No abrent Yes No 2025068 ADOPTION OF DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN CONNECTION WITH THE POU DEVELOPMENT, LLC AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT THE HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT MAY 8, 2025 Roll Call Sheets District Present: Absent: Vacant: Last Name YES District 7 - Hyde Park and Pleasant Valley Truitt District 25 - Amenia, Washington, Pleasant Valley & Millbrook Houston District 3 - LaGrange Polasek District 16 - Fishkill and Beacon Valdés Smith District 9 - City of Poughkeepsie Atkins District 1 - Town of Poughkeepsie Gorman District 2 - LaGrange, Pleasant Valley & Town of Poughkeepsie r Travelpiece District 4 - Hyde Park and Town of Poughkeepsie Lawler District 5 - Town of Poughkeepsie D'Aquanni District 6 - Town of Poughkeepsie Kaul District 8 - City and Town of Poughkeepsie Brendli District 10 - City of Poughkeepsie Johnson District 11 - Clinton, Pleasant Valley, and Rhinebeck Kearney District 12 - East Fishkill Metzger District 13 - East Fishkill and Wappinger Paoloni District 14 - Wappinger and Town of Poughkeepsie Versaci District 15 - Wappinger Faust District 17 - Town and Village of Fishkill McHoul District 18 - City of Beacon and Fishkill Page District 19 - North East, Stanford, Pine Plains, Milan & Red Hook Drago District 20 - Red Hook, Tivoli, and Rhinebeck Munn District 21 - East Fishkill Caswell District 22 - Beekman and Union Vale Garito District 23 - Pawling, Beekman and East Fishkill 25 District 24 - Dover and Pawling Resolution: _ Motion: Rolison House Total : 25 Yes Abstentions:O NO No 2025068 ADOPTION OF DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN CONNECTION WITH THE POU DEVELOPMENT, LLC AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT THE HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT MAY 12, 2025