Issuu

COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY FOR

Allegany County, New York

County Office Building, Room 213 7 Court Street Belmont, New York 14813 JULY 2026 MRB PROJECT NO. 0120.24001.000

ENGIN/ARCH STAMP PLACEHOLDER PREPARED BY MRB Group Engineering, Architecture & Surveying, D.P.C. Culver Road Armory 145 Culver Road, Suite 160, Rochester, New York 14620 Phone: (585) 381-9250

Expiration Date: mm/dd/yy Certificate of Authorization: 017763

The following is an excerpt from the New York Education Law Article 145 Section 7209 and applies to this document. “It is a violation of this law for any person unless he is acting under the direction of a Licensed Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the Seal of an Engineer or Land Surveyor is altered, the Altering Engineer or Land Surveyor shall affix to the item his Seal and the Notation ‘Altered By’ followed by his signature and the date of such alteration and a specific description of the alteration”. © 2026 MRB Group. All Rights Reserved.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Allegany County’s comprehensive plan, Our Vision, Our Mission: Outlook for 2030, included sewer-specific strategies to develop plans that address existing and future sewer system needs. This comprehensive sewer study evaluates wastewater infrastructure needs throughout Allegany County, identifies areas where public sewers may provide long-term benefits, and outlines development programs for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewerage. Results of this study found that improvements are being made to existing publicly owned treatment works to address aging infrastructure, communities with individual treatment systems have a need for and interest in public sewers, and that qualified individuals are needed to operate and maintain existing facilities. This study reviewed potential service areas based on public need, feasibility, intermunicipal benefits, and consistency with long-term regional wastewater goals. Potential service areas were grouped into tiers with Tier 1 service areas being the highest priority. The following Tier 1 service areas should be considered for funding assistance by Allegany County to develop the engineering reports necessary to define a project and to apply for State and Federal funding assistance to implement a project. Project order only indicates the order in which projects were reviewed and does not indicate priority. 1. Town of Belfast, Belfast Sewer District Sewer system serving the Hamlet of Belfast including a local wastewater treatment plant with a probable project cost of approximately (~) $13,858,000. Development of this project should also consider expanding the service area to include either the RushfordCaneadea Joint Sewer District or the Village of Angelica. 2. Towns of Caneadea and Rushford, Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District A comprehensive service area that includes collection systems around Rushford Lake in the Towns of Rushford and Caneadea and in the Hamlets of Rushford and Caneadea, and a local wastewater treatment plant located in the Hamlet of Caneadea with a probable project cost of ~$46,326,000. Development of the project should also consider extending the service area to include the Hamlets of Oramel and Belfast. MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

3. Town of Burns, Sewer District #1 Sewer service along State Route 70 that discharges to the Village of Canaseraga's publicly owned treatment works and upgrades to an existing pump station in the Village of Canaseraga with a probable project cost of ~$ 2,941,000. Development of the project should also consider options to include service areas in the Town of Burns east of the Village of Canaseraga and service to Swain Resorts in the Town of Grove. 4. Village of Angelica Sewer system serving the Village of Angelica including a local wastewater treatment plant with a probable project cost of ~$14,035,000. Development of this project should consider expanding the service area to include the Belfast Sewer District. 5. Towns of Alfred and Almond and Village of Almond, Alfred–Almond Expanded Joint Sewer District Comprehensive sewer project that includes service areas in the Towns of Alfred and Almond and the Village of Almond, utilizing the existing wastewater treatment plant in the Village of Alfred for treatment with a probable project cost of ~$17,126,000. Development of this project should also consider options to include potential sewer districts in the Town of Alfred, west of the Village of Alfred. 6. Town of Cuba Sewer, District #6 Sewer system south of the Village of Cuba serving a former cheese factory site with a probable project cost of ~$3,726,000. Development of the project should consider options to extend sewer service further south along NYS Route 305 and to expand the Cuba Lake sewer district to include properties not currently being served. 7. Town of Bolivar, Sewer District #1 Service along NYS Route 417 south of the Village of Bolivar to the Town of Genesee town line utilizing the existing wastewater treatment plant in the Village of Bolivar for treatment with a probable project cost of ~$3,580,000. Development of the project should consider options to expand the service area to include the Town of Bolivar to the east of the Village of Bolivar, the Village of Richburg, and potential service areas in the Town of Wirt, outside the Village of Richburg.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

8. Town of Wellsville, Truax / Morningside Sewer District Sewer service in the Truax / Morningside neighborhoods in the Town of Wellsville utilizing the existing Village of Wellsville wastewater treatment plant for treatment with a probable project cost of ~$11,326,000. Development of the project should consider potential service in the Village of Andover for sizing transmission facilities. 9. Village of Andover Sewer system serving the Village of Andover with a local wastewater treatment plant and probable project cost of ~$17,038,000. Development of the project should consider a regional pump station with a force main that discharges to the Village of Wellsville, expanding the service area to include sewer districts in the Towns of Andover and Wellsville. Probable project costs for this study include construction, legal, administrative, direct, and engineering costs. Construction estimates include a 15% contingency. Direct costs can include geotechnical investigations, environmental review, and special inspections. Probable project costs are based on 2026 dollars. The opinions of project cost are only intended for use in comparing alternatives. Engineering reports developed to implement individual projects will include more detailed opinions of project costs that can be used to apply for funding assistance. Qualified staffing is needed for existing and future publicly owned treatment works. Allegany County should work with local school districts and training providers to encourage individuals to consider working in the public sewer sector and provide support for training necessary for operator certification. Recognizing that operator certification depends on the type of treatment process, Allegany County should encourage individuals to obtain the highest level needed in the county so the individual can provide backup assistance to multiple communities. Allegany County can also help with government efficiencies through shared service agreements for equipment and materials procurement, administration of the sewer systems, and emergency staffing needs.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Results of this study support decision-making regarding infrastructure improvements, staffing, and management needs. The information presented in this study also provides the County with a planning tool to pursue funding and financing to implement projects and programs that will address these needs.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 A.

BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................. 1

STUDY SCOPE ................................................................................................................................. 4

ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 5

II. ALLEGANY COUNTY SETTING .............................................................................. 6 A.

TOPOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC FEATURES ........................................................................................ 6

ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 7

FLOOD HAZARDS ............................................................................................................................. 8

TRANSPORTATION............................................................................................................................ 8

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................................. 9

DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS ............................................................................................................. 9

POPULATION ESTIMATES .................................................................................................................. 9

III. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS .......................................................... 14 A.

DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 14

COLLECTION SYSTEMS................................................................................................................... 15

WASTEWATER TREATMENT ............................................................................................................ 21

IV. STUDY AREAS ...................................................................................................... 24 A.

STUDY AREA I: TOWN OF HUME ...................................................................................................... 24

STUDY AREA II: TOWNS OF CANEADEA, RUSHFORD, AND BELFAST .................................................. 26

STUDY AREA III: TOWNS OF GROVE AND BURNS ............................................................................. 26

STUDY AREA IV: TOWN AND VILLAGE OF ANGELICA ......................................................................... 26

STUDY AREA V: TOWNS AND VILLAGES OF ALFRED AND ALMOND..................................................... 30

STUDY AREA VI: TOWN AND VILLAGE OF CUBA ............................................................................... 30

STUDY AREA VII: TOWNS OF FRIENDSHIP AND AMITY, VILLAGE OF BELMONT .................................... 30

STUDY AREA VIII: TOWNS BOLIVAR, GENESEE, AND WIRT, VILLAGES OF BOLIVAR AND RICHBURG .... 34

STUDY AREA IX: TOWN AND VILLAGE OF WELLSVILLE, TOWNS OF SCIO AND WILLING ....................... 34

STUDY AREA X: TOWN AND VILLAGE OF ANDOVER .......................................................................... 37

STUDY AREA XI: TOWN OF INDEPENDENCE ..................................................................................... 37

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

V. ALTERNATIVE SERVICE AREAS ......................................................................... 40 A.

STUDY AREA I ............................................................................................................................... 40

STUDY AREA II .............................................................................................................................. 46

STUDY AREA III ............................................................................................................................. 55

STUDY AREA IV ............................................................................................................................. 59

STUDY AREA V .............................................................................................................................. 62

STUDY AREA VI ............................................................................................................................. 65

STUDY AREA VII ............................................................................................................................ 68

STUDY AREA VIII ........................................................................................................................... 72

STUDY AREA IX ............................................................................................................................. 78

STUDY AREA X .............................................................................................................................. 81

STUDY AREA XI ............................................................................................................................. 82

VI. ALTERNATE SERVICE AREA COSTS .................................................................. 84 A.

SERVICE AREA TIERS..................................................................................................................... 86

TIER 1 SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................................................. 87

TIER 2 SERVICE AREAS ................................................................................................................ 100

TIER 3 SERVICE AREAS ................................................................................................................ 101

TIER 4 SERVICE AREAS ................................................................................................................ 103

EXISTING SERVICE AREAS............................................................................................................ 103

FINANCING METHODS .................................................................................................................. 106

SEWER CHARGES ........................................................................................................................ 106

FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE PROJECTS ................................................................................................ 110

VII. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 111 A.

PUBLIC RELATIONS ACTION .......................................................................................................... 111

SEWER DISTRICT FORMATION ...................................................................................................... 111

SEWER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION\GOVERNANCE ......................................................................... 112

SEWER USE LAW/ORDINANCE ...................................................................................................... 114

FUTURE STAFFING AND LICENSURE .............................................................................................. 115

VIII.CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 116 A.

EXISTING FACILITIES .................................................................................................................... 117

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

FUTURE FACILITIES ...................................................................................................................... 117

STAFFING, MANAGEMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 123

LIST OF TABLES Table I.1: Common Abbreviations ..........................................................................................17 Table I.1: Common Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 5 Table II.1: Town Population Estimates ................................................................................................... 10 Table II.2: Village Population Estimates ................................................................................................. 11 Table II.3: Census Designated Place Population Estimates ................................................................... 12 Table II.4: Projected Town Population Estimates ................................................................................... 12 Table II.5: Projected Village Population Estimates ................................................................................. 13 Table II.6: Projected Census Designated Place Population Estimates .................................................. 14 Table III.1: Existing WWTP Processes ................................................................................................... 22 Table III.2: Estimated Daily Sewage Flows ............................................................................................. 22 Table V.1: Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District ........................................................................................... 44 Table V.2: Route 19A Estimated Daily Inflow, Fillmore SD Extensions .................................................. 44 Table V.3: Combined Route 19A Estimated Daily Inflow ........................................................................ 45 Table V.4: Estimated Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District Flow .............................................................. 49 Table V.5: Estimated Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District Flow ............................................ 50 Table V.6: Estimated Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District Flow ...................................................... 52 Table V.7: Estimated Rushford / Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District Flow ..................................... 53 Table V.8: Estimated Village of Canaseraga Flow.................................................................................. 57 Table V.9: Estimated Village of Angelica Flow ....................................................................................... 61 Table V.10: Estimated Angelica-Allegany County CR20 SD Flow ......................................................... 61 Table V.11: Estimated Joint Angelica-Belfast-Allegany County CR20 SD Flow .................................... 62 Table V.12: Estimated Alfred-Almond Flow ............................................................................................ 64 Table V.13: Estimated Town and Village of Cuba Flow .......................................................................... 67 Table V.14: Estimated Town of Friendship Sewer District Ext. #1 Flow ................................................. 69 Table V.15: Estimated Town of Friendship Flow .................................................................................... 70 Table V.16: Estimated Village of Belmont Flow with County Jail ............................................................ 71 Table V.17: Estimated Village of Bolivar Flow ........................................................................................ 75 Table V.18: Estimated Village of Portville Flow ...................................................................................... 76 Table V.19: Estimated Village of Wellsville Flow .................................................................................... 79

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

iii

Table V.20: Estimated Village of Andover Flow ...................................................................................... 81 Table V.21: Estimated Town of Independence Flow .............................................................................. 83 Table VI.1: Sewer Study EDU Estimates ................................................................................................ 85 Table VI.2: 2025 CWSRF IUP Listings ................................................................................................. 104 Table VI.3: Consolidated Funding Application Listings ......................................................................... 105 Table VI.4: Estimated 2025 Sewer Costs ............................................................................................. 110

LIST OF FIGURES Figure I.1: Location Map ........................................................................................................................... 2 Figure IV.1: Study Area I ......................................................................................................................... 25 Figure IV.2: Study Area II ........................................................................................................................ 27 Figure IV.3: Study Area III ....................................................................................................................... 28 Figure IV.4: Study Area IV ...................................................................................................................... 29 Figure IV.5: Study Area V ....................................................................................................................... 31 Figure IV.6: Study Area VI ...................................................................................................................... 32 Figure IV.7: Study Area VII ..................................................................................................................... 33 Figure IV.8: Study Area VIII .................................................................................................................... 35 Figure IV.9: Study Area IX ...................................................................................................................... 36 Figure IV.10: Study Area X ..................................................................................................................... 38 Figure IV.11: Study Area XI .................................................................................................................... 39 Figure VI.1: Town of Belfast, Belfast Sewer District ............................................................................... 88 Figure VI.2: Towns of Caneadea and Rushford, Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District ................... 89 Figure VI.3: Town of Burns, Sewer District #1 ........................................................................................ 91 Figure VI.4: Village of Angelica ............................................................................................................... 92 Figure VI.5: Towns of Alfred and Almond and Village of Almond, Alfred–Almond Expanded Joint Sewer District.................................................................................................................................................. 93 Figure VI.6: Town of Cuba Sewer, District #6 ......................................................................................... 95 Figure VI.7: Town of Bolivar, Sewer District #1 ...................................................................................... 96 Figure VI.8: Town of Wellsville, Truax / Morningside Sewer District ...................................................... 97 Figure VI.9: Village of Andover ............................................................................................................... 99

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

LIST OF APPENDICES A Drainage Basins B Soil Resource Report and Map C Environmental & Cultural Resources D Existing POTW / POSS E Study Areas F Opinion of Probable Project Costs

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

INTRODUCTION In 2019, Allegany County completed a comprehensive county plan1 that included sewerspecific strategies. The strategies include, among other items, developing plans to address the needs of the existing and future sewer system. This comprehensive sewer study (Study) analyzes the condition of existing municipal sewer infrastructure within the County, identifies areas without municipal systems that can benefit from public sewers, recommends capacity improvements for areas that would benefit the most from municipal systems, and reviews staffing and management needs. Results of this study will support decision-making regarding future investments and potential sewer service expansion. The information presented in this study also provides the County with a roadmap for future sewer service areas and a planning tool to pursue funding and financing to implement projects that will address these needs.

A. BACKGROUND Situated along the upper Genesee River, Allegany County geographically spans 1,035 square miles of mostly rural landscape, sharing borders with Livingston County to the northeast, Steuben County to the east, Cattaraugus County to the west, and Wyoming County to the northwest. Allegany County also borders Potter County to the southeast and McKean County to the southwest in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Allegany County is home to approximately 47,000 year-round residents in addition to numerous seasonal homeowners. The County comprises 29 towns, 10 villages, 40 viable hamlets, and some 50 historically named hamlets.

1 Our Vision, Our Mission: Outlook for 2030, Allegany County Comprehensive Plan (Allegany County,

September 2019).

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Town of Birdsall

Town of Allen

Town of Almond

Town of New Hudson

Town of Belfast

305

Village of Cuba

244

Town of Alfred

Town of Amity 31

Town of Wirt

Town of Andover Village of Wellsville SA IXD

Town of Wellsville

Town of Independence 39

Town of Willing

Town of Alma

Town of Genesee

Town of Bolivar

248A

McKean County, PA

Steuben County

Village of Richburg Village of Bolivar

SA XA

Town of Scio

Village of Andover

417

Town of Portville Cattaraugus County

Village of Alfred

Town of Ward

Village of Belmont

Town of Cuba

Town of Clarksville

Town of Angelica

Village of Almond

Town of West Almond

Village of Angelica

Town of Friendship

Town of Hornellsville Steuben County

TJV

Town of Caneadea

SA IID

446

Oil Spring Indian Territory

Town of Burns

LOCATION MAP

Town of Rushford

Cattaraugus County

13C

15A

Village of 961F Canaseraga

15B

Drawn By:

243

M AY 2 0 2 6

Date:

27B

13B

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Town of Grove

Town of Granger

1 : 250,000 @ 11 " x 1 7 "

Town of Centerville

Scale:

Town of Hume

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Livingston County

Wyoming County

Potter County, PA

SHEET NO.

Allegany County

1 of 1 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx Location_11x17_L1

In 1968, Allegany County completed a comprehensive sewer study.2 that reviewed existing treatment facilities and several potential service areas. At the time of the 1968 study, the villages of Alfred, Bolivar, Cuba, and Wellsville, and the hamlet of Houghton had existing Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Plans to construct POTWs in the villages of Belmont and Friendship were progressing, and a study for a POTW in the Village of Canaseraga was complete. In 1979, Allegany County participated in a comprehensive sewer study of Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, and Wyoming Counties.3. This study identified four service areas in the County that could benefit from public sewers: the Village of Andover, Fillmore Village-Hume Hamlet, Rushford Hamlet-Rushford Lake, and Northwest Town of Genesee. Since both studies were completed, the Belmont and Friendship facilities were constructed, additional treatment works were added in the hamlets of Fillmore and Canaseraga, and a low-pressure sewer system was installed around Cuba Lake, discharging to the village of Cuba wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). These facilities, except for Fillmore, are still operating and have undergone significant upgrades and improvements. In late 2024, the Fillmore WWTP was replaced with a regional pump station that discharges to Houghton for final treatment. While many recommendations in the 1968 and 1979 studies remain relevant, population densities have shifted, and the condition of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and public interest have changed. Also, the Village of Friendship officially dissolved on

2 Allegany County New York Comprehensive Sewer Study (Metcalf & Eddy Engineers, November 15,

1968). 3 Western Four County Comprehensive Sewerage Study, Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, and

Wyoming Counties, NY. (O’Brian & Gere, May 1979.)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

April 4, 1977, and the Village of Fillmore officially dissolved on December 31, 1994. Both population centers are now considered hamlets.

B. STUDY SCOPE This study was broken into three phases: 1) review existing treatment facilities, 2) identify the need for new treatment facilities, and 3) review staffing and management needs.

1. Review Existing Facilities Phase 1 of the study began by gathering information from local staff, reviewing existing system records, conducting field evaluations, evaluating local plans related to growth and infrastructure needs, and meeting with elected leaders and staff in each municipality. Communities with existing sewerage systems were analyzed for system capacity, aging components, operational issues, staffing needs, and projected repairs or upgrades over the next 20 years.

2. Identify Future Facilities Phase 2 of the study reviewed unserved areas, previous studies, the number of potential users, and business needs and identified areas where municipal service may be feasible. Using the information collected, the study developed a series of regional and local sewer service area scenarios for Local and County leadership to consider. Planning information developed in the study was incorporated into a digital Capital Improvement Planning tool (website) customized for the County. The website is intended to provide residents with accessible information about the County’s existing and proposed sewer infrastructure, share project updates, and serve as a platform for ongoing public engagement. The site features a variety of maps and general information to help users better understand system conditions and potential improvements. It also includes a public questionnaire designed to gather community input and gauge interest in future public sewer services.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

3. Staffing, Management, and Implementation The final phase of the study focused on evaluating staffing needs and management requirements. During meetings with municipalities, current staffing levels were discussed and compared with New York State regulatory requirements. Staffing issues were identified, as well as management practices at the local level and through shared services between the County and municipalities.

C. ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are used throughout this comprehensive study. Table I.1: Common Abbreviations Abbreviation

Description

ACS

American Community Survey

CDP

Census Designated Place

DEC

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

DOH

Department of Health.

EDU

Equivalent Dwelling Unit. Dwelling unit is based on the typical water use of a SingleFamily Residence. Used to determine Debt Service for non-single-family residential property types based on estimated water use.

EFC

New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation

IMA

Intermunicipal Agreements

LPS

Low-Pressure Sewer. Includes individual grinder pumps, service laterals, and limited portions of the collection system.

Living Unit. Calculation based on property Class Code and US Census Housing Units.

MPR

Final engineering report that defines a project and the boundary of its service area. Format is prescribed by General Municipal Law.

NYWEA

New York Water Environment Association

NYSDEC

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

O&M

Operation and maintenance. Refers to the daily activities, procedures, and labor required to keep buildings or systems running efficiently

PER

Preliminary Engineering Report. Report developed to define a project in a study area and to apply for financial assistance. The format of the report is specified by EFC or USDA RD.

POSS

Defined by the DEC (6 CRR-NY 750-1.2(a)(70). A sewer system owned by a municipality and which discharges to a POTW owned by another municipality. Includes laterals, collection system, pump stations, and transmission mains.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Abbreviation

Description

POTW

Defined by the Clean Water Act (6 CRR-NY 750-1.2(a)(71). Any device or system used in the treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage that is owned by a municipality. This definition includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing treatment.

Pump Station. Larger pump station that conveys wastewater to a POTW.

Sewer District

SPDES

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

RSWF

Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities

Transmission Main. Connection between a pump station and a POTW.

TR-16

Guides for the Design of Wastewater Treatment Work

USDA RD

United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development

USEPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

WWTP

Wastewater Treatment Plant. For municipal systems, the treatment works in a POTW.

II.

ALLEGANY COUNTY SETTING

A. TOPOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC FEATURES Allegany County is in the northernmost section of the Appalachian Mountains, characterized by high, rolling hills and river and stream valleys. Elevations range from ~1,110 feet on its northern border on the Genesee River to ~2,490 feet at the peak of Alma Hill, the highest point in Western New York. Alma Hill is also in a drainage basin shared by the Genesee River and the Upper Allegheny River. The county contains four drainage basins (Appendix A): 1) Upper Genesee, which drains approximately (~) 784 square miles of the County to Lake Ontario and includes POTWs in Houghton, Friendship, Belmont, Wellsville, and Canaseraga, 2) Tioga, which ultimately drains ~ 83 square miles of the County to the Chesapeake Bay and includes the Alfred POTW, 3) Upper Allegheny, which ultimately drains ~ 163 square miles of the County to the Mississippi River, then to the Gulf, and includes POTWs in Cuba and Bolivar, and 4) Cattaraugus, which drains ~ 5 square miles to Lake Erie. There are currently no POTWs in the Cattaraugus drainage basin within Allegany County.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Soils within Allegany County were reviewed for suitability of use as septic system adsorption fields based on DOH regulations for depths between 12 and 48 inches, 24 and 60 inches, and for surface lagoons4. Results indicate that for the most part, the soils are rated “somewhat limited” to “very limited” for use as conventional subsurface treatment systems. Therefore, new and replacement residential systems, and intermediate-sized residential and commercial systems, may need to consider alternative systems56 (Appendix B).

B. ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES Since the early 1970’s, there has been a heightened awareness of environmental, agricultural, archeological, and cultural resources. While these resources are relatively unchanged from previous comprehensive plans, their location and potential impact on development are better understood (Appendix C). All proposed projects must undergo the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) processes to determine potential environmental impacts. Depending on the funding source, projects may also need to comply with the requirements of the Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of the environmental review process, projects must receive clearance from the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NASDA), Departments of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Health (DOH), and other involved agencies such as State and local Departments of Transportation (DOT). As part of its review, SHPO often seeks comments from the Seneca Nation of Indians regarding sensitive areas.

4 Custom Soil Resource Report for Allegany County Area, New York. (USDA NCRS 1/13/2026.) Copy included in Appendix I. 5 Residential Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. (NYSDOH, Bureau of Water Supply, 2012.) 6 New York State Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems. (NYSDEC, March 5, 2014.)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

C. FLOOD HAZARDS Initial flood studies for communities within Allegany County, New York, were conducted in the mid-to-late 1970s, with the first Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) becoming effective at various dates, starting as early as the mid-1970s for some areas. Current FIRMs are available from FEMA’s (https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps). In August 2020, the DEC finalized the document, New York State Risk Management Guidance for Implementation of the Community Risk and Resilience Act, which includes updated flood hazard mitigation measures for critical infrastructure, including POTWs. New projects need to comply with this document. The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) is updating FIRMs across various communities, with draft updates for Allegany County available for public comment7. Allegany County completed an update to its Hazard Mitigation Plan in November 2024. Communities are currently working through the plan's adoption. The plan discusses flood hazards and potential economic impacts. Updated flood-hazard areas may affect potential development, existing and proposed on-site treatment systems, and existing and proposed POTWs.

D. TRANSPORTATION Since the 1968 study, portions of NY-17 have been upgraded and incorporated into I-86, a limited-access federal highway running the length of New York State and through Allegany County. Other transportation improvements include upgrades to NYS Routes 19 and 19A, portions of which generally follow the Genesee River, and to NYS Route 21. These highways generally serve as the major transportation corridors through the County.

7 Allegany County, New York Flood Risk Review (FRR) Meeting, Flood Risk Project. (FEMA August 27,

2025)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

E. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Allegany County is primarily rural. Present agriculture is based on dairying and growing supporting forage crops. Milk is shipped to New York, Rochester, and Buffalo along the highways serving the county. Vegetables and canning crops are secondary agricultural products. Agriculture is the major endeavor in Allegany County; it is a segment that has recently seen flat growth. Allegany County experienced an overall decline in the number of farms from 2017 to 2022, offset by an increase in sales per farm8. The main recreational areas of the county are centered around Cuba Lake and Rushford Lake. Fishing and boating are sports at both lakes. In addition, the Genesee River is stocked with fish. There are also several private campgrounds and youth camps throughout the County that attract seasonal visitors and contribute to recreational use in the area.

F. DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS Growth in Allegany County is expected to remain limited, with small-scale developments likely near existing population centers or main roads. The economy will continue to rely on agriculture, small businesses, and tourism. Planning efforts will focus on maintaining and improving existing systems, with targeted upgrades as needed, rather than largescale expansion.

G. POPULATION ESTIMATES Population estimates presented in the following sections are based on historical US Census population estimates.

8 2022 Census of Agriculture, New York State and County Data: Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part

32. (US Department of Agriculture)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

1. Existing Population Table II.1 lists the US Census population estimate for each town in Allegany County, Table II.2 lists Village population estimates, and Table II.3 lists population estimates for each Census-designated place.

2. Population Growth Population growth projections presented in the following tables are based on historical US Census population estimates, demographic factors described by the Cornell University Program for Applied Demographics,9 population projections for Allegany County prepared by Cornell through the year 2060, and enrollment projections for school districts within Allegany County.10 Table II.1: Town Population Estimates11 Town

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2024 ACS

Alfred

1,071

1,224

1,228

1,186

1,056

1,091

1,081

Allen

292

486

406

462

448

488

498

Alma

839

920

844

839

836

777

761

Almond

866

1,103

1,106

1,130

1168

1,105

1,098

Amity

1,048

1,248

952

1,284

1,341

1,322

1,297

Andover

625

836

734

867

791

705

688

Angelica

358

456

478

497

532

554

565

Belfast

1,339

1,495

1,581

1,714

1,663

1,641

1625

Birdsall

175

257

232

269

223

189

188

Bolivar

1,012

1,151

1,074

1,055

1,148

1,004

980

Burns

506

511

658

695

635

569

564

Caneadea

2,364

2,421

2,531

2,693

2,540

2,299

2,252

Centerville

526

696

678

761

820

927

954

9 2024 County and Economic Development Regions Population Estimates, Analysis of the US Census

Bureau Vintage 2024 Total County Population Estimates. (Cornell University Program for Applied Demographics, March, 2025.) 10 Cornell Program on Applied Demographics in cooperation with the New York State Center for Rural Schools. 11 Table II.1 and II.4 Town populations do not include Village populations. Town populations include CDP populations; do not add.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Town

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2024 ACS

874

938

1,038

1,147

1,161

977

957

Cuba

1,430

1,689

1,686

1,769

1,660

1,586

1,582

Friendship

2,106

2,164

2,246

1,924

2,002

1,944

1,930

Genesee

1,187

1,787

1,680

1,797

1,697

1,637

1,601

Granger

450

508

515

577

536

517

521

Grove

415

497

479

528

543

493

497

Hume

1,838

2,040

1,970

1,987

2,071

2,076

2,043

Independence

1,031

1,138

1,026

1,066

1,167

1,085

1,082

New Hudson

579

669

713

729

783

794

796

Rushford

1,021

1,125

1,178

1,255

1,150

1,075

1,069

Scio

1,674

1,971

1,965

1,921

1,826

1,614

1,599

Ward

271

362

334

387

380

330

2,553

2,889

2,621

2,649

2,717

2,424

2,376

213

357

277

356

331

277

276

Willing

1,296

1,451

1,428

1,370

1,223

1,283

1,251

Wirt

612

643

674

765

655

632

619

Clarksville

Wellsville West Almond

Table II.2: Village Population Estimates12 Village

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2024 ACS

Alfred

3,804

4,967

4,485

3,948

4,182

4,072

5,471

Almond

658

568

544

467

463

405

396

Andover

1,214

1,120

1,247

1,076

1,041

913

891

Angelica

948

982

963

911

869

719

707

Belmont

1,102

1,024

1,303

956

969

854

834

Bolivar

1,379

1,345

1,288

1,162

1,047

1,026

1,001

750

700

641

551

546

466

454

1,735

1,739

1,667

1,626

1,572

1,544

1,504

Richburg

482

494

469

448

450

416

406

Wellsville

5,815

5,769

5,454

5,048

4,680

4,643

4,551

Canaseraga Cuba

12 Table II.2 and Table II.5 Village populations are not included in Town Population Estimates.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table II.3: Census Designated Place Population Estimates13 CDP

1990

2000

2010

2020

Belfast

742

805

837

745

Fillmore

562

516

603

596

Friendship

1,423

1,176

1,218

1,085

Houghton

1,740

1,748

1,693

1,488

Rushford

334

343

363

351

Scio

651

594

609

525

1,028

868

798

585

Stannards

Table II.4: Projected Town Population Estimates14 Town

2024 ACH

2030

2040

2050

2060

Alfred

1,081

1,065

1,160

1,206

1,251

Allen

498

521

571

622

678

Alma

761

731

677

629

585

Almond

1,098

1,069

1,001

943

887

Amity

1,297

1,276

1,256

1,223

1,190

Andover

688

648

572

510

454

Angelica

565

573

569

560

544

Belfast

1,625

1,609

1,591

1,570

1,549

Birdsall

188

175

144

122

104

Bolivar

980

914

779

667

564

Burns

564

536

472

421

376

Caneadea

2,252

2,140

1,920

1,738

1,573

Centerville

954

1,018

1,161

1,312

1,484

Clarksville

957

882

726

611

514

1,582

1,550

1,471

1,404

1,340

Cuba

13 CDP populations are included in Town Population Estimates.

The US Census defines Census Designated Places (CDPs) as a statistical geography representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name. The US Census estimates CDP populations. New York defines a hamlet as any unincorporated settlement that does not have a local government. The US Census does not estimate populations of hamlets. Not all hamlets are CDPs. 14 Population projections for individual towns in the county were developed from the sources utilizing Microsoft Copilot, a large language artificial intelligence (AI) assistant. Copilot produced high, medium, and low confidence projections, with results being consistent with county projections estimated by the Cornell University Program for Applied Demographics. Table II.4 to Table II.5 represent medium results.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Town

2024 ACH

2030

2040

2050

2060

Friendship

1,930

1,900

1,841

1,788

1,736

Genesee

1,601

1,561

1,511

1,458

1,406

Granger

521

515

492

474

458

Grove

497

479

426

387

351

Hume

2,043

2,030

2,051

2,056

2,061

Independence

1,082

1,048

963

895

832

New Hudson

796

802

814

825

837

Rushford

1,069

1,037

960

897

839

Scio

1,599

1,512

1,312

1,160

1,025

Ward

330

311

263

229

199

2,376

2,240

1,945

1,694

1,454

276

256

208

174

145

Willing

1,251

1,262

1,351

1,417

1,486

Wirt

619

603

584

562

541

Wellsville West Almond

Table II.5: Projected Village Population Estimates Village Alfred

2024 ACH

2030

2040

2050

2060

5,471 6,202 5,243 5,105 4,970

Almond

396

371

320

280

245

Andover

891

834

722

633

556

Angelica

707

648

522

432

357

Belmont

834

783

681

601

529

Bolivar

1,001

982

969

950

931

454

420

352

301

257

Canaseraga Cuba Richburg Wellsville

1,504 1,475 1,461 1,435 1,410 406

389

358

331

306

4,551 4,495 4,494 4,458 4,423

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table II.6: Projected Census Designated Place Population Estimates

III.

CDP

2030

2040

2050

2060

Belfast

733

725

716

706

Fillmore

590

599

600

602

Friendship

1,057 1,023

993

965

Houghton

1,366 1,219 1,103

999

Rushford

333

307

287

268

Scio

478

410

363

320

Stannards

576

586

587

588

PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS

A. DEFINITIONS 1. Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) generally include two components: collection and treatment. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) and DEC define POTW to mean treatment works which are owned by a State or municipality. This definition includes any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes, and other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW treatment plant. The term also means the municipality that has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges as well as the discharges from such treatment works.15

2. Publicly Owned Sewer System For regulatory reporting purposes, the DEC defines a Publicly Owned Sewer System (POSS) to mean a sewer system owned by a municipality and which discharges to a POTW owned by another municipality.16 A POSS includes all the facilities in a POTW apart from a treatment plant.

15 40 CFR Part 403.3(q) and 6 CRR-NY 750-1.2(a)(71). 16 6 CRR-NY 750-1.2(a)(70).

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

3. Collection System The Clean Water Act does not include a definition of a POSS, but it operatively defines a collection system as sanitary sewer systems that collect and transport domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater and limited amounts of stormwater and infiltrated groundwater to treatment facilities for appropriate treatment.

4. Wastewater Treatment Plant The Clean Water Act defines a POTW Treatment Plant as that portion of the POTW which is designed to provide treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage and industrial waste.17 For purposes of this study, a POTW Treatment Plant, or a treatment works, is a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

B. COLLECTION SYSTEMS Collection systems include traditional gravity sewers, low-pressure sewers, vacuum sewers, or a combination thereof.

1. Gravity Sewers A gravity sewer system is a wastewater collection network that relies on the natural slope of the land to convey sewage through buried pipelines to a treatment facility or pump station. Flow occurs without mechanical assistance, using the elevation difference between upstream and downstream points to maintain a consistent velocity and prevent solids deposition. Gravity sewers typically include manholes at regular intervals for maintenance access, as well as service laterals, trunk lines, and interceptors sized to handle peak wet-weather flows. The primary advantages of gravity sewer systems include their operational simplicity and long-term reliability. Because they do not depend on pumps or electrical power, gravity sewers generally have lower energy costs, fewer mechanical failures, and reduced

17 40 CFR §403.3(r)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

operation and maintenance requirements. They are also well-understood by regulators, contractors, and operators, and can provide significant service life—often 50 to 100 years—when properly designed, constructed, and maintained. In many cases, gravity systems also offer greater resilience during power outages or emergencies, since flow continues without active mechanical components. However, gravity sewers also have notable disadvantages. They require sufficient topographic relief; in flat or low-lying areas, achieving proper slope may be impractical or cost‑prohibitive, leading to deep excavations, extensive dewatering, or the need for multiple pump stations. Construction costs can be significantly higher due to trench depth, rock excavation, or utility conflicts. Gravity systems also tend to have greater inflow and infiltration susceptibility than pressurized alternatives, particularly in older systems where joints deteriorate over time. For these reasons, engineers often evaluate gravity sewers alongside alternatives such as low-pressure or vacuum systems when topography, cost, or groundwater conditions present challenges. The hamlets of Fillmore, Houghton, and Friendship, and the Villages of Canaseraga, Cuba, Belmont, Alfred, Bolivar, and Wellsville have gravity sewer systems. Over the past seven years, each of these communities has received funding assistance to study inflow and infiltration in their collection systems, with a few communities progressing to project design and implementation.

2. Low-Pressure Sewers Low-pressure sewer systems utilize small grinder pumps at each wastewater source and small-diameter low-pressure sewers for transmission either to a lift station or directly to a wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater from individual services is collected in small grinder pump stations. A grinder pump station consists of an integral wet well, typically 4 to 6 feet deep, made of fiberglass, plastic, or steel, with a diameter of 24 to 30 inches. Grinder pumps range

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

from 1 to 5 horsepower, depending upon the type of pump selected and the number of units served. The wet well collects domestic sewage, and when it is filled to a preset level, a level switch activates the pump; all solids in the waste stream are then ground into a slurry and pumped through small-diameter pressure sewers. The wet well can be in an easement on private property or in the road right-of-way and requires a power source. Wet wells typically have either a lightweight aluminum lid or a cast-iron lid. An anti-flotation base may be required in certain conditions. Since these systems do not rely on gravity, sewers can be constructed with a minimum cover (30 to 36 inches) and follow the topography of the land. Low-pressure sewer systems have been successfully used in the United States and around the world for decades and are considered very reliable and cost-effective. However, the system's performance depends on proper maintenance. Advantages of the low-pressure systems over other sewage collection systems include: • Low-pressure mains are normally smaller than other systems. • Low-pressure mains are typically installed at shallow depths and do not require installation at grade or with special elevation profiles. • Construction is easier at shallow depths and has far less impact on existing roadways and utility lines. • Directional drilling can be used to provide significant cost savings and minimal disruption of traffic and other utilities. Disadvantages of the low-pressure sewer system include: • Grinder pump stations have initial capital costs that are normally assigned to property owners. Each pump requires a 240-volt, 30-amp (240/30A) circuit. Properties that do not have a circuit available or an electrical service capable of handling the additional electrical load will need to be upgraded by the Owner at their own expense.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

• Grinder pump stations require regular maintenance to continue functioning properly. • Given that grinder pump stations require electrical power to operate, the system does not function when there are power outages. • Air-release valves are required at high points in the system and require regular maintenance to avoid airlocks. • Pumps typically have a design life of 5 to 10 years. • There is a potential for odors from older sewage and air release valves. • When used to replace an existing system, the existing system needs to stay in service until the low-pressure sewer system is complete. Two pumping alternatives used in low-pressure systems (centrifugal and semi-positive displacement pumps) were investigated. Discussions with representatives of suppliers of semi-positive displacement and centrifugal grinder pumps suggest that the infrastructure costs are similar. Installation, ownership, and maintenance of grinder pumps vary from community to community where low-pressure sewer systems are used. Responsibility for the grinder pumps is normally assigned to either the homeowner or the municipality. In some communities, everything associated with the use of the grinder pump is assigned to the homeowner, including: • Purchase of pump and control panel package • Installation of the pump and control panel • Connection from pump to side sewer lateral/service box • Wiring of the pump to the pump control panel • Electrical circuit from house to pump control panel • Connection of the gravity building sewer to the pump • Abandonment of existing septic system • Landscaping restoration

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

• Electrical power costs associated with the pump • Maintenance, repair, and replacement of pumps • Notifying the governmental entity responsible for the sewer system in the event of a grinder pump alarm or a non-functioning system. In those communities assigning complete responsibility for grinder pumps to the homeowner, the municipality will: • Provide sewer service laterals. • Assist with locating the service lateral and service box • Coordinate easements • Provide an acceptable on-site contractor list • Inspect on-site work The Town of Cuba, Cuba Lake Sewer District (Sewer District #5) utilizes low-pressure sewers for collection around Cuba Lake, with the Town responsible for operation and maintenance of the individual grinder pump stations. The Town reports a noticeable improvement in Cuba Lake’s water quality since sewers were installed. Probable cost estimates prepared for this study are based on low-pressure sewer systems to provide a baseline suitable for comparing service area capital costs. Further analysis by engineers for specific projects will determine which type of system is most suitable for each service area.

3. Vacuum Sewer Systems A vacuum sewer system is a wastewater collection method that uses differential air pressure—rather than gravity or continuous pumping—to move sewage through smalldiameter pipes. A centralized vacuum station maintains negative pressure within the collection network, and sewage is introduced through valve pits where vacuum valves open intermittently as wastewater accumulates. When a valve opens, the pressure differential draws wastewater (along with a plug of air) through the vacuum mains toward

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

the station, where it is then discharged to a downstream treatment facility or pumping system. This “pulsed” movement of air and wastewater enables shallow pipe installation with flexible routing. The advantages of vacuum sewer systems primarily relate to construction efficiency, cost savings in difficult conditions, and reduced inflow and infiltration. Because vacuum sewers do not require a continuous slope, the pipes can be installed at relatively shallow and consistent depths, significantly reducing excavation, dewatering, and rock removal. The system’s airtight design greatly limits groundwater infiltration, making it particularly suitable for coastal areas, high‑groundwater regions, and communities with unstable soils. Vacuum systems also provide enhanced environmental protection; leaks are inward rather than outward due to the negative pressure, reducing the risk of contamination. Disadvantages include dependence on mechanical and electrical equipment, higher operation and maintenance requirements compared to gravity systems, and limitations on system size and layout. The vacuum station requires continuous power to maintain system pressure, and valve pits contain mechanical components that require periodic inspection and servicing. Vacuum sewer systems can also have practical distance and elevation limits, making them less suitable for large or topographically complex service areas. Additionally, fewer contractors and operators are experienced with vacuum technology, which can increase municipalities' startup and training needs. Vacuum sewers are uncommon in New York, with no systems in Allegany County. Most sewer systems are gravity systems, with low-pressure sewers gaining in popularity.

4. Transmission Transmission systems internally interconnect portions of a collection system and can connect separate collection systems. Transmission systems include sanitary pump stations and transmission mains. A transmission main can be designed to

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

accommodate service connections, typically in rural areas where customers are widely dispersed. The Town of Hume SD is an example of a POSS with a central pump station that discharges through a transmission main to the Town of Caneadea, Houghton SD WWTP.

C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT 1. Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants There are many different processes utilized to treat municipal sewage or liquid waste. In general, the municipal treatment process can be broken down into four categories: preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, and tertiary treatment. Preliminary treatment removes large solids and grit from wastewater. Primary treatment includes settling to remove settleable material. Secondary treatment utilizes biological processes and final settling to remove organic matter. Trickling filters and activated sludge are common secondary treatment processes. Facilities that need to meet a higher level of treatment to achieve permit limits include tertiary treatment, often in the form of filtration. Disinfection of effluent is required to protect the quality of the receiving water body. Table III.1 summarizes the existing secondary treatment processes used at Allegany County municipal WWTPs, as reported by the NYSDEC. Detailed scoring sheets identifying each treatment process for each facility are included in Appendix D. Included in the table is the minimum grade (Class) of the Chief and Assistant/Shift Operator needed at the WWTP. Monthly WWTP operating reports from 2023, 2024, and 2025 for existing WWTPs were reviewed to estimate current wastewater flows and are summarized in Table III.2. Section V of this study reviews alternate service areas and includes estimated wastewater flow. Alternate service areas that utilize an existing POTW for treatment include flow from Table III.2 to determine if the alternate requires expansion of an existing WWTP.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table III.1: Existing WWTP Processes POTW

SPDES/POSS ID

Secondary Treatment

Class

V. Alfred

NY0022357

Trickling Filter / Bio-Tower / Final Filters

V. Belmont

NY0031844

Sequencing Batch Reactor

V. Bolivar

NY0022381

Oxidation Ditch

V. Canaseraga

NY0269573

Sequencing Batch Reactor

V. Cuba

NY0023515

Trickling Filter / Bio-Tower / Extended Aeration

T. Friendship

NY0029301

Extended Aeration

Houghton SD

NY0024431

Trickling Filter

T. Hume PS

NY0203858

Septic tanks with regional Pump Station

V. Wellsville

NY0020621

Trickling Filter / Bio-Tower

Existing plant flows include domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater, inflow from flooded facilities during storms, cross-connected roof drains, sump pumps and storm sewers, and groundwater infiltration into faulty manholes, pipes, and pump stations. Table III.2: Estimated Daily Sewage Flows

Location

Min. (MGD)

Avg. (MGD)

Max. (MGD)

Permitted

95% Permit

V. Alfred

NY0022357

0.167

0.375

0.613

0.980

0.931

V. Belmont

NY0031844

0.066

0.141

0.282

0.155

0.147

V. Bolivar a

NY0022381

0.099

0.363

0.833

0.400

0.380

T. Caneadea b

NY0024431

0.079

0.126

0.179

0.280

0.266

V. Canaseraga

NY0269573

0.020

0.045

0.200

0.100

0.095

V. Cuba

NY0023515

0.197

0.404

0.685

0.970

0.922

T. Friendship

NY0029301

0.049

0.119

0.225

0.286

0.272

T. Hume c

NY0203858

0.021

0.051

0.129

N/A

V. Wellsville

NY0020621

0.600

1.073

1.720

2.200

2.090

Notes: a. In 2022 and 2023, the average daily flow for the Village of Bolivar exceeded 95% of permitted flow. b. Town of Caneadea, Houghton Sewer District (Houghton SD). c. In accordance with its FMP, the Town of Hume WWTP was abandoned in 2024; flow is now pumped to the Town of Caneadea.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

6 NYCRR Part 750-2.9(c)(1) requires that a Flow Management Plan (FMP) be developed when annual average flows reach 95% of the design flow to identify and implement reductions in hydraulic loading to a WWTP or failing that, approvable engineering reports, plans and specifications and/or capital improvements as necessary to stabilize annual average flows below the WWTP’s design flow.

2. Individual Treatment Systems Residential, commercial, and industrial treatment systems discharging less than 1,000 GPD are regulated by the DOH and local code enforcement officials. These small systems typically include a septic tank with a distribution system but can also include enhanced treatment units. System selection is based on local soil types and testing. The DOH regulates the design of the systems in accordance with accepted design standards.

3. Sewerage Treatment Requirements Establishment of sewage volumes and characteristics within the various alternative service areas is based on population served, commercial and industrial needs, and the needs of public and community services. Designs for new or upgraded POTW shall comply with the latest editions of the following standards whenever practicable and as appropriate: • Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (commonly referenced as RSWF or Ten States Standards). • TR-16 Guides for the Design of Wastewater Treatment Works - New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. • New York State Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems Statewide and Lake George Design Standards. • State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits, 6NYCRR Part 750. • New York State Flood Risk Management Guidance for Implementation of the Community Risk and Resiliency Act. • New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

DEC publishes Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) memos that guide regional water program staff. The TOGS guide SPDES permit administration and development, groundwater programs, water quality programs, including flood protection and water supply permits, and other subjects. DEC water program staff utilize the TOGS when reviewing applications for new or upgraded POTWs to establish SPDES discharge limits.

IV.

STUDY AREAS For convenience, Allegany County was divided into eleven (11) study areas (Appendix E). Included in each study area are population centers, existing POTWs and POSSs, and multiple alternate service areas. Study Areas were selected based on existing and potential service areas of existing POTWs and POSSs, and potential service areas for population centers not currently served by sewer.

A. STUDY AREA I: TOWN OF HUME The Town of Hume comprises Study Area I. Population centers include the hamlets of Fillmore, Hume, Wiscoy, and Rossburg. The Town of Hume has a POSS in the Hamlet of Fillmore, consisting of a gray water sewerage collection system that drains to a regional pump station located just north of the hamlet on NYS Route 19A. Each parcel in the sewer district has a septic tank that provides primary treatment. The Route 19A pump station discharges to the Town of Caneadea, Houghton Sewer District (SD) WWTP, which provides final treatment and disinfection. Approximately (~) 26% of the Town of Hume has access to public sewers.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

STUDY AREA NO. I

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Existing Service Area

Tier IV

Tier I

Transmission Main

Tier II

Existing Pump Station

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Drawn By:

Existing Town of Hume NYS Rt 19A Pump Station 201 GPM Capacity

TJV

FIGURE IV.1 PROJECT NO.

Tier III

0120.24001 FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx

FigIV.1_StudyArea1_11x17-L1

B. STUDY AREA II: TOWNS OF CANEADEA, RUSHFORD, AND BELFAST Study Area II includes the Towns of Caneadea, Rushford, and Belfast, with population centers around Rushford Lake and in the hamlets of Houghton, Caneadea, Oramel, Belfast, and Rushford. The Town of Caneadea has a WWTP serving the hamlet of Houghton (Houghton, SD). The WWTP is located on NYS Route 19, on the north side of the Hamlet of Houghton. Approximately ~ 27% of the Town of Caneadea has access to public sewers, with Houghton University as the largest user. There are no sewers around Rushford Lake or in the hamlets of Caneadea, Oramel, Belfast, or Rushford.

C. STUDY AREA III: TOWNS OF GROVE AND BURNS Study Area III includes the Towns of Grove and Burns and the Village of Canaseraga. In addition to the Village of Canaseraga, population centers include the area around (and including) the Swain Resort in the Town of Grove and the Garwood area in the Town of Burns. The Village of Canaseraga has a WWTP located on Windsor Drive on the east side of the village. Approximately ~71% of the Village of Canaseraga has access to public sewers; there are no sewers in the Towns of Burns and Grove.

D. STUDY AREA IV: TOWN AND VILLAGE OF ANGELICA Study Area IV contains the Town and Village of Angelica. The Village of Angelica is the population center. There are no POTWs in Study Area IV.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

STUDY AREA NO. II

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District AVG: 170,200 GPD MAX: 481,500 GPD PEAK: 600 GPM WWTP DAF: 188,000 GPD

Existing Service Area

Tier IV

Tier I

Transmission Main

Tier II

Proposed WWTP

Tier III

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Belfast Sewer District AVG: 43,460 GPD MAX: 132,100 GPD PEAK: 170 GPM WWTP DAF: 48,000 GPD

Drawn By:

TJV

FIGURE IV.2 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.2_StudyArea2_11x17-L1

STUDY AREA NO. III

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Date:

Drawn By:

Scale:

5 TJV

Grove Sewer District #1 ----- GPD AVG: ----- GPD MAX: ----- GPM PEAK: PS DAF: ----- GPM

Existing Village of Canaseraga WWTP MAX - ----MIN - ----AVG - ----PF - 0.100

Burns Sewer District #1 AVG: 7,640 GPD MAX: 23,230 GPD PEAK: 30 GPM PS DAF: 36 GPM

Existing Service Area

Tier IV

Tier I

Transmission Main

Tier II

Existing WWTP

Tier III

Proposed WWTP

FIGURE IV.3 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.3_StudyArea3_11x17-L1

STUDY AREA NO. IV

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Village of Angelica AVG: 51,780 GPD MAX: 157,410 GPD PEAK: 20 GPM WWTP DAF: 57,000 GPD

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Belfast Sewer District AVG: 43,460 GPD MAX: 132,100 GPD PEAK: 170 GPM WWTP DAF: 48,000 GPD

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Date:

Drawn By:

Study Area IV Pump Station

Scale:

TJV

Study Area VII Pump Station Existing Service Area

Transmission Main

Tier I

Existing WWTP

FIGURE

Tier II

Proposed WWTP or Pump Station

IV.4

Tier III Tier IV

PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.4_StudyArea4_11x17-L1

E. STUDY AREA V: TOWNS AND VILLAGES OF ALFRED AND ALMOND Study Area V includes the Village and Town of Alfred and the Village and Town of Almond. The Villages of Alfred and Almond are the primary population centers. The Village of Alfred has a WWTP located on the north side of the village on North Main Street that serves the Village and sewer districts in the Town of Alfred. There are no POTWs in the Town or Village of Almond. Approximately ~99% of the Village of Alfred and ~5% of the Town of Alfred have access to public sewers.

F. STUDY AREA VI: TOWN AND VILLAGE OF CUBA The Town and Village of Cuba and the Oil Spring Indian Territory make up Study Area VI. Population Centers include the Village of Cuba and Cuba Lake. The Village of Cuba has a WWTP on Water Street on the west side of the village that serves the Village and five Town sewer districts, the largest of which is SD #5, which serves around Cuba Lake. The Oil Spring Territory is not served by public sewers. Approximately ~31% of the Town and all the Village have access to public sewers.

G. STUDY AREA VII: TOWNS OF FRIENDSHIP AND AMITY, VILLAGE OF BELMONT The Towns of Friendship and Amity, and the Village of Belmont, make up Study Area VII. Population centers include the Village of Belmont and the hamlet of Friendship. The Town of Friendship has a WWTP on East Main Street on the eastern side of the Hamlet of Friendship that serves the hamlet. The Village of Belmont has a WWTP located near Erie Street and Wilard Street that serves the Village and the Genesee Valley Central School District. Approximately ~97% of the Village of Belmont and ~44% of the Town of Friendship have access to public sewers; there are no sewers in the Town of Amity.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

STUDY AREA NO. V

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Study Area V Pump Station or WWTP

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Study Area V Pump Station

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Existing Village of Alfred WWTP MAX - 0.613 MIN - 0.167 AVG - 0.373 PF - 0.980

Drawn By:

Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District AVG: 76,930 GPD MAX: 233,870 GPD PEAK: 300 GPM PS DAF: 360 GPM

TJV

Existing Service Area

Transmission Main

Tier I

Existing WWTP

FIGURE

Tier II

Proposed WWTP or Pump Station

IV.5

Tier III Tier IV

PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.5_StudyArea5_11x17-L1

STUDY AREA NO. VI

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Date:

Existing Town of Cuba WWTP MAX - 0.685 MIN - 0.197 AVG - 0.119 PF - 0.970

Scale:

Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 AVG: 18,120 GPD MAX: 30,730 GPD PEAK: 47 GPM PS DAF: 57 GPM

Drawn By:

TJV

Existing Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

Existing Service Area Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier IV Transmission Main Existing WWTP

FIGURE IV.6 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.6_StudyArea6_11x17-L1

Tier II

Proposed WWTP or Pump Station

Tier III Tier IV

Study Area VII Pump Station

Study Area VII Allegany County WWTP

Existing Village of Belmont WWTP MAX - 0.256 MIN - 0.066 AVG - 0.134 PF - 0.155

STUDY AREA NO. VII

Existing WWTP

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Transmission Main

Tier I

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Existing Service Area

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Date:

Drawn By:

Existing Saputo Dairy Foods, LLC Industrial WWTP

Scale:

TJV

5 Existing Town of Friendship WWTP MAX - 0.225 MIN - 0.049 AVG - 0.119 PF - 0.286

Study Area IX Town of Scio WWTP or Pump Station

FIGURE IV.7 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001 FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.7_StudyArea7_11x17-L1

H. STUDY AREA VIII: TOWNS BOLIVAR, GENESEE, AND WIRT, VILLAGES OF BOLIVAR AND RICHBURG Study Area VIII includes the Towns of Bolivar, Genesee, and Wirt, and the Villages of Bolivar and Richburg. Population centers are the Villages of Bolivar and Richburg, and the Ceres area in the Town of Genesee. The Village of Bolivar operates a WWTP that serves the Village and the BolivarRichburg Central School District in the Village of Richburg. The Bolivar WWTP is located on Liberty Street, west of the Village. Approximately ~97% of the Village of Bolivar has access to public sewers. Approximately ~7% of the Village of Richburg is along the Bolivar-Richburg Central School District transmission main, but does not have access. There are no public sewers in the Towns of Bolivar, Genesee, or Wirt, or in the remainder of the Village of Richburg.

I. STUDY AREA IX: TOWN AND VILLAGE OF WELLSVILLE, TOWNS OF SCIO AND WILLING Study Area IX includes the Towns of Wellsville, Scio, and Willing, with population centers being the Village of Wellsville and the Hamlet of Scio. The Village of Wellsville has a WWTP on Bolivar Road on the west side of the village, serving the Village and sewer districts in the Town of Wellsville. Village of Wellsville residents have access to public sewers, and ~3% of the Town has access. There are no sewers in the Towns of Scio or Willing. Small sewer districts are serving limited portions of the Town of Wellsville, including areas around the Wellsville Municipal Airport.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Tier II

Proposed WWTP or Pump Station

Tier III Tier IV

Existing Village of Bolivar WWTP MAX - 0.833 MIN - 0.099 AVG - 0.363 PF - 0.400

STUDY AREA NO. VIII

Existing WWTP

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Transmission Main

Tier I

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Existing Service Area

Study Area VII Town of Genesee WWTP or Pump Station

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Drawn By:

Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1 AVG: 7,150 GPD MAX: 21,740 GPD PEAK: 28 GPM PS DAF: 34 GPM

TJV

FIGURE IV.8 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.8_StudyArea8_11x17-L1

M AY 2 0 2 6

Date:

Existing Service Area

Transmission Main

Tier I

Existing WWTP

FIGURE

Tier II

Proposed WWTP or Pump Station

IV.9

Tier III Tier IV

STUDY AREA NO. IX

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK 1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

Scale:

5 Drawn By:

Existing Village of Wellsville WWTP MAX - 0.172 MIN - 0.600 AVG - 1.073 PF - 2.200

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Study Area IX Town of Scio WWTP

TJV

Study Area IX Pump Station

PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.9_StudyArea9_11x17-L1

J. STUDY AREA X: TOWN AND VILLAGE OF ANDOVER The Town and Village of Andover comprise Study Area X, with the Village being the population center. There are no POTWs in Study Area X.

K. STUDY AREA XI: TOWN OF INDEPENDENCE Study Area XI is the Town of Independence, with the population center being the Whitesville area. There are no POTWs in Study Area XI.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Transmission Main

Tier II

Proposed WWTP

Tier III

Village of Andover AVG: 69,900 GPD MAX: 212,500 GPD PEAK: 2,269 GPM WWTP DAF: 77,000 GPD

STUDY AREA NO. X

Tier I

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Tier IV COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Existing Service Area

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Drawn By:

TJV

FIGURE IV.10 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001 FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.10_StudyArea10_11x17-L1

STUDY AREA NO. XI

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Drawn By:

TJV

Study Area XI WWTP or Pump Station

Existing Service Area

Transmission Main

Tier I

Existing WWTP

FIGURE

Tier II

Proposed WWTP or Pump Station

IV.11

Tier III Tier IV

PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigIV.11_StudyArea11_11x17-L1

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE AREAS Each study area contains at least one but can contain multiple alternative service areas. In a few cases, there are more regional service areas that include multiple study areas, each representing potential long-term sewerage infrastructure. Existing flows included in this section are based on recorded flows summarized in Table III.2. Probable costs for comparison are discussed in Section VI. Names of the alternative service areas utilized in this review are presented for discussion purposes only and may change as service areas progress from plan to project. Review of each alternative service area considers: •

The service area and potential growth due to sewer system expansion, economic development incentives, and a historical tendency toward growth driven by improved access to public sewers,

•

treatment or pumping capacity needed to accommodate the service area and service area growth, and

•

administration/governance.

The relative benefits of one alternative over another would be realized at any time in the future, provided the communities have done nothing to preclude or hinder their participation in more advantageous regional plans.

A. STUDY AREA I 1. Service Areas a. Town of Hume Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District Residents in the Wiscoy-Rosburg area along County Road 27 (CR27), Mill Street, Church Street, Mechanic Street, and West River Road have expressed an interest in public sewers due to small lot size, difficult-to-maintain septic systems, and proximity to individual residential wells and Wiscoy Creek. A cost-effective solution includes a lowpressure sewer system with a central pump station and a transmission main along NYS Route 19A, which discharges to the Town of Hume’s Route 19A regional pump station

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

on the north side of Fillmore. Parcel along the Route 19A transmission main could also be offered sewer service. The Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District service area has been considered in at least three separate sewer studies conducted by the Town but was not further considered due to cost.

b. Town of Hume Sewer District Extension #1 Town residents currently outside the Town of Hume Sewer District along East Main Street, Dugway Road, Bernard Street, and NYS Route 19 between Fillmore and Bernard Street have expressed an interest in public sewer due to small lot size, costs associated with maintaining a septic system, and proximity to the Genesee River. Because the existing collection system in Fillmore is a small-diameter pipe suitable for a gray water collection system, it is not suitable to receive flow from traditional sewer laterals that lack septic tanks. The most appropriate collection system for the proposed sewer district includes individual grinder pumps and low-pressure sewers. This service area addresses community interest in public sewers and promotes economic development along the NYS Routes 19 and 19A corridor.

c. Town of Hume Sewer District Extension #2 Town residents in the Hamlet of Hume, west of Fillmore, have expressed an interest in public sewer due to the small lot size and costs associated with maintaining a septic system. Because of the topography of the service area and the need to cross Cold Water Creek, the most appropriate collection system includes individual grinder pumps and low-pressure sewers in Hume with a pump station and transmission main that connects to the Fillmore POSS. Parcels along the transmission would connect with individual grinder pumps. This service area addresses community interest in public sewers and promotes economic development within the hamlet of Hume and along the NYS Route 19 corridor. This service area was included in the 1969 and 1979 studies.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

d. Town of Hume Sewer District Extension #3 Town residents along the existing Route 19 transmission main between the Hamlet of Fillmore and the Town of Caneadea have expressed interest in public sewer due to the costs of maintaining a septic system. To provide sewer service to parcels along the transmission main, the Town of Hume would need to establish a sewer district that uses individual grinder pumps and low-pressure sewers connecting to the transmission main. This service area addresses community interest in public sewers and promotes economic development along the NYS Route 19 corridor.

2. Treatment The Town of Hume operates the Town of Hume Sewer District, which is a gray water sewage system serving the Hamlet of Fillmore. Primary treatment is provided by individual septic tanks. Secondary treatment of the septic tank effluent is by the Town of Caneadea's WWTP. Flow from the existing collection system is to the Town of Hume’s Route 19A regional pump station, which discharges through a transmission main running along portions of NYS Routes 19 and 19A to the Town of Caneadea’s WWTP. The pump station is a duplex station with each pump capable of delivering ~200 gpm at full speed. The rate capacity of the station is ~200 gpm. Before the Town of Hume abandoned its WWTP, the Town was mandated by DEC and the USEPA to perform a Flow Management Plan because the average daily flow to the then-existing wastewater treatment plant exceeded 95% of the design average daily flow to the plant. As a condition of its SPDES permit renewal, the DEC had also mandated that the Town add disinfection to the treatment process. As a result of abandoning the WWTP, the Town no longer has a SPDES permit. In its place, the Town now has a Publicly Owned Sewer System (POSS) identification number. The Flow Management Plan and the preliminary engineering report developed for the pump station project determined that ~25% of the average daily flow from the collection system is due to inflow and infiltration. Studies of the collection system could not identify

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

a single source, indicating the issue is system wide. The Route 19A pump station project also included adding manholes in the collection system to help identify sources of inflow and infiltration. While the project avoided the cost of upgrading the WWTP, additional work is still needed to address the collection system inflow and infiltration.

a. Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District Options considered to provide treatment for the Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District include: 1) a packaged WWTP located in Rossburg near NYS Route 19A, or 2) a pump station at the same location with a transmission main along NYS Route 19A that discharges to the existing Town of Hume SD Route 19A pump station. The pump station option expands the service area to include the parcels along the transmission main between Rossburg and the existing NYS Route 19A pump station. Table V.1 summarizes the potential flow from the Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District and for parcels along the proposed Route 19A transmission main. The table shows that the existing Town of Hume Route 19A PS may need expansion to accommodate the combined flow from the existing pump station service area plus the Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District. The Table also indicates that the Town of Caneadea WWTP has the capacity to treat the combined flow.

b. Town of Hume Sewer District Extensions Table V.2 summarizes existing and potential flow to the Route 19A pump station from just the sewer district extensions. The Town of Caneadea WWTP provides treatment. The table shows that the existing Town of Hume Route 19A PS may need expansion to accommodate the combined flow from the existing pump station service area plus the Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District. The Table also indicates that the Town of Caneadea WWTP has the capacity to treat the combined flow.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.1: Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Wiscoy-Rossburg SD*

9,060

27,542

Rossburg Route 19A TM

3,510

10,670

Existing T. Hume SD

50,750

129,000

145

63,320

192,493

244

Sub-Total to Route 19A PS Route 19A Capacity

201

Existing T. Caneadea WWTP

126,000

179,000

407

Total to T. Caneadea WWTP

189,320

268,955

611

T. Caneadea WWTP SPDES Permit

280,000

95% SPDES Permit 266,000 Note: * Represents the estimated flow to a pump station or a local WWTP.

Table V.2: Route 19A Estimated Daily Inflow, Fillmore SD Extensions Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Extension #1

8,270

25,141

Extension #2

10,080

30,643

Existing T. Hume SD

50,750

129,000

145

69,100

175,643

197

Sub-Total to Route 19A PS Route 19A Capacity Extension #3 Sub-Total to T. Caneadea WWTP Existing Caneadea WWTP Total to T. Caneadea WWTP T. Caneadea WWTP SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

201 2,750

8,360

71,850

182,633

205

126,000

179,000

407

197,850

281,073

638

280,000 266,000

c. Combined Service Areas Table V.3 summarizes the potential flow to the Town of Caneadea WWTP from the Town of Hume SD, the Town of Hume SD extensions #1 and #2, and the WiscoyRossburg SD, with an allowance for parcels along the Town of Hume’s existing Route 19/19A transmission main to connect to the transmission main with individual girder pumps (Town of Hume SD #3). MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.3 indicates that the pump capacity of the existing Route 19A regional pump station may need to increase to accommodate the proposed sewer system expansions. The Town is considering improvements to the existing collection system to manage inflow and infiltration and reduce treatment costs charged by the Town of Caneadea. A reduction in inflow and infiltration also provides additional pump station capacity for system growth and expansion. Table V.3 also show that the existing Town of Caneadea WWTP has sufficient capacity to accept additional flow from the Town of Hume. Study Areas II and IV also consider utilizing the Town of Caneadea WWTP as a treatment option. Review of Study Areas II and IV should also consider Study Area I. Table V.3: Combined Route 19A Estimated Daily Inflow Service Area

Avg. (GPD)

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Existing T. Hume SD

50,750

129,000

145

Extension #1

8,270

25,141

Extension #2

10,080

30,643

Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District

12,570

38,213

Sub-Total to Route 19A PS

81,670

207,595

233

2,750

8,360

84,420

214,585

241

Existing T. Caneadea WWTP

126,000

179,000

407

Total to T. Caneadea WWTP

210,420

298,930

679

Extension #3 Sub-Total to T. Caneadea WWTP

T. Caneadea WWTP SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

280,000 266,000

3. Administration The Town of Hume Sewer District administers, operates and maintains the existing collection, treatment, and pump stations within the Town of Hume. Future service areas will also be the responsibility of the Town of Hume Sewer District.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

The Towns of Hume and Caneadea have an Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA) for treating wastewater from the Town of Hume Sewer District. Legal review of the IMA may be needed to include the proposed sewer districts.

B. STUDY AREA II 1. Service Areas a. Town of Caneadea, Caneadea Sewer District Properties in the hamlet of Caneadea face septic system constraints due to topography, parcel configuration and size, proximity to private wells, and proximity to the Genesee River. A low-pressure collection system with individual grinder pumps is a potential, cost-effective, long-term regional solution for the service area. While the service area is viable, community interest is low.

b. Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District Properties around Rushford Lake in the Towns of Rushford and Caneadea face septic system constraints due to topography, parcel configuration and size, proximity to private wells, and proximity to surface waters. Local code compliance officers have received unconfirmed reports that, in a few cases, multiple parcels may connect to a common onsite treatment system, which is not allowed by DOH for residential on-site treatment systems. The Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District is a comprehensive service area that includes collection systems around Rushford Lake in the Towns of Rushford and Caneadea and the Town of Caneadea, Caneadea SD. A low-pressure collection system with individual grinder pumps is a potential, cost-effective, long-term regional solution for the service area. Public interest in the service area is mixed due to costs and the seasonal nature of most parcels around Rushford Lake. However, water quality improvements to Rushford Lake can be significant by eliminating indirect sanitary discharge to the lake from failing septic systems.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

c. Town of Rushford, Hamlet of Rushford Sewer District The Hamlet of Rushford has experienced limited economic growth due, in part, to failing septic systems with limited ability to upgrade on existing parcels.

d. Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District The Hamlet of Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District service area combines the Hamlet of Caneadea, the Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District, and the Hamlet of Rushford service areas into a single service area. While this service area is viable, community interest has been mixed. However, the combined service area provides the most environmental, health, and safety benefits of the options considered for providing sewers to the Hamlet of Caneadea, the Rushford Lake area, and the Hamlet of Rushford. This service area was included in the 1969 and 1979 studies.

e. Town of Belfast, Belfast Sewer District The Hamlet of Belfast has consistently been identified as a priority community due to septic issues, small parcels, and interest expressed during municipal meetings. A lowpressure collection system with individual grinder pumps provides a long-term solution. This service area provides immediate health and environmental benefits and integrates with broader long-term regional wastewater strategies. The Belfast SD was identified in the 1969 study.

f. Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District The Belfast / Caneadea joint Sewer District expands the Town of Belfast, Belfast Sewer District to include the hamlets of Oramel and Caneadea. Low-pressure sewers with regional pump stations and transmission mains along NY Route 19 provide a long-term solution. This service area provides health and environmental benefits and integrates the broader long-term regional wastewater strategies. The service area does not include flow from Rushford or Rushford Lake.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

g. Rushford / Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District The Rushford / Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District (R/B/C Joint SD) service area is a regional approach that provides sewer services to Rushford Lake and the Hamlets of Rushford, Caneadea, Oramel, and Belfast. It includes pump stations in Belfast and Oramel and a pump station or packaged WWTP in the hamlet of Caneadea.

2. Treatment a. Town of Caneadea, Caneadea Sewer District Options considered to provide treatment include: 1) a packaged WWTP located north of the hamlet of Caneadea on NYS Route 19, or 2) a pump station at the same location with a transmission main along NYS Route 19 that discharges to the existing Town of Caneadea POTW. Table V.4 lists the estimated flow to a WWTP or pump station located in the Hamlet of Caneadea. The pump station option expands the service area to include parcels along NYS Route 19 between the Hamlet of Caneadea and the existing Houghton SD. Treatment plant, pump station, and transmission main sizing must account for potential expansion of the service area to include Rushford Lake, the hamlet of Rushford, and, potentially, the hamlets of Oramel and Belfast.

b. Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District Options considered to provide treatment include: 1) a packaged WWTP located north of the hamlet of Caneadea on NYS Route 19, or 2) a pump station at the same location with a transmission main along NYS Route 19 that discharges to the existing Town of Caneadea POTW. Table V.4 summarizes the estimated flows from the Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District, including the Hamlet of Caneadea. A packaged WWTP for the Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District would need a design average-day flow capacity of ~158,000 GPD to accommodate system growth. The pump station option expands the service area to

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

include the parcels along the NYS Route 19 between the Hamlet of Caneadea and the existing Houghton SD. Treatment plant, pump station, and transmission main sizing must account for potential expansion of the service area to include the hamlet of Rushford and, potentially, the hamlets of Oramel and Belfast. Table V.4 also indicates that the existing Town of Caneadea WWTP may need upgrades to accommodate flow from the service area, as the combined estimated average daily flow exceeds 95% of the WWTP's design average daily flow. Further review of the existing gravity sewer along NYS Route 19 in the Houghton SD is warranted to ensure it has the capacity to convey flow from the proposed service area. Table V.4: Estimated Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District

124,160

377,446

461

Caneadea Sewer District

11,540

35,082

Sub-Total H. Caneadea

135,700

412.528

496

2,530

7.691

Caneadea Route 19 Transmission Main Total to T. Canaeadea WWTP T. Caneadea WWTP Existing Total Estimated flow to WWTP T. Caneadea SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

138,230

420.219

504

126,000

179,000

407

264,230

703.868

683

280,000 266,000

c. Town of Rushford, Hamlet of Rushford Sewer District Treatment would be provided by a packaged WWTP in Rushford with a design average flow of ~30,000 GPD.

d. Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District Options considered to provide treatment include: 1) a packaged WWTP located north of the hamlet of Caneadea on NYS Route 19, or

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

2) a pump station at the same location with a transmission main along NYS Route 19 that discharges to the existing Town of Caneadea POTW. Table V.5 summarizes the estimated flows from the Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District, including the hamlets of Caneadea and Rushford. The table indicates that the existing Town of Caneadea WWTP would need to be upgraded to accommodate the estimated flows. A packaged treatment plant for the service area in the Hamlet of Caneadea would require a design average flow rate of ~177,000 GPD to accommodate growth. The pump station option expands the service area to include the parcels along NYS Route 19 between the Hamlet of Caneadea and the existing Houghton SD. Treatment plant, pump station and transmission main sizing must consider the potential expansion of the service area to include the hamlets of Oramel and Belfast. Table V.5 indicates that the existing Town of Caneadea WWTP would need to be upgraded to accommodate flow from the combined sewer districts, since the estimated total average daily flow exceeds the WWTP's current discharge limit. Further review of the existing gravity sewer along NYS Route 19 in the Houghton SD is warranted to ensure it has the capacity to convey flow from the proposed service area. Table V.5: Estimated Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District

124,160

366,798

461

Hamlet of Caneadea Sewer District

11,540

76,304

Hamlet of Rushford Sewer District

25,100

35,082

160,800

458,507

571

2,530

7,691

Total to Houghton SD WWTP

163,330

464,726

579

Houghton SD WWTP, Existing

126,000

179,000

407

289,330

761,208

928

Sub-Total H. Caneadea* Caneadea Route 19 Transmission main

Total Estimated flow to WWTP Houghton SD SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

280,000 266,000

e. Belfast Sewer District Estimated flows from the hamlet of Belfast service area are an average day of ~42,420 GPD, a maximum day of ~128,957 GPD, and a peak flow of ~163 gpm. Design flow for a packaged WWTP is ~47,000 GPD to accommodate growth of the service area.

f. Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District Options considered to provide treatment include: 1) a pump station in the Hamlet of Belfast with a transmission main along NYS Route 19 connecting the Hamlets of Belfast, Oramel, and Caneadea service areas to the existing Town of Caneadea POTW, or 2) a packaged WWTP located in the hamlet of Caneadea with a pump station in the Hamlet of Belfast and a transmission main along NYS Route 19 connecting the Hamlets of Belfast, Oramel, and Caneadea service areas. Table V.6 summarizes the estimated flows from the Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District. The table indicates that the existing Town of Caneadea WWTP has sufficient capacity to serve the sewer district. Further review of the existing gravity sewer along NYS Route 19 in the Houghton SD is warranted to ensure it has the capacity to convey flow from the proposed service area. Table V.6 also indicates that a package treatment plant located in the hamlet of Caneadea would need a design flow rate of ~68,000 gpm to accommodate limited growth in the service area. Both the pump station and local WWTP options need to consider expansion of the service area to include the Rushford and Rushford Lake service areas.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.6: Estimated Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Belfast Sewer District

42,420

128,957

164

Oramel Sewer District

7,300

22,192

Hamlet of Caneadea Sewer District

11,540

35,082

Sub-Total H. Caneadea

61,260

186,230

236

Caneadea Route 19 TM

2,530

7,691

Total to Houghton SD WWTP

63,790

193,922

246

Houghton SD WWTP, Existing

126,000

179,000

407

189,790

509,722

491

Total Estimated flow to WWTP Houghton SD SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

280,000 266,000

g. Rushford / Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District Options considered to provide treatment include: 1) a pump station in the Hamlet of Caneadea with a transmission main along NYS Route 19 connecting to the existing Town of Caneadea POTW, or 2) a packaged WWTP located in the hamlet of Caneadea with a pump station in the hamlets of Caneadea and Belfast, and transmission mains along NYS Route 19 connecting the Hamlets of Belfast, Oramel, and Caneadea service areas. Connecting the R/B/C Joint SD to the existing Caneadea POTW increases the average daily flow to the Houghton SD WWTP to ~ 339,050. This flow exceeds the current SPDES Permit flow limit for the WWTP. Limited space at the existing WWTP site may hinder expanding the plant without land acquisition.

Further review of the existing

gravity sewer along NYS Route 19 in the Houghton SD is also warranted to ensure it has the capacity to convey flow from the proposed service area.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.7: Estimated Rushford / Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Hamlet of Belfast Sewer District

42,420

128,957

164

Hamlet of Oramel Sewer District

7,300

22,192

Hamlet of Rushford Sewer District

25,100

76,304

Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District

124,160

366,798

461

Hamlet of Caneadea Sewer District

11,540

35,082

210,520

578,526

714

2,530

7,691

Total to Houghton SD WWTP

213,050

578,526

721

Houghton SD WWTP, Existing

126,940

179,000

407

339,050

872,847

876

Sub-Total R/B/C Joint SD Caneadea Route 19 TM

Total Estimated flow to WWTP Houghton SD SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

280,000 266,000

As an option, a central WWTP in the Hamlet of Caneadea can be added to treat flow from the Rushford / Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District. The treatment plant would need a design average day flow of ~232,000 GPD to accommodate growth in the service area.

3. Administration a. Town of Caneadea, Caneadea Sewer District The Town of Caneadea Sewer Department administers and provides operation and maintenance (O&M) for the Houghton Sewer District. The Sewer Department will administer and provide O&M for sewer district extensions or new sewer districts within the Town of Caneadea.

b. Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District Three options can be considered for administration and O&M of the Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District. The merits of each option will need to be evaluated when programming the service area as a project.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

1) The Town of Rushford creates a sewer district and sewer department that oversees the POSS in the Town of Rushford and enters an IMA with the Town of Caneadea for treatment. The Town of Caneadea would oversee the portion of the Joint Sewer District within the Town of Caneadea through its existing sewer department. The Town of Caneadea would provide treatment at either a new WWTP in Caneadea or at its existing WWTP in Houghton. 2) The Town of Rushford creates a sewer district and enters an IMA with the Town of Caneadea to administer, provide O&M of the POSS, and provide treatment.

The

Town of Caneadea would oversee the service area utilizing its existing sewer department. The Town of Caneadea would provide treatment at either a new WWTP in Caneadea or at its existing WWTP in Houghton. 3) The Towns of Rushford and Caneadea form a joint sewer commission for the service area, independent of the Town of Caneadea’s existing sewer department. The commission would administer the service area and form a joint sewer department for O&M of the service area. An IMA with the Town of Caneadea would be needed to provide treatment at either a new WWTP in Caneadea or at its existing WWTP in Houghton.

c. Town of Rushford, Hamlet of Rushford Sewer District The Town of Rushford will need to create a sewer district and department to oversee the administration and O&M of the POTW.

d. Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District The administration options considered for the Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District also apply to the Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District.

e. Town of Belfast, Belfast Sewer District The Town of Belfast will need to create a sewer district and department to oversee the administration and O&M of the POTW.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

f. Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District The three options considered for the Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District would also apply to the Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District, with the expectation that two parties involved are the Towns of Belfast and Caneadea.

g. Rushford / Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District Given the number of communities involved, forming a County Sewer District or local Sewer Authority may be an option. A County Sewer District shifts responsibility for the POTW to Allegany County, which currently has little public support. Forming an Authority is like a commission but may have differing rights and responsibilities as defined by statute. The merits of each administration option will need to be evaluated when programming the service area as a project.

C. STUDY AREA III 1. Service Areas a. Town of Burns Sewer District #1 The Town of Burns identified the Garwoods area along State Route 70 (SR70) as a potential service area due to seasonally high groundwater table and flooding concerns that occasionally limit the effectiveness of on-site septic systems. Included in the service area are upgrades to an existing pump station in the Village of Canaseraga to convey the additional load from the sewer district. This system addresses water quality concerns caused by seasonal flooding, high groundwater table, and failing septic systems. The service area also promotes economic growth and development along the SR70 corridor. The design of the collection system should consider the expansion of the service area to include Swain Resorts.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

b. Grove-Burns Joint Sewer District Swain Resort in the Town of Grove provides recreational and event space services to surrounding communities. Swain Resort has expressed mixed interest in public sewers. Connecting to public sewers may allow the resort to expand lodging and event space. The Town of Grove reports that a Homeowners Association (HOA) operates a collection system and subsurface treatment system that serves Swain Resorts and a thirteen-lot subdivision located west of the resort. Currently, there are only two houses in the subdivision. Also, according to the Town of Grove, as a condition of subdivision approval, the Town agreed to assume operation and maintenance of the system should the HOA fail to maintain the system. The Grove-Burns Joint Sewer District includes Town of Grove Sewer District #1 and Town of Burns Sewer District #1. Town of Grave SD #1 includes the Swain Resorts service area, a pump station at the Swain treatment facility with a transmission main along SR70. Town of Burns Sewer District # includes a pump station in Garwoods and transmission mains along SR 70 that connect Grove SD #1 to the Village of Canaseraga POTW. Low-pressure sewers with individual grinder pumps would replace existing septic systems along SR70. Included in the service area are upgrades to an existing pump station in the Village of Canaseraga to convey the additional load from the joint sewer district. This system addresses water quality concerns caused by seasonal flooding, high groundwater table, and failing septic systems. The service area also promotes economic growth and development along the SR70 corridor. The sewer district is scalable in case Swain Resorts opts out of the service area.

c. Town of Burns Sewer District #2 Review of population density along CR13B, NYS Route 70, and State Highway 961F indicates a potential need for a sewer district. Potential concerns include small lot size

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

for upgrading individual treatment systems and proximity to private wells. A costeffective alternative includes a low-pressure sewer system. The service area benefits residents and promotes economic development.

2. Treatment a. Town of Burns Sewer District #1 Treatment for the Town of Burns Sewer District #1 would be provided by the Village of Canaseraga WWTP. Table V.8 demonstrates that the Village of Canaseraga WWTP may have the capacity to treat flow from the sewer district. Table V.8: Estimated Village of Canaseraga Flow Service Area Exiting Village of Canaseraga WWTP

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

45,000

200,000

174

18,490

56,210

Grove-Burns Joint Sewer District Town of Grove Sewer District #1 Town of Burns Sewer District #1

5,918

17,990

9,740

29,610

Total Flow to Canaseraga WWTP

79,148

248,699

305

Canaseraga WWTP SPDES Permit

100,000

Town of Burns Sewer District #2

95% SPDES Permit

95,000

The Village of Canaseraga WWTP was in noncompliance with its SPDES permit in 11 of the last 12 quarters due to failure to submit monthly monitoring reports. As a result, flows listed in Table V.7 are based on limited flow data and may not represent actual flow to the facility. Available flow data indicates that, based on the difference between average day and maximum day flow, the collection system may have significant sources of inflow and infiltration. The Village reports a known capacity issue at a pump station on the west side of the Village.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Currently, the Village of Canaseraga has a $2,500,000 project listed on the IUP (C96607-02-00) for planning, design, and construction of a wastewater treatment plant and pump station improvements to protect water quality in Canaseraga Creek.

b. Grove-Burns Joint Sewer District Treatment for the Gove-Burns Joint Sewer District would be provided by the Village of Canaseraga WWTP. As previously noted, Table V.8 indicates that the Village of Canaseraga WWTP may have capacity to receive flow from the Gove-Burns Joint Sewer District but that the treatment plant is in noncompliance for reporting reasons and may receive significant amounts of inflow and infiltration from the collection system. Further review of the WWTP is warranted.

c. Town of Burns Sewer District #2 The Village of Canaseraga would provide treatment for the Town of Burns Sewer District #2. As previously noted, Table V.8 indicates that the Village of Canaseraga WWTP may have capacity to receive flow from the sewer district but that the treatment plant is in noncompliance for reporting reasons and may receive significant amounts of inflow and infiltration from the collection system. Further review of the WWTP is warranted.

3. Administration An IMA between the Village of Canaseraga and the Towns of Burns and Grove would be needed for treatment and potentially O&M of the collection systems. Each Town would need to form sewer districts for each service area. Other forms of administration may also be available that should be considered during the district formation process.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

D. STUDY AREA IV 1. Service Areas a. Village of Angelica The Village of Angelica has experienced limited economic growth due, in part, to failing septic systems and limited ability to upgrade systems on existing parcels. In a few instances, the condition of individual treatment systems prohibits the sale or redevelopment of existing parcels. Sewer service in the Village of Angelica was previously considered in the 1969 Study. While the Village of Angelica’s service area is viable, community interest is mixed, and cost concerns remain significant.

b. Angelica-Belfast Joint Sewer District The Angelica-Belfast Joint Sewer District includes the Village of Angelica, the Town of Belfast, Belfast Sewer District in Study Area II, a sewer district in the Town of Angelica generally along CR16 and Old State Road, and a sewer district in the Town of Belfast along NYS Route 19. This service area includes a common treatment plant in the Hamlet of Belfast. This alternative, while consolidating treatment between two communities, has little support.

c. Angelica-Allegany County Joint Sewer District The Angelica-Allegany County Joint Sewer District includes the Village of Angelica, Allegany County’s CR20 Sewer District and it extension near Belvidere, a sewer district in the Town of Angelica generally along CR16 and Old State Road and a second sewer district in the Town of Angelica along NYS Route 19 between Belvidere and CR16. Also included is a common WWTP located near the intersection of NYS Route 19 and CR16. Allegany County is actively pursuing the CR20 Sewer District project (Study Area VII) as a stand-alone project, so there is little interest in a joint service area.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

d. Joint Angelica-Belfast-Allegany County Sewer District This sewer district includes the Angelica-Belfast Joint Sewer District and the AngelicaAllegany County Joint Sewer District as a regional service area with a common WWTP located in Belfast. Allegany County is actively pursuing the CR20 Sewer District project (Study Area VII) as a stand-alone project, so there is little interest in a joint service area.

2. Treatment Options considered to provide treatment for the Village of Angelica include: 1) Village of Angelica WWTP, 2) Angelica-Belfast Joint SD connected to the Study Area II, Belfast SD, 3) Angelica-Belfast Joint SD WWTP, or 4) Angelica-Belfast-Allegany County Joint SD WWTP.

a. Village of Angelica Treatment for the Village of Angelica is provided by a new WWTP with an estimated average day flow of ~50,260 GPD, maximum day ~1552,790 GPD, and peak hour of ~194 gpm. The WWTP would need a design for an average-day flow capacity of ~56,000 to accommodate growth in the collection system.

b. Angelica-Belfast Joint Sewer District Treatment for the Angleica-Belfast Joint Sewer District is provided by a WWTP in the hamlet of Belfast. Table V.9 summarizes the estimated flow for an Angelica-Belfast Joint Sewer District. A WWTP for the service area would need a design average day flow capacity of ~109,000 GPD to accommodate system growth.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.9: Estimated Village of Angelica Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Village of Angelica

50,260

152,790

194

FM #1 – Angelica to Belfast Town Line

4,010

12,190

FM #2 – Belfast Town Line to Belfast

2,340

7,114

Study Area II, Belfast SD

42,420

128,957

164

99,030

301,051

382

Total to Study Area II, Belfast SD

c. Angelica-Allegany County Joint Sewer District Treatment for the Angelica-Allegany County Joint Sewer District is provided by a WWTP on the Belfast/Angelica town line. Table V.10 summarizes the estimated flow from the Angelica-Allegany County Joint Sewer District. A WWTP for the service area would need a design average day flow capacity of ~98,000 GPD to accommodate system growth. Table V.10: Estimated Angelica-Allegany County CR20 SD Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Village of Angelica

50,560

152,790

194

TM #1 – Angelica to Belfast Town Line

4,010

12,190

TM #3 – Belfast Town Line to 6087 NYS Route 19N

1,480

4,499

Allegany County CR 20 Sewer District

32,070

97,742

124

Allegany County CR20 SD Extension #1

740

2,250

88,560

269,222

341

Flow to Angelica / Allegany County WWTP

d. Joint Angelica-Belfast-Allegany County Sewer District Treatment for the combined Angelica, Belfast, and Allegany County service areas is provided by a WWTP in the hamlet of Belfast. Table V.11 summarizes the estimated flow from the combined service area. A WWTP for the service area would need a design average day flow capacity of ~147,000 GPD to accommodate system growth.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.11: Estimated Joint Angelica-Belfast-Allegany County CR20 SD Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Village of Angelica

50,260

152,790

194

TM #1 – Angelica to Belfast Town Line

4,010

12,190

TM #2 – Belfast Town Line to Belfast

2,340

7,114

Belfast Sewer District

42,420

128,957

164

TM #3 – Belfast Town Line to 6087 NYS Route 19N

1,480

4,499

Allegany County CR20 Sewer District

32,070

97,493

124

Allegany County CR20 SD Extension #1

740

2,250

133,320

405,293

489

Flow to Angelica / Allegany County WWTP

3. Administration a. Village of Angelica Administration of a POTW serving the Village of Angelica would be by the Village Board, with O&M provided by a new sewer department.

b. Angelica Joint Service Areas The options discussed for the Rushford / Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District would also apply to the Joint Service Areas involving the Village of Angelica, with the participants being the Village of Angelica, Town of Angelica, Town of Belfast, Allegany County, and potentially the Towns of Friendship and Amity due to the location of the Allegany County CR20 SD.

E. STUDY AREA V 1. Service Areas a. Village of Almond In April 2025, the Village of Almond completed a Public Sewer Feasibility Study, Preliminary Engineering Report that recommended a gravity collection system with a pump station and transmission main discharging to the Village of Alfred WWTP. The proposed project did not include service in the Towns of Almond or Alfred.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Recognizing the sanitary needs in the Towns of Almond and Alfred and the Village's history of working with neighboring communities, the Village of Almond did not list the project on the CWSRF IUP, expressing an interest in a more regional approach to sewers.

b. Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District In the 1990s, the Villages of Alfred and Almond and the Towns of Alfred and Almond expressed an interest in public sewers. In 1995, the Alfred, Almond, and Hornellsville Sewer Authority was formed to support and administer a regional wastewater project that included the Towns of Alfred, Almond, and Hornellsville, and the Villages of Alfred and Almond. The 1995 project included a pump station with a transmission main that was discharged to the Village of Hornell POTW. While the project did not advance to final design, the Towns of Alfred and Almond and the Village of Almond are still interested in a regional approach to public sewers. Parcels in the proposed Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District service area face space limitations for septic system upgrades and/or replacements, and the lack of public sewers has restricted economic development. A low-pressure collection system discharging to the Village of Alfred POTW could support institutional, residential, and economic needs in this corridor. Revisiting the transmission main to Hornell is another treatment option.

c. Town of Alfred Sewer Districts In addition to the proposed Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District project, the Town of Alfred indicated a potential interest in public sewers along NYS Route 244 (west of the Village of Alfred), Moland Hill Road, Water Wells Road, and Oak Ridge Lane. The sewer districts along these roads would connect to the existing Village of Alfred POTW. There is also a potential interest in public sewers along NYS Route 21 and East Valley Road. This area would extend to the proposed Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

2. Treatment a. Village of Almond Table V.12 includes the estimated flow from the Village of Almond service area. WWTP and pump station design needs to consider these flows plus capacity for future demands.

b. Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District Table V.12 summarizes the estimated flow from the Alfred-Almond Sewer District, the potential Town of Alfred sewer districts, and the capacity of the existing Village of Alfred WWTP. The existing Village of Alfred WWTP would provide treatment for the joint sewer district. The table shows that the existing Village of Alfred WWTP has sufficient capacity to treat the flow from the proposed service areas. The Village of Alfred currently has two projects listed on the IUP: a $2,700,000 WWTP rehabilitation project to address ammonia and solids (IUP Project #C9-6601-04-00) and an inflow and infiltration/sewer rehabilitation project (C9-6601-05-00, $1,418,000). Table V.12: Estimated Alfred-Almond Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Village of Almond

26,180

79,587

101

Almond-Alfred Joint Sewer District

37,100

112,784

143

Town of Alfred Sewer District #1

9,740

29,610

Town of Alfred Sewer District #2

2,900

8,816

75,920

230,797

292

Existing Village of Alfred WWTP

374,830

613,330

974

Total Flow to Alfred WWTP

450,750

737,560

1,171

Alfred WWTP SPDES Permit

980,000

Sub-Total flow to Village of Alfred

95% SPDES Permit

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

931,000

a. Town of Alfred Sewer Districts Table V.12 includes the estimated flow from potential sewer districts in the Town of Alfred that connect directly to the Village of Alfred POTW. The table shows the existing Alfred WWTP treatment flow from the sewer districts.

3. Administration a. Village of Almond Administration of a POTW serving the Village of Almond would be by the Village Board, with O&M provided by a new sewer department.

b. Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District The options discussed for the Rushford / Belfast / Caneadea Joint Sewer District would also apply to the Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District service areas, with the participants being the Villages of Alfred and Almond, and the Towns of Alfred and Almond. Legal review is needed to determine whether the existing Alfred, Almond, and Hornellsville Sewer Authority can be used to finance and provide O&M for the AlfredAlmond Joint Sewer District.

c. Town of Alfred Sewer Districts An IMA between the Village of Alfred and the Town of Alfred would be needed for treatment and potentially O&M of the collection systems. The Town would need to form sewer districts for each service area. Other forms of administration may also be available that should be considered during the district formation process.

F. STUDY AREA VI 1. Service Areas a. Town of Cuba NYS Route 305 Sewer District A former cheese factory site, located south of the Village of Cuba on NYS Route 305, has been identified as an economic development area that can be enhanced by

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

providing public sewers and connecting to the Village of Cuba wastewater collection system. The NYS Route 305 Sewer District service area includes sewers along portions of Prospect Street, Keller Hill Road, Bradley Avenue, NYS Route 305, Haskell Road, and Beebe Hill Road. This service area promotes economic development by enhancing underutilized industrial facilities and eliminating the industrial treatment works associated with the former cheese factory site.

b. Town of Cuba Sewer Districts In addition to the proposed NYS Route 305 Sewer District project, the Town of Cuba indicated a potential interest in public sewers along West Cuba Road, CR20, North Cuba, and SR3035. The West Cuba Road and CR20 projects would create sewer districts in the Town that would connect to the existing sewer system in the Village of Cuba. The SR305 service area would extend the proposed NYS Route 305 Sewer District service area further south to Stout Road. The North Cuba service area would extend the existing Town sewer district north of the Village to serve additional parcels between the Village and Cuba Lake, as well as parcels along NYS Route 305 north of Cuba Lake.

c. Oil Spring Territory The Oil Spring Territory is part of the Seneca Nation of Indians. The Seneca Nation of Indians Economic Development Company (SNIEDC) is considering development within the territory that may include an event center, marina, and glamping primarily toward West Shore Road and South Shore Road. These facilities would be in addition to the existing gaming and entertainment center and One Stop convenience store. The SNIENC has expressed interest in connecting to existing municipal sewers that serve Cuba Lake on West Shore Road and South Shore Road. As the review of development alternatives progresses, it is recommended that the capacity of the Cuba Lake low-pressure sewer system be reviewed to confirm that it can convey the increased

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

development loads. Depending on final quantities, it may be necessary to consider utilizing an existing sanitary pump station on NYS Route 446.

2. Treatment Table V.12 summarizes the estimated flows from the proposed sewer districts and district extensions. The table shows that the Village of Cuba WWTP has sufficient capacity to treat the flow from the proposed service areas. The Village of Cuba currently has an $8,934,000 project listed on the IUP (C9-6609-0200) for planning, design, and construction of the collection system and wastewater treatment plant improvements to improve water quality in Griffin Creek. Table V.13: Estimated Town and Village of Cuba Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Town of Cuba Sewer District #6

18,090

30,678

Town of Cuba Sewer District #6, Extension #1

2,870

4,867

Town of Cuba Sewer District #7

1,600

2,713

Town of Cuba Sewer District #8

5,180

8,785

Town of Cuba Sewer District #5, Extension #1

4,490

7,615

Town of Cuba Sewer District #5, Extension #2

6,720

11,396

Oil Springs Territory

5,670

9,616

Sub-Total Estimated Sewer Districts

44,620

75,670

116

403,820

684,828

1,051

Total flow to Village of Cuba WWTP

448,440

760,498

1,167

Village of Cuba WWTP SPDES Permit

970,000

Village of Cuba Existing Flow

95% SPDES Permit

921,500

3. Administration a. Town of Cuba Sewer Districts The Town of Cuba now administers and provides O&M for five existing sewer districts, the largest of which is Sewer District #5, which serves Cuba Lake. The Town will need to form sewer districts, administer, and provide O&M for the new service areas. The Town

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

and Village of Cuba have an IMA for treatment. The IMA may need legal review to include the proposed service areas.

b. Oil Spring Territory Agreements for the conveyance and treatment of wastewater from the Oil Spring Territory by the Village of Cuba are subject to review by the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Federal Government, including the US EPA.

G. STUDY AREA VII 1. Service Areas a. Town of Friendship Sewer District Ext. #1 Residents in the Town of Friendship along NYS Route 275, CR 1, and Times Square have expressed concerns that the changing course of South Branch Van Campen Creek may impact existing septic systems. Affected parcels have little space available to relocate impacted systems. A cost-effective alternative to replace a septic system includes a low-pressure sewer system that ultimately discharges to the existing Town of Friendship POTW.

b. Allegany County, CR 20 Sewer District Allegany County is moving forward with a County Sewer District along CR20 extending from near 6131 CR20 in the Town of Friendship to NYS Route 19 in the Town of Amity. The district would serve businesses, residents, and a proposed Allegany County Department of Public Works facility.

c. Allegany County, SR19 Sewer District Existing developments north of Interstate 86 (I-86), which include a parcel that houses Emergency Services and Planning, may also benefit from public sewers. Consideration should be given to extending the County Road 20 Sewer District to this service area as part of the CR20 project. Extending sewers to this area should consider crossing I-86 either along NYS Route 19 or near Hess Spur / Whittier Road.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

d. Town of Amity NYS Route 19S Sewer District The Allegany County Jail, located in the Town of Amity, south of the Village of Belmont, operates an on-site treatment system that needs continuous maintenance and media replacement once every 5 to 7 years. Consideration should be given to replacing the system with a pump station and transmission main that discharges to the Village of Belmont sewer system. A sewer district can be formed along the transmission main, allowing Town residents and businesses to connect to the sewer.

2. Treatment a. Town of Friendship Sewer District Ext. #1 Treatment for the Sewer District Ext. #1 would be by the existing Town of Friendship WWTP. Table V.14 shows that the existing Town of Friendship WWTP has the capacity to treat flow from the service area. Table V.14: Estimated Town of Friendship Sewer District Ext. #1 Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Town of Friendship Sewer District Ext #1 (Route 275)

10,610

32,254

Town of Friendship WWTP

119,147

225,000

383

129,757

245,036

417

Total to Town of Friendship WWTP Town of Friendship WWTP SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

286,000 271,700

The Town of Friendship currently has a $10,835,000 project listed on the IUP (C9-660501-00) for planning, design, and construction of the collection system and wastewater treatment plant improvements to protect water quality in Van Campen Creek.

b. Allegany County CR 20 and CR19 Sewer Districts Treatment options considered by the County included a local package treatment plant or a pump station discharging to the Town of Friendship WWTP. A local package WWTP was selected as the preferred treatment method at the time of this report.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.15 shows that the estimated design average daily flow to a package treatment plant serving only the Allegany County CR20 and SR19 Sewer Districts is ~37,000 GPD. This flow includes flow to a proposed DPW facility, potential housing and commercial developments, and growth in the service area. Table V.15: Estimated Town of Friendship Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Allegany County Sewer District, CR 20

32,070

97,493

124

Allegany County Sewer District, CR19

740

2,250

32,810

99,742

127

Town Allegany County WWTP

c. Town of Amity NYS Route 19S Sewer District The Allegany County Jail, south of the Village of Belmont, has an on-site treatment system with filters that require media replacement every 5 to 7 years. The NCRS soil survey indicates that on-site soils are not suitable for traditional on-site subsurface treatment systems, necessitating the existing filter system. Table V.16 indicates that the Village of Belmont WWTP may have sufficient capacity to treat flow from the County Jail, should the County decide to connect to the Village collection system rather than upgrade the treatment works. The table indicates that the added flow from the Jail increases the flow to the Belmont WWTP to within a ~120 GPD of 95% of its design flow rate. A detailed flow study would be needed before deciding to direct flow from the County Jail to the Village collection system. To extend sewer to the County Jail, a Town or County sewer district would need to be formed, and an IMA for treatment and, potentially, for the operation of the sewer district would also be needed among the Village of Belmont, the Town of Amity, and Allegany County.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.16: Estimated Village of Belmont Flow with County Jail Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

6,090

18,514

141,330

282,000

505

147,420

294,152

527

Allegany County Jail Village of Belmont WWTP Total to Village of Belmont WWTP Village of Belmont WWTP SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

155,000 147,250

3. Administration a. Town of Friendship Sewer District Ext. #1 The Town of Friendship has an existing sewer department that oversees the administration and O&M of the existing Town of Friendship SD. The sewer department will oversee and provide O&M for new sewer districts and sewer district extensions within the Town.

b. Allegany County CR 20 Sewer District Allegany County intends to administer and provide O&M for the CR20 Sewer District and would also oversee its potential extension along NYS Route 19.

c. Town of Amity NYS Route 19S Sewer District Two options were considered for administration and providing O&M of the Town of Amity NYS Route 19S Sewer District. 1) Town of Amity Sewer District 2) County Sewer District Under option 1, the Town of Amity would form a sewer district and, due to the district's small size, enter an IMA with the Village of Belmont to administer and provide O&M and treatment for the service area.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Under option 2, Allegany County would form a sewer district and administer and provide O&M for the service area. Allegany County would enter an IMA with the Village of Belmont for treatment.

H. STUDY AREA VIII 1. Service Areas a. Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1 Klien Cutlery, LLC is located on Refinery Road in the Town of Bolivar and currently trucks its wastewater to the Village of Bolivar WWTP. Based on this, the Town has expressed interest in public sewers not only for Klien Cutlery but also for parcels along the NYS Route 417 corridor, extending from the Village of Bolivar limits to the Town of Genesee limits. Residential concerns include small lot size for upgrading individual treatment systems and proximity to private wells. A cost-effective alternative includes a low-pressure sewer system. The service area benefits residents and helps promote economic growth.

b. Town of Bolivar Sewer District #2 Residential densities along NYS Route 417 (east of the Village of Bolivar), Olive Street, and Kossuth Road indicate a potential need for public sewer. Residential concerns include small lot size for upgrading individual treatment systems and proximity to private wells. A cost-effective alternative includes a low-pressure sewer system. The service area benefits residents and promotes economic development in the service area.

c. Town of Genesee Sewer Districts Residents in the Town of Genesee generally do not support public sewers. However, a review of population densities indicates two areas that may support the formation of sewer districts. The first area (Town of Genesee Sewer District #1) includes the parcels along the NYS Route 417 corridor from the Town of Bolivar limits to Bells Brook Road. The closest WWTPs are in the Village of Bolivar and in the Village of Portville, Cattaraugus County.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

The second area (Town of Genesee Sewer District #2) includes parcels along NYS Route 305 and Deer Creek in the Town of Genesee, portions of NYS Route 305 and CR5 in the Town of Clarksville, and limited sections of various side roads. The Town of Genesee portion was identified in the 1979 Four County Study as the Northwest of Genesee Study Area. Population densities have changed since the Four County Study, suggesting that the study area can potentially support the identified areas in the Town of Clarksville. The closest WWTP is in the Village of Portville, Cattaraugus County.

d. Village of Richburg The Village of Richburg has experienced limited economic growth due, in part, to the lack of a commercial district. Because the community has public water, the residents do not have water quality concerns that septic systems may cause. The Bolivar-Richburg Central School operates a private sanitary pump station that is discharged to the Village of Bolivar WWTP. While this service area is viable, community interest has been mixed, and cost concerns remain significant. Located west of the Village of Richburg, off Messer Hill Road, is the Sunny Hill Campground, which includes over 350 seasonal and pull-through campsites and has hosted a summer concert series. The campground owner has expressed interest in both public water and sewer due to the costs associated with on-site wells and wastewater treatment systems. Should interest in public sewers increase in the Village of Richburg, consideration should also be given to extending sewers and water to the campground to foster economic development.

2. Treatment a. Village of Bolivar Table V.17 summarizes estimated flows to the Village of Bolivar WWTP from the existing collection system and from the potential service areas in the Towns of Bolivar, Genesee, and Wirt, and the Village of Richburg. The table also includes a running total of average

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

daily flow to the plant from the service areas and an associated percentage of design flow. Service areas are arranged by estimated flow and may not reflect the order in which they are implemented. The table indicates that the existing WWTP likely requires treatment capacity upgrades to accommodate flows from any of the Study Area VIII service areas. Flow to the Village of Bolivar WWTP is currently ~362,880 GPD (~91% of its permitted flow). In 2022 and 2023, the average daily flow for the Village of Bolivar WWTP exceeded 95% of permitted flow. As a result, the Village initiated a study of its POTW to identify sources of inflow and infiltration and potential improvements to the WWTP. The Village of Bolivar currently has a project listed on the IUP (C9-6820-01-00) for planning, design, and construction of wastewater treatment plant improvements to improve water quality in Little Genesee Creek. Improvements to the collection system to reduce inflow and infiltration are underway and expected to be completed in 2026. As the Village of Bolivar addresses inflow and infiltration in its sanitary service area, the WWTP’s ability to treat flow from future service areas will need to be reevaluated.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.17: Estimated Village of Bolivar Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Sum Avg. (GPD)

% Permitted

362,880

90.7%

Town of Bolivar, Sewer District #2

9,370

372,249

98.0%

Town of Bolivar, Sewer District #1

320

372,569

98.0%

Town of Wirt, Sewer District #1

12,390

384,959

101.3%

Town of Wirt, Sewer District #2

3,450

388,409

102.2%

Town of Genesee, Sewer District #1

27,850

416,259

109.5%

Village of Richburg

34,590

450,849

118.6%

450,849

118.6%

Village of Bolivar WWTP

Total to Village of Bolivar WWTP Village of Bolivar WWTP SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

400,000 380,000

b. Town of Bolivar Sewer Districts The Village of Bolivar will provide treatment for potential service areas in the Town of Bolivar.

c. Town of Genesee Sewer Districts Four options were considered for the potential Town of Genesee service areas. 1) Should there be public support for public sewers in the Towns of Genesee SD #1 and Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1, treatment can be provided by the Village of Bolivar. 2) Should there be public support for public sewers in the Town of Genesee SD #1, treatment can be provided by a local treatment plant in Ceres, or pump stations with transmission mains that connect to either the Village of Bolivar POTW or the Village of Portville POTW, Cattaraugus County. 3) Should there be public support for public sewers in the Town of Genesee SD #2, treatment can be provided by a local treatment plant on Portville Orbi Road near the town line, or pump stations with transmission mains that connect to the Village of Portville POTW, Cattaraugus County.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

The estimated average daily flow from the Town of Genessee Sewer District #1 service area is ~27,850 GPD. A WWTP located in the Ceres area would need a design average day flow capacity of ~36,000 GPD to accommodate system growth. The estimated average daily flow from the Town of Genesse Sewer District #2 service area is ~32,790 GPD. A WWTP dedicated to the service area would need a design average day flow capacity of ~37,000 GPD to accommodate system growth. The Village of Portville currently has an $11,600,000 project listed on the IUP (C9-661202-00) for the design and construction of a collection system and the rehabilitation of a wastewater treatment plant to improve water quality in Dodge Creek. Discussions with DEC determined that the Village of Portville WWTP project is under review, with one option under consideration: eliminating the Portville WWTP and replacing it with a pump station to the City of Olean POTW. Because Portville is in Cattaraugus County and its WWTP is currently under review, using the facilities to treat the Town of Genesee's flow is not considered viable. Table V.18: Estimated Village of Portville Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Town of Genesee Sewer District #1

27,850

84,664

107

Town of Genesee Sewer District #1 – TM

2,470

7,509

Town of Genesee Sewer District #2

32,790

99,682

126

63,110

191,854

243

Village of Portville WWTP*

200,000

608,000

684

Total Flow to Portville WWTP

263,110

603,978

798

Village of Portville SPDES Permit

780,000

Sub-Total Genesee Sewer Districts

95% SPDES Permit

741,000

Note: * Avg based on 2020 NYSDEC Water Withdrawal Reporting Form 2 * Avg Day.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

3. Administration a. Town of Bolivar Sewer Districts The Town of Bolivar will need to form sewer districts for the proposed service areas. An IMA for treatment and potentially for O&M of the service area is needed between the Village and Town of Bolivar. Should the Town of Bolivar opt to provide O&M of the service areas, a sewer department will need to be created.

b. Town of Genesee The Town of Genesee will need to form sewer districts for the proposed service areas. A sewer department is also needed for administration and providing O&M of the service areas should the Town opt to provide WWTPs. An IMA with the Town of Bolivar and Wirt would be required for a joint Genesee / Bolivar SD. Terms of the IMA may address administration and potentially O&M, given the lack of a new sewer department.

c. Richburg / Wirt Service Areas Providing sewers to the Village of Richburg and the Town of Wirt can be accomplished by forming a joint sewer district that includes both entities. An IMA with the Village of Bolivar would be needed to address administration and potentially O&M, as the Village lacks a new sewer department. The Bolivar-Richburg Central School District has an agreement for wastewater treatment with the Village of Richburg. This agreement may need to be revisited and incorporated into an IMA between the Village of Richburg and Bolivar.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

I. STUDY AREA IX 1. Service Areas a. Wellsville-Scio Joint Sewer District Several parcels in the Town of Wellsville, Town of Scio, and Hamlet of Scio face on-site system limitations, particularly where small parcel sizes prevent efficient upgrades, and the lack of sewers inhibits economic growth. Creating a joint sewer district serving the Hamlet of Scio and portions of the Towns of Scio and Wellsville along NYS Route 19, with treatment provided by the Village of Wellsville WWTP, offers a cost-effective, regional option. This service area would strengthen one of the County's core wastewater hubs and address on-site system limitations.

b. Town of Wellsville Sewer Districts In addition to the potential Wellsville-Scio Joint Sewer District, the Town of Wellsville identified areas within the Town that could benefit from public sewers due to lot size, the condition of septic systems, and potential economic growth. Potential sewer districts include the side streets of NYS Route 417 (Bolivar Road) between the Village of Wellsville limits and Brimmer Brook (collectively called Morningside), portions of Niles Hill Road, North Hill Road and Madison Hill Road (collectively called Side Streets), and most significantly the mix of residential, commercial and industrial parcels northeast of the Village generally along Andover Road, Baldwin Road, Proctor Road Truax Road, 1st Avenue, Trapping Brook Road and associated side streets (collective called Traux). These service areas address local concerns with septic systems and ensure the longterm economic benefit of the commercial and industrial areas. The service area with the most interest is the Traux / Morningside Sewer District.

c. Joint Wellsville-Willing Sewer District Located south of the Village of Wellsville along the Stannards Road (NYS Route 19) corridor is the potential Joint Wellsville-Willing Sewer District service area. This service area includes parcels along NYS Route 19 and its side streets generally between Hanover Hill Road in the Town of Wellsville and Burnt Hill Road in the Town of Willing.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

This service area includes a private campground and residential development. A costeffective alternative includes a low-pressure sewer system with a pump station and transmission main along NYS Route 19 that discharges to the Village of Wellsville sewer system.

2. Treatment a. Village of Wellsville Table V.19 summarizes estimated flows to the Village of Wellsville treatment plant from the Village and potential sewer districts in the Towns of Wellsville, Scio, and Willing. The table shows that the Village has the capacity to treat the potential flows. Table V.19: Estimated Village of Wellsville Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Wellsville-Scio Joint Sewer District

18,700

56,848

Town of Wellsville Sewer District #2

27,290

82,962

105

Town of Wellsville Sewer District #3

19,390

58,946

Town of Wellsville Sewer District #4

11,870

36,085

Wellsville-Willing Joint Sewer District

43,680

132,787

168

Scio Sewer District #1

38,980

118,499

150

159,910

486,126

569

Village of Wellsville WWTP, Existing

1,073,130

1,720,333

2,424

Total to Village of Wellsville WWTP

1,233,040

1,976,684

2,785

Sub-Total Sewer Districts

Village of Wellsville SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

2,200,000 2,090,000

b. Hamlet of Scio Table V.19 estimates that the potential flow from the hamlet of Sico is ~38,980 GPD. Should the Town of Scio decide to provide treatment for the hamlet instead of connecting to a neighboring sewer system, the WWTP would need a design capacity of ~ 43,000 GPD to accommodate potential growth in the system or its service area. Consideration was given to directing the flow from the hamlet of Scio to the Village of Belmont, with the transmission main also collecting flow from the Allegany County Jail.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Under this scenario, the total estimated flow to the Belmont WWTP is ~191,860 GPD, which exceeds its SPDES permit discharge flow limit.

3. Administration a. Wellsville-Scio Joint Sewer District An IMA between the Village of Wellsville, the Town of Wellsville, and the Town of Scio would be required for treatment and may be required for O&M of the system. Alternatively, the Wellsville-Scio Joint Sewer District can provide O&M of the system through a joint sewer department, subject to an IMA.

b. Town of Wellsville Sewer Districts The Town and Village of Wellsville have an IMA for O&M of an existing sewer district and for treatment. Legal review of the IMA is needed for the proposed districts.

c. Joint Wellsville-Willing Sewer District Two options can be considered for the administration and O&M of the Joint WellsvilleWilling Sewer District. The merits of each option will need to be evaluated when programming the service area as a project. 1) The Towns of Wellsville and Willing create a joint sewer district and sewer department that oversees the POSS in both Towns and enters an IMA with the Village of Wellsville for treatment. 2) The Towns of Wellsville and Willing create a sewer district and enter an IMA with the Village of Wellsville to administer, provide O&M of the POSS, and provide treatment. The Village of Wellsville would oversee the service area utilizing its existing sewer department.

d. Hamlet of Scio Administration of a POTW serving only the Hamlet of Scio would be by the Town Board, with O&M provided by a new sewer department.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

J. STUDY AREA X 1. Service Areas a. Village of Andover The Village of Andover has experienced limited economic growth due, in part, to failing septic systems and limited ability to upgrade systems on existing parcels. In a few instances, the condition of individual treatment systems prohibited the sale or development of existing parcels.

2. Treatment Options considered for treatment of a Village collection system include a small packaged treatment plant or a pump station with a transmission main discharging to the Village of Wellsville WWTP. The pump station option expands the service area to include parcels along SR417 between the Villages of Andover and Wellsville. The Village of Andover currently has a $27,823,000 project listed on the IUP (C9-669501-00) for planning, design, and construction of a collection system and WWTP to protect water quality in Dyke Creek. The project was listed circa 2019 and is on the multi-year list, indicating the Village has not applied for funding. While this project is viable, community interest has been mixed. The existing PER would need to be updated for the Village to apply for funding. Table V.20: Estimated Village of Andover Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Village of Andover (PS/WWTP)

62,540

190,122

241

Andover-Wellsville Joint Sewer District

16,580

50,403

Towns of Wellsville & Scio Sewer Districts

159,910

486,126

569

239,030

726,651

793

Village of Wellsville WWTP, Existing

1,073,130

1,720,333

2,424

Total to Village of Wellsville WWTP

1,312,160

2,103,521

2,964

Sub-Total Sewer Districts

Village of Wellsville WWTP SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

2,200,000 2,090,000

Table V.20 shows that the estimated average daily flow from the Village of Andover is ~62,540 GPD. The estimated design flow for the potential Village of Andover WWTP would be ~69,000 GPD, allowing for system growth and expansion. The table also shows that the Village of Wellsville WWTP has sufficient capacity to treat flow from the Village, the Study Area IX projects, and the Village of Andover.

3. Administration The Village of Andover would be responsible for O&M of the sanitary infrastructure within the Village and for creating a sewer department. Should the service area include a pump station discharging to Wellsville, an intermunicipal agreement (IMA) will be needed for treatment. Additional sewer districts with O&M and treatment IMAs may also be needed in the Towns of Andover and Wellsville if residents along the transmission main route want to connect to the system.

K. STUDY AREA XI 1. Service Areas a. Town of Independence, Whitesville Sewer District The Hamlet of Whitesville in the Town of Independence is served by public water and private septic systems. Based on a review of population density and the proximity of the parcels within the existing water district to Spring Mills Creek, the area may support public sewers. However, public support for a service area may be limited due to the cost of treatment.

2. Treatment Treatment options include a packaged treatment plant or a pump station and transmission main that discharges to the closest WWTP in the Village of Wellsville. The pump station option may expand the service area to include parcels along the transmission main between Whitesville and the Village of Wellsville. This expanded service area may include the Wellsville-Willing Joint Sewer District.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Table V.21 shows that the estimated average daily flow to a WWTP serving only the hamlet of Whitesville is ~30,870 GPD. The estimated design flow capacity of the treatment plant is ~34,000 gpm to accommodate system growth and expansion. Table V.21 also shows that the Village of Wellsville WWTP has sufficient capacity to treat flow from the Study Area IX, X, and XI service areas. Table V.21: Estimated Town of Independence Flow Service Area

Avg. (GPD

Max. (GPD)

Peak (gpm)

Hamlet of Whitesville (PS/WWTP)

30,870

93,845

119

Independence-Willing Joint Sewer District

13,820

42,013

Andover-Wellsville Joint Sewer District

62,540

190,122

241

Study Area IX Sewer Districts

159,910

486,126

269

Sub-Total Sewer Districts

267,140

812,106

869

Village of Wellsville WWTP, Existing

1,073,130

1,720,333

2,424

Total to Village of Wellsville WWTP

1,340,270

2,148,584

3,027

Village of Wellsville WWTP SPDES Permit 95% SPDES Permit

2,200,000 2,090,000

3. Administration The Town of Independence would be responsible for O&M of the sanitary infrastructure within Whitesville and for creating a sewer department. Should the service area include a pump station discharging to Wellsville, an IMA will be needed for treatment. Additional sewer districts with O&M and treatment IMAs may also be needed in the Towns of Willing and Wellsville if residents along the transmission main route want to connect to the system.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

VI.

ALTERNATE SERVICE AREA COSTS Public desire and interest can have much more to do with the acceptance of a sewerage program than financial attractiveness and even need. It is entirely possible that there would be an adverse reaction to some proposed improvements to existing systems that would result in only a slight annual cost for each household. In contrast, some new system programs, costing the customer much more than households in presently sewered areas pay, may proceed with comparative ease because of public eagerness to gain the health, protection, and convenience of a public sewerage system. It is therefore possible to discuss the financial feasibility of the proposed program only in general terms, based on experience elsewhere. Probable project costs were developed for each alternative service area, including construction, legal, administrative, direct, and engineering costs. Construction estimates include a 15% contingency. Direct costs can include geotechnical investigations, environmental review, and special inspections. Probable project costs are based on 2026 dollars. The opinions of project cost are only intended for use in comparing alternatives. Engineering reports developed to implement individual projects will include more detailed opinions of project costs that can be used to apply for funding assistance. Probable collection system construction costs are based on low-pressure sewers to establish a uniform comparison of alternate service areas, independent of surface topography. Probable transmission system costs are based on AWWA C906 DIPS DR11 HDPE flowing at 3 feet per second (fps). Probable transmission pump station costs are based on duplex submersible sanitary systems with above-grade control stations and emergency generators. Probable wastewater treatment plant costs are based on treatment technologies for packaged wastewater treatment plants suitable for various flow rates. Annual debt service payments are based on the total probable project cost and the 2025 USDA Rural Development poverty-rate financing of 3.125% over 38 years. Grants may

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

be available to help reduce project costs and should be considered during project implementation. Debt service payments are calculated on a benefit basis, with a typical single-family residence being one equivalent dwelling unit (1.0 EDU) and the remaining parcels in a district assigned EDU based on locally adopted policy. Not all communities in Allegany County have an EDU policy, and those with policies may not be consistent with other communities. Funding agencies, such as NYS EFC and USDA RD, use EDUs to determine debt service costs when assessing a project's affordability. Each agency offers guidance for determining EDU that may differ from local policy. State laws require debt service to be assigned to individual parcels based on the proportional benefit received, often calculated using EDUs. For purposes of this review, benefited parcels are assigned EDU based on Table VI.1. EDU for non-residential parcels with a water demand are calculated based on an average annual water use of a single-family residence of ~45,000 gallons. Estimated water uses for non-residential properties used to calculate EDU were estimated based on similar parcels in existing sewer systems. Communities without an existing debt service policy need to adopt one as part of the sewer district formation process. Table VI.1: Sewer Study EDU Estimates Parcel Type

EDU

Single-Family Residential

1.0

Two-Family Residential

1.5

Three-Family Residential

2.0

Apartments

0.5/Living Unit, Min 1.0

Manufactured Home Park

0.5/Living Unit, Min 1.0

Agricultural

0.25

Vacant Land

0.50

All Others

Demand/45,000, Min. 1.0

Potential costs represent an order-of-magnitude estimate for each alternative. Actual project costs will need to be developed based on each project scope.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

A. SERVICE AREA TIERS Potential service areas were broken down into Tiers to prioritize projects. In general, Tier 1 projects are the highest priority, while Tier 3 projects are the lowest priority. Tier 4 and Existing service areas already have defined projects. Service Area Tiers are defined as follows: Tier 1: Potential service areas identified by a municipality where the public expressed an interest in sewers. In a few cases, a municipality has prepared a preliminary engineering report (PER) that defines a sewer project. Tier 2: Future service areas identified based on the goals of the study as likely needing sewers with a population density that would benefit from sewers, but with lower public support. Tier 3: Long-range service areas having a population density that would likely benefit from public sewers but have the least public support. Tier 4: Service areas defined by Allegany County or the Seneca Nations of Indians. Allegany County service areas are within host communities and are under development. The Seneca Nation of Indians’ service areas are defined by the Seneca Nation Department of Community Planning and Development and may connect to a POTW. Existing: Municipalities with existing POTW. In some cases a municipality has a project defined in a preliminary engineering report (PER), submitted the PER to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation Clean Water State Revolving Fund or the US Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA RD) programs for funding consideration, and the project is listed in the Final Clean Water State Revolving Fund Federal Fiscal Year 2026 Intended Use Plan (IUP). A few municipalities have projects that are under construction.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

B. TIER 1 SERVICE AREAS Nine Tier 1 service areas were identified and are generally described as follows. The order listed is by Study Area and does not represent a priority. For comparison only, probable project costs for each service area are summarized in Appendix F1.

1. Study Area II - Town of Belfast, Belfast Sewer District The Belfast Sewer District service area includes ~47,860 feet of collection system low pressure sewers ranging in size from 2-inches to 6-inches, ~18,300 feet of 2-inch laterals, ~305 low-pressure grinder pumps, ~7,645 feet of 6-inch transmission main, one ~200 gpm transmission pump station, and a new, ~47,000 GPD design average flow (DAF) wastewater treatment plant. ~710 people and the businesses within the hamlet of Belfast benefit from the service area. Additional treatment and pump capacity would be needed if the service area were expanded to include other service areas. The probable project debt service cost per EDU is ~$1,692.

2. Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea and Rushford, Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District The Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District service area includes ~127,300 feet of collection system low pressure sewers ranging in size from 2-inches to 6-inches, ~67,380 feet of 2-inch laterals, ~1,123 low pressure grinder pumps, ~8,150 feet of 6inch, ~58,710 feet of 10-inch and ~4,610 feet of 12-inch transmission main, ~5 transmission pump stations and a new, ~177,000 GPD design average flow (DAF) wastewater treatment plant. ~3,008 people and the businesses in Rushford and Caneadea benefit from the service area. Additional treatment and pump capacity would be needed if the service area were expanded to include other service areas. The probable project debt service cost per EDU is ~$1,343.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigVI.1_Belfast_8x11-P1

Belfast Sewer District AVG: 43,460 GPD MAX: 132,100 GPD PEAK: 170 GPM WWTP DAF: 48,000 GPD

Proposed WWTP

Town of Belfast Sewer District

1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK BELFAST SEWER DISTRICT

FIGURE VI.1 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

RUSHFORD-CANEADEA JOINT SEWER DISTRICT

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District AVG: 170,200 GPD MAX: 481,500 GPD PEAK: 600 GPM WWTP DAF: 188,000 GPD

Proposed WWTP Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Drawn By:

TJV

FIGURE VI.2 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigVI.2_Rushford-Caneadea_11x17-L1

3. Study Area III - Town of Burns, Sewer District #1 The Burns Sewer District #1 service area includes ~4,810 feet of collection system low pressures sewers ranging in size from 2-inch to 4-inch, ~2,900 feet of 2-inch laterals, ~48 low pressure grinder pumps, ~9,900 feet of 6-inch transmission main, one ~30 gpm transmission pump station, and upgrading an existing pump station in the Village of Canaseraga to a design flow of ~140 gpm. ~94 people benefit from the service area. Additional pump capacity would be needed if the service area were expanded to include other service areas. The probable project debt service cost per EDU is ~$2,402.

4. Study Area IV - Village of Angelica The Village of Angelica service area includes ~37,020 feet of collection system lowpressure sewers ranging in size from 2-inch to 4-inch, ~21,120 feet of 2-inch laterals, ~352 low-pressure grinder pumps, ~11,560 feet of transmission main, one transmission pump station, and a ~56,000 GPD DAF wastewater treatment plant. ~648 people benefit from the service area. Additional pump capacity would be needed if the service area were expanded to include other service areas. The probable project debt service cost per EDU is ~$1,357.

5. Study Area V - Towns of Alfred and Almond and Village of Almond, Alfred– Almond Expanded Joint Sewer District The Expanded Alfred–Almond Joint Sewer District service area includes ~45,940 feet of collection system low pressure sewers ranging in size from 2-inches to 6-inches, ~28,080 feet of 2-inch laterals, ~468 low pressure grinder pumps, ~10,020 feet of 6-inch and ~21,080 feet of 8-inch transmission main, ~4 transmission pump stations ranging in size from ~20 gpm to ~360 gpm. ~953 people and businesses benefit from the service area. Additional pump capacity would be needed if the service area were expanded to include other service areas. The probable project debt service cost per EDU is ~$1,232.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigVI.3_Burns_8x11-P1

Existing Village of Canaseraga WWTP MAX - ----MIN - ----AVG - ----PF - 0.100

Burns Sewer District #1 AVG: 7,640 GPD MAX: 23,230 GPD PEAK: 30 GPM PS DAF: 36 GPM

Existing WWTP

Existing Village of Canaseraga Sewer District

1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

Town of Burns Sewer District #1

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK TOWN OF BURNS SEWER DISTRICT #1

FIGURE VI.3 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigVI.4_Angelica_8x11-P1

Village of Angelica AVG: 51,780 GPD MAX: 157,410 GPD PEAK: 20 GPM WWTP DAF: 57,000 GPD

Proposed WWTP

Village of Angelica Sewer District

1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK VILLAGE OF ANGELICA SEWER DISTRICT

FIGURE VI.4 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

ALFRED-ALMOND EXPANDED JOINT SEWER DISTRICT

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Study Area V Pump Station or WWTP

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Study Area V Pump Station

Existing WWTP Proposed WWTP

Village of Alfred Sewer District Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Existing Village of Alfred WWTP MAX - 0.613 MIN - 0.167 AVG - 0.373 PF - 0.980

Drawn By:

Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District AVG: 76,930 GPD MAX: 233,870 GPD PEAK: 300 GPM PS DAF: 360 GPM

TJV

FIGURE VI.5 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigVI.5_Alfred-Almond_11x17-L1

6. Study Area VI - Town of Cuba Sewer, District #6 The Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 service area includes ~10,200 feet of collection system low-pressure sewers ranging in size from 2-inches to 6-inches, ~7,020 feet of 2inch laterals, ~117 low-pressure grinder pumps, ~5,820 feet of 6-inch transmission main, and one ~60 gpm transmission pump station. ~174 people and a former cheese facility benefit from the service area. Additional pump capacity would be needed if the service area were expanded to include other service areas. The probable project debt service cost per EDU is ~$1,064.

7. Study Area VIII - Town of Bolivar, Sewer District #1 The Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1 service area includes ~4,380 feet of collection system low-pressure sewers ranging in size from 2-inches to 4-inches, ~7,260 feet of 2inch laterals, ~121 low-pressure grinder pumps, ~9,700 feet of 6-inch transmission main, and one ~30 gpm pump station. ~86 people and Klien Cutlery benefit from the service area. Additional pump capacity would be needed if the service area were expanded to include other service areas. The probable project debt service cost per EDU is ~$1,077.

8. Study Area IX – Town of Wellsville, Truax / Morningside Sewer District The Town of Wellsville Truax / Morningside service areas include ~54,260 feet of collection system low-pressure sewers ranging in size from 2-inches to 6-inches, ~19,800 feet of 2-inch laterals, ~330 low-pressure grinder pumps, ~7,710 feet of 6-inch transmission main, and two transmission pump stations. ~729 people and businesses within the sewer district benefit from the service area. The transmission main in the Traux service area may need to be upsized if there is public support for sewers in the Village of Andover with a pump station and transmission main that discharges to the Village of Wellsville. The probable project debt service cost per EDU is ~$1,270.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigVI.6_Cuba_8x11-P1

Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 AVG: 18,120 GPD MAX: 30,730 GPD PEAK: 47 GPM PS DAF: 57 GPM

Existing Town of Cuba WWTP MAX - 0.685 MIN - 0.197 AVG - 0.119 PF - 0.970

Existing Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

Existing WWTP

Town of Cuba Sewer District

1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

Town of Cuba Sewer District #6

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK TOWN OF CUBA SEWER DISTRICT #6

FIGURE VI.6 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigVI.7_Bolivar_8x11-P1

Existing Village of Bolivar WWTP MAX - 0.833 MIN - 0.099 AVG - 0.363 PF - 0.400

Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1 AVG: 7,150 GPD MAX: 21,740 GPD PEAK: 28 GPM PS DAF: 34 GPM

Existing WWTP

Village of Bolivar Sewer District

1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK TOWN OF BOLIVAR SEWER DISTRICT #1

FIGURE VI.7 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx FigVI.8_Wellsville_8x11-P1

Existing Village of Wellsville WWTP MAX - 0.172 MIN - 0.600 AVG - 1.073 PF - 2.200

Existing WWTP

Village of Wellsville Sewer District

1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

Truax/Morningside Sewer District

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK TRUAX/MORINGSIDE SEWER DISTRICT

FIGURE VI.8 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

9. Study Area X - Village of Andover The Village of Andover service area includes ~55,900 feet of low-pressure collection system sewers ranging in size from 2 inches to 6 inches, ~25,800 feet of 2-inch laterals, ~430 low-pressure grinder pumps, ~9,260 feet of transmission main, one ~290 gpm transmission pump station, and a new ~69,000 GPD WWTP. ~865 people and the businesses within the Village benefit from the service area. The probable project debt service cost per EDU is ~$1,386.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

C. TIER 2 SERVICE AREAS Fourteen Tier 2 service areas were identified in ten of the Study Areas. The order listed is by Study Area and does not represent a priority. For comparison only, opinions of probable project costs for each service area are summarized in Appendix F2. 1. Study Area I: Town of Hume, Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District with transmission main to the Town of Hume Route 19A pump station. 2. Study Area I: Town of Hume, Fillmore SD Extension #2 (Hamlet of Hume). 3. Study Area I: Town of Hume, Fillmore SD Extensions #1, #2 and #3. 4. Study Area II: Towns of Caneadea and Belfast, Caneadea-Belfast Joint Sewer District with WWTP in the hamlet of Caneadea. 5. Study Area III: Towns of Grove and Burns, Swain-Garwood Joint Sewer District. 6. Study Area II, IV and VII: Towns of Angelica and Belfast, Village of Angelica and Allegany County CR20 Sewer District with WWTP in hamlet of Belfast. 7. Study Area V: Towns of Alfred and Almond, and Village of Almond, Village of Almond with Alfred Almond Joint Sewer District. (Does not include the extension to the Alfred-Almond Sewer District, which is included in Tier 1, Service Area 5.) 8. Study Area VI: Town of Cuba, Sewer District #6 with Extension #1. 9. Study Area VII: Town of Friendship, Friendship Sewer District Extension #1. 10. Study Area VIII: Town of Bolivar, Sewer Districts #1 and #2. 11. Study Area VII: Village of Richburg and Town of Wirt, Richburg-Wirt Joint Sewer District. 12. Study Area IX: Town of Wellsville, Wellsville-Willing Joint Sewer District (Stannard) 13. Study Area IX: Town of Scio, Scio Sewer District #1 (hamlet of Scio) with WellsvilleScio Joint Sewer District. 14. Study Area XI: Town of Independence, Whitesville Sewer District with WWTP in Whitesville.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

100

D. TIER 3 SERVICE AREAS Forty-four Tier 3 service areas were identified in seven of the studies. The order listed is by Study Area and does not represent a priority. For comparison purposes, opinions of probable project costs for each service area are summarized in Appendix F3. In general, the Tier 3 service areas compare a local WWTP to a regional pump station, include interconnecting service areas along transmission main routes that on their own would not be practical, or are low-priority extensions. 1. Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District – WWTP. 2. Wiscoy-Rossburg PS w/ Hume SD Extensions. 3. Town of Caneadea, Caneadea SD - WWTP #1. 4. Town of Caneadea, Caneadea SD - PS #1. 5. Hamlet of Rushford SD – WWTP. 6. Hamlet of Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District – WWTP. 7. Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP #2. 8. Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea PS #2. 9. Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District (Hamlet of Rushford, Rushford Lake, Hamlet of Caneadea w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP - PS #3). 10. Caneadea-Belfast Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea PS #4. 11. Belfast, Caneadea and Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP - WWTP #5. 12. Belfast, Caneadea and Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea PS - PS #5. 13. Belfast, Caneadea, Rushford and Rushford Lake and Rushford Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP #6. 14. Belfast, Caneadea, Rushford and Rushford Lake and Rushford Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea PS #6. 15. Town of Burns Sewer District #2. 16. Village of Almond – WWTP. 17. Village of Almond – Transmission Main to Alfred. 18. Village of Almond – Transmission Main to Hornell.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

101

19. Town of Alfred Sewer Extension District #1. 20. Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 - Extension #1. 21. Town of Cuba Sewer District #7 (West Main). 22. Town of Cuba Sewer District #8 (East Side). 23. Town of Cuba Sewer District #5 - Extension #1. 24. Town of Cuba Sewer District #5 - Extension #2. 25. Town of Cuba Sewer Districts #5, #7 and #8 Combined. 26. Town of Cuba Sewer Extensions, All Combined. 27. Town of Bolivar Sewer District #2 (SR-417-E). 28. Town of Genesee Sewer District #1 w/ WWTP #1 in Ceres. 29. Town of Genesee Sewer District #1 w/ TM to Village of Portville. 30. Town of Genesee Sewer District #2 w/ WWTP #2. 31. Town of Genesee Sewer District #2 w/ TM to Village of Portville. 32. Genesee-Bolivar Joint Sewer District. 33. Village of Richburg. 34. Town of Wirt Sewer District #1 (Messer Hill Rd). 35. Town of Wirt Sewer District #2 (SR275, CR8). 36. Wellsville-Scio Joint Sewer District (No Scio hamlet.). 37. Town of Wellsville Sewer District #3 (Morningside). 38. Town of Wellsville Sewer District #4 (Side Streets). 39. Scio Sewer District #1 w/ Scio WWTP. 40. Scio Sewer District #1 w/ Scio-Amity Joint Sewer District. 41. Village of Andover w / TM to Wellsville. 42. Village of Andover w/ Andover-Wellsville Joint Sewer District. 43. Whitesville Sewer District w/TM to Wellsville WWTP. 44. Independence-Willing-Wellsville Joint Sewer District.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

102

E. TIER 4 SERVICE AREAS Seven Tier 4 service areas were identified in three of the Study Areas. The order listed is by Study Area and does not represent a priority. For comparison only, opinions of probable project costs for each service area are summarized in Appendix F4. The Tier 4, service area 4 Allegany County CR20 Sewer District - WWTP is a project currently under development by the County. Service areas 1, 2, 5, and 6 considered alternate treatment locations for service area 4. Service area 7 is an option to replace the existing treatment system at the county jail. The Oil Spring Territory project (service area 3) is a transmission main with service laterals along the public portions of the roads serving the Territory; service areas within the Territory are the responsibility of the Seneca Nation of Indians. 1

Angelica - Allegany County CR20 Joint Sewer District - Town of Angelica WWTP #1

Angelica - Belfast - Allegany County CR20 Joint Sewer District - Belfast WWTP #3

Oil Spring Territory - PS

Allegany County CR20 Sewer District - WWTP

Allegany County CR20 Sewer District w/ Transmission Main to Hamlet of Friendship

Allegany County CR20 Sewer District w/ Transmission Main to Village of Belmont

Amity Sewer District #1 (County Jail).

F. EXISTING SERVICE AREAS There are nine existing POTW/POSS in Allegany County, six of which have active projects listed on the 2025 IUP. Communities not currently listed are the Town of Hume, Town of Caneadea, and Village of Wellsville. These communities indicated that they have known inflow and infiltration concerns and may seek funding to study and implement a sewer improvement project. Tier 2 service area 11 and Tier 3 projects 32 and 33 include POSS that would discharge to the Village of Bolivar POTW. Estimated flow from these service areas may increase to the total flow to the plan to between 99% and 104% of the design capacity, thereby necessitating plant expansion.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

103

Tier 3 service areas 8, 9, 12, and 14 include POSS that would discharge to the Town of Caneadea, Houghton Sewer District WWTP. Estimated flow from these service areas may increase the plant's total flow by 114%-144% of design capacity, thereby necessitating plant expansion. Table VI.2: 2025 CWSRF IUP Listings Community

IUP #

Description

Amount

Village of Alfred

C9-6601-04-00

WWTP rehabilitation project to address ammonia and solids.

$2,700,000

Village of Alfred

C9-6601-05-00

Inflow and infiltration/sewer rehabilitation project.

$1,418,000

Village of Andover

C9-6695-01-00

Planning, design, and construction of a collection system and WWTP to protect water quality in Dyke Creek.

$27,823,000

Village of Belmont

C9-6900-01-00

Planning, design, and construction of sewer system inflow and infiltration improvements to protect water quality in the Genesee River.

$1,600,000

Village of Bolivar

C9-6820-01-00

Planning, design, and construction of wastewater treatment plant improvements to improve water quality in Little Genesee Creek.

$7,547,000

Village of Canaseraga

C9-6607-02-00

Planning, design, and construction of wastewater treatment plant and pump station improvements to protect water quality in Canaseraga Creek

$2,500,000

Village of Cuba

C9-6609-02-00

Planning, design, and construction of collection system and wastewater treatment plant improvements to improve water quality in Griffin Creek.

$8,934,000

Town of Friendship

C9-6605-01-00

Planning, design, and construction of collection system and wastewater treatment plant improvements to protect water quality in Van Campen Creek.

$10,835,000

Tier 3 service area 40 and Tier 4 service areas 6 and 7 include POSS that would discharge to the Village of Belmont WWTP. Estimated flow from these service areas may increase the total flow to the plant between 95% and 124% of the design capacity, thereby necessitating plant expansion.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

104

Costs to increase the capacity of existing treatment plants to accommodate Tier 2, 3, and 4 service areas are not included in the individual service area estimates due to low public support. Further study is needed to evaluate expanding existing facilities versus building new treatment works, which would be needed should public interest increase in a service area. The Village of Andover does not have a POTW but does have a project listed on the 2025 IUP. The project was listed circa 2019 and is on the multi-year list, indicating the Village has not applied for funding. While this project is viable, community interest has been mixed. The existing PER would need to be updated for the Village to apply for funding. Allegany County, the Village of Almond, and the Town of Independence have applied for funding to study public sewers. Potential projects identified by the studies have not been listed on the IUP, indicating that either the study is not complete or that the community has not yet had the opportunity to list the project. Table VI.3: Consolidated Funding Application Listings Community

CFA #

Description

Year

Amount

Allegany County

129853

Comprehensive sewer study to understand conditions of existing sewer systems & needs of areas not covered by municipal sewer systems.

2023

$100,000

Study and design of a stormwater retrofit for an inadequately designed drainage system.

2023

$32,000

Public Sewer Feasibility Study

2022

$30,000

Village of Angelica

Town of Independence

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

121378

105

G. FINANCING METHODS New York municipalities (cities, towns, villages, counties, and special districts) typically finance capital improvements through a combination of local revenues, reserves, debt instruments (bonds), and state and federal aid. Various methods of defraying annual debt costs are available, including special assessments, sewer rents, or a combination of both. Special assessments can be assessed on a benefit basis or an ad valorem basis and can appear on a real property tax bill. A benefit-basis assessment is an annually adjusted flat rate assessed to each parcel in a service area based on local policy. An ad valorem-based assessment is an annually adjusted rate per $1,000 of assessed value for each parcel in a service area. In addition to annual debt service costs, individual users can expect to pay annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs through sewer rents established by individual communities or by intermunicipal agreements for service areas that include multiple communities. Sewer rents are an annually adjustable fixed or commodity rate, typically per 1,000 gallons based on metered usage, often with a minimum base charge. Sewer rents can appear on a real property tax bill or be included in a monthly or quarterly sewer bill.

H. SEWER CHARGES The following discusses the annual cost of sewer charges in 2025 by Allegany County communities with municipal sewers to fund local sewer budgets. Included is an estimated annual amount charged for a typical single-family residence that utilizes 45,000 gallons of water per year.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

106

1. Village of Alfred The Village of Alfred utilizes a commodity rate for sewer service and for sewer bonds. The sewer service rate was $7.06/1,000 gallons, and the bond rate was $2.25/1,000 gallons. For a single-family residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$418.95.

2. Village of Belmont The Village of Belmont utilizes a tiered rate structure with no additional debit or tax charge. The base rate was $86.42 for the first 6,750 gallons, the rate for the next 30,650 gallons was $14.30/1,000 gallons, the next 37,400 gallons was $21.30/1,000 gallons, and the next 1,000,000 gallons was $42.90/1,000 gallons. For a single-family residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$603.08.

3. Town of Amity The Town of Amity has a sewer district that serves the Genesee Valley Central School District facilities on the north side of the Village of Belmont. The Village of Belmont charges the school district an out-of-Village rate structure with a base rate that was $102.73 for the first 6,750 gallons, the rate for the next 30,650 gallons was $15.50/1,000 gallons, the next 37,400 gallons was $24.50/1,000 gallons and the next 1,000,000 gallons was $46.80/1,000 gallons.

For a single-family residence, the estimated annual

sewer charge was ~$689.92.

4. Village of Bolivar The Village of Bolivar charged a quarterly sewer rent of $140.00. For a single-family residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$560.00.

5. Village of Canaseraga The Village of Canaseraga charged a quarterly sewer rent of $75.00 plus a debit rate of $92.36. For a single-family residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$669.44.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

107

6. Town of Caneadea, Houghton Sewer District The Town of Caneadea utilizes a commodity rate and an ad velarium tax rate to fund its sewer budget. The quarterly commodity sewer rate was $18.72 for the first 999 gallons plus $6.24/1,000 gallons for usage above 999 gallons. The ad velarium tax rate was $3.15 per $1,000 of assessed value. For a single-family residence that has a taxable assessed value of $107,000, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$667.79.

7. Village of Cuba The Village of Cuba charged $11.00/1,000 gallons for sewer with no additional debit or tax charge. For a single-family residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$495.00.

8. Town of Cuba, Sewer District #5 (Cuba Lake) The Town of Cuba, Sewer District #5 charged $13.75/1,000 gallons with no additional debit or tax charge. For a single-family residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$618.75.

9. Town of Friendship The Town of Friendship charged $0.72/100 gallons ($7.20/1,000 gallons) plus a capitalization rate of $65.50/quarter. For a single-family residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$586.00.

10. Town of Hume The Town of Hume utilizes a commodity rate and a quarterly debit rate to fund its sewer budget. The quarterly commodity charge for sewer was $12.25/1,000 gallons, and the debit rate was $92. For a single-family residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$919.25.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

108

11. Village of Wellsville The Village of Wellsville charged Village customers a Base rate of $13.25 plus a commodity rate of $3.94/unit for the first 25 units, $4.16/unit for 26-600 units, and $8.29 for 601+ units. The Village of Wellsville defines one unit as 748 gallons. For a singlefamily residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$396.03.

12. Town of Wellsville The Village of Wellsville charged Town customers a Base rate of $20.00 plus a commodity rate of $5.92/unit for the first 25 units, $6.33/unit for 26-600 units, and $12.44 for 601+ units. The Village of Wellsville defines one unit as 748 gallons. For a singlefamily residence, the estimated annual sewer charge was ~$596.15.

13. Sewer Charge Summary Municipal sewer budgets include estimated revenues and appropriations (expenditures). Sources of revenues are identified in accordance with State guidelines and can include Sewer Rents, Sewer Taxes, Penalties, Interest, and other items pertinent to each community. Appropriations (sometimes referred to as expenditures) are also identified in accordance with State guidelines and include, amongst other items, operating, personnel, and debt service expenses. Non-debt service items generally represent O&M of the sewer system. Table VI.4 Summarizes the 2025 total sewer costs for a typical single-family residence by community. Included are estimated Debt costs, which are based on the percentage of debt service to total appropriations as represented in each municipality’s sewer budget. Also included are estimated O&M costs, which are the balance of the appropriations excluding debt service. Based on Table VI.4 it is reasonable to expect a single-family residence in the alternate service areas to expect to pay between ~$260 and ~$600 (average ~$444) in O&M costs in addition to the estimated debt service for the service area.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

109

Table VI.4: Estimated 2025 Sewer Costs Community

Total

O&M

Debt

Village of Alfred

$418.95

$317.70

$101.25

Village of Belmont (Inside)

$603.08

$443.54

$159.54

Village of Belmont (Outside)

$689.92

$507.41

$182.51

Village of Bolivar

$560.00

$394.62

$195.38

Village of Canaseraga

$669.44

$316.20

$353.24

Town of Caneadea

$667.79

$603.16

$64.63

Town of Cuba

$618.75

$541.93

$76.82

Village of Cuba

$495.00

$436.62

$58.38

Town of Friendship

$586.00

$471.70

$114.30

Town of Hume

$919.25

$646.33

$272.92

Village of Wellsville (Inside)

$396.03

$260.17

$135.86

Village of Wellsville (Outside)

$596.15

$391.64

$204.51

I. FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE PROJECTS It is difficult to anticipate which sewer service area program would be acceptable to the public. Public desire and interest can have more to do with acceptance of a sewerage program than public benefit, financial attractiveness, or even need. It is entirely possible for one community to reject a beneficial, cost-effective project and for another community to implement a low-benefit project with higher and normal user costs. Therefore, it is only possible to discuss the financial feasibility of a proposed program in general terms. The New York State Office of the State Controller annually calculates thresholds that need State approval for towns and counties proposing to issue debt to finance a special district. For 2026. The threshold for Town sewer districts is $1,010 per EDU, and for the County sewer district, the threshold is $149 per EDU. Towns and counties are encouraged to apply for grants and low-interest loans to help reduce user costs. Projects that exceed the threshold need State Comptroller approval. Several of the service areas are financially feasible, though most, if not all, will need some form of financial assistance to meet State Controller thresholds.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

110

VII. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION After the official acceptance of the report and the adoption of its recommendations by the Allegany County Board of Supervisors, the recommended programs would become the Master Plan to guide future sewerage systems development in the county.

A. PUBLIC RELATIONS ACTION Allegany County should continue to promote public awareness of sewer system initiatives through outreach and coordination efforts by undertaking the following steps.

1. Public Education Public outreach efforts should focus on educating the community on existing system conditions, regulatory requirements, and maintenance of targeted system improvements. This may include public meetings and promotional materials that explain why investment in sewer infrastructure is important. Allegany County’s sewer study website can be utilized as an ongoing public outreach and engagement tool. The website provides residents with accessible information on existing wastewater infrastructure, planned improvements, and study findings. It also serves as a platform for sharing updates and collecting public input through surveys, improving public understanding and supporting informed participation.

2. Intermunicipal Meetings Coordination between communities is necessary to create opportunities for regional wastewater solutions. Meetings between municipal officials would help discussions on potential projects before significant commitments are made. Early coordination additionally establishes relationships among communities that may ultimately share infrastructure or treatment facilities. By involving neighboring municipalities early in the planning process, communities can avoid duplicative investments, improve project efficiency, and better position themselves for grant and funding applications.

B. SEWER DISTRICT FORMATION One of the most important decisions that must be made by agencies in the early stages of a sewerage system development program is the method of organizing and

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

111

administering the program, for both construction and operational purposes. In most cases of proposed system expansion and new system construction, it will be necessary to form sewer districts to handle the organizational and financial aspects. In New York State, county sewer districts are formed under County Law Article 5-A, town sewer districts are formed under Town Law Article 12 or 12-A, and village sewer districts are formed under Village Law Article 17. In general, the district formation process includes a public informational hearing to garner public interest, preparing preliminary engineering reports to review alternatives, establish preliminary user costs, and apply for funding, preparing a detailed map, plan, and report, public hearings, board resolutions, and potentially approval from the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) if debt is issued that exceeds established thresholds. Districts can be formed by petition, board resolution, subject to permissive referendum, or through referendum. The process focuses on establishing that the district serves the public interest and that costs are not an undue burden on property owners.

C. SEWER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION\GOVERNANCE Municipal sewer infrastructure and treatment systems within a single municipality are typically owned, operated, and maintained by the municipality. Several New York State statutes address options available for the management of systems involving multiple municipalities.18 The method of administration needs to be evaluated for each alternate service area as part of the project development process. Intermunicipal methods in New York State to manage regional sanitary sewer infrastructure predominantly involve Intermunicipal Agreements (IMAs), County-wide shared services initiatives, and jointly operated wastewater treatment facilities. These

18 Intermunicipal Cooperation and Consolidation, Exploring Opportunities for Savings and Improved

Service Delivery (Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of Local Government and School Accountability, undated, circa 01/01/2010)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

112

collaborations, strongly encouraged by the state through grant incentives, enable municipalities to share costs, technical resources, and regulatory responsibilities for wastewater conveyance and treatment.19 Key methods used for shared services include: •

Intermunicipal Agreements (IMAs): These are legally binding agreements between two or more local governments (e.g., a town and village, or several cities) to manage sewers, share wastewater facilities, or contract for services at a set price. For example, the Town of Hume has an IMA with the Town of Caneadea for treating wastewater.

•

County-wide Shared Services Panels: Mandated by NY State, these panels require county leaders to bring together mayors and supervisors to develop plans that find efficiencies in infrastructure.

•

Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants (RWTP): Instead of each municipality operating its own plant, regional plants are used where one entity treats sewage from surrounding municipal collection systems.

•

Shared Equipment Programs: Under this system, municipalities would establish and maintain a centralized, common equipment inventory to eliminate the need for each community to purchase and store high-cost, specialized tools. Participating communities should collaborate to draft a comprehensive Shared Equipment Plan defining asset management, operational costs for use by other municipalities, and allocation procedures. An online database or reservation portal could track the current location, availability, and maintenance history of all shared equipment based on an established protocol.

•

Public Authority: Public authorities are public benefit corporations created to further public interests. They develop, operate, and maintain critical infrastructure, including sewer and water systems. In addition, these entities are used to fund or support local government infrastructure, such as water and sewer projects. State public

19 New York State, Department of State (dos.ny.gov).

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

113

authorities are legislatively created and have various levels of autonomy from the State, based on the powers and constraints built into their legislative mandate. Each public authority is governed by a separate board of directors appointed by elected officials for varying terms of office.20 For example, in 1995, the Alfred, Almond, and Hornellsville Sewer Authority was formed to support and administer a regional wastewater project that included the Towns of Alfred, Almond, and Hornellsville, and the Villages of Alfred and Almond. •

Combined Procurement and Purchasing: Two or more municipalities can work together to solicit goods or services through a single coordinated bidding process for chemicals, supplies, replacement parts, routine maintenance contracts, engineering design, and construction services. This secures better prices, cuts down on administrative work, and standardizes equipment or materials across neighboring systems, simplifying long-term inventory management and mutual aid efforts.

D. SEWER USE LAW/ORDINANCE POSSs and POTWs are required to properly operate and maintain their wastewater collection system. Properly operated collection systems reduce the discharge of pollutants to treatment plants, the environment, and waterbodies and are critical to the health and safety of New Yorkers. DEC provides a Model Sewer Use Law, which is intended to aid municipalities in developing or modifying their sewer use laws. It offers ideas, language, and a structure for a municipality to use in developing local sewer ordinances. The most recent version of the Model Sewer Use Law (1994 rev.) available from DEC incorporates federal pretreatment language. Sewer use laws establish rules and regulations governing the discharge of sewage and industrial waste to POTWs. Many communities need to periodically examine and revisit

20 New York State Comptroller (www.osc.ny.gov/public-authorities).

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

114

their code when, for example, they implement a pretreatment program, revise user charges, expand the service area, or upgrade enforcement provisions. Communities considering new POTWs or POSSs may need to develop and adopt a sewer use law as a condition of approval for the project. POTWs receiving flow from a POSS may need to incorporate provisions of their Sewer Use Law in IMAs to provide treatment.

E. FUTURE STAFFING AND LICENSURE An evaluation of local staffing against the NYSDEC regulatory standards showed staffing deficiencies that impact operations and effectiveness. During meetings with participating municipalities, discussions regarding current staffing levels made it apparent that several local communities operate with minimal personnel, and interest in the field is low. NYSDEC and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations govern wastewater treatment plant operator licensing and facility staffing standards. The scores of each facility on guidance documents are based on treatment process complexity and operational demands to determine the required certification grade for the Chief Operator and Assistant/Shift Operators at WWTP. Plant design flow is used to allocate staff hours among operations and maintenance for each treatment process, laboratory work, and solids handling. Table III.1 identifies the operator class required for each WWTP in Allegany County. New treatment plants must be reviewed and scored in accordance with these guidelines to establish staffing needs. Within Allegany County and across New York State, municipal wastewater treatment plants are facing critical staffing shortages due to an aging workforce, a lack of younger workers entering the field, and low public awareness. Several SUNY campuses and technical schools in New York offer NYSDEC-approved training for wastewater treatment plant operators. Key programs include courses on basic operations, activated sludge, and laboratory techniques, often offered through continuing education departments. Institutions Offering Wastewater Training include:

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

115

•

SUNY Buffalo State University (Buffalo, NY): Offers comprehensive training including basic operations, activated sludge, and Grade 3 supervision.

•

SUNY Adirondack (Queensbury, NY): Provides courses in Basic Operations, Activated Sludge, and Basic Laboratory.

•

SUNY Ulster (Stone Ridge, NY): Offers courses that meet NYS DEC/DOH requirements for operator certifications.

•

North Country Community College (Saranac Lake, NY): Provides a 90-hour Wastewater Basic Operations course.

•

SUNY Morrisville Environmental Training Center: Known for specialized environmental training.

•

Hudson Valley Community College (Troy, NY): Offers pre-certification courses.

•

New York Rural Water Association (Cortland, NY): Provides apprenticeship programs with in-person classes.

Allegany County can consider establishing a subsidized training and retention program through a formal partnership with New York Water Environment Association (NYWEA), a non-profit educational organization founded in 1929. Participants would then commit to working within the Allegany County regional system for a set number of years. Implementing this program would support staffing stability and help ensure that newly installed technologies are operated and maintained by a competent workforce. Allegany County can also consider collaborating with local school districts, resource counselors, and the Board of Cooperative Education to help raise awareness of career opportunities.

VIII. CONCLUSION

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

116

The purpose of this study was to analyze the condition of existing municipal sewer infrastructure within the County, identify areas without municipal systems that can benefit from public sewers, and recommend capacity improvements for areas that would benefit the most from municipal systems

A. EXISTING FACILITIES Results of the study found that improvements are being made to existing POTW to address aging infrastructure including collection system inflow and infiltration, communities with individual treatment systems have a need for and interest in public sewers, and that qualified individuals are needed to operate and maintain existing facilities.

B. FUTURE FACILITIES Review of future facilities was performed on a study area basis. Each study area included multiple potential service areas. Combinations of the service areas were considered and group into four tiers with Tier 1 projects being the highest priority. The following service areas represent the Tier 1 priority projects identified in this study. The service areas should be considered for engineering funding assistance based on public need, feasibility, intermunicipal benefits, and consistency with long-term regional wastewater goals. Project order only indicates the order in which projects were reviewed and does not indicate a project’s priority. Probable project costs are based on 2026 dollars. The opinions of project cost are only intended for use in comparing alternatives.

1. Town of Belfast Sewer District This service area provides immediate health and environmental benefits and integrates with broader long-term regional wastewater strategies. A recommended project that provides a long-term solution for Belfast would be a low-pressure collection system with individual grinder pumps and a wastewater treatment plant. This area would serve a

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

117

population of ~710 people and businesses within the Hamlet of Belfast. Coordination would include the sewer district and department formation.

Project Cost $13,858,000

Debt Service ($628,130)

EDU 371.3

Cost/EDU ($1,692)

Development of this project should also consider the options of expanding the service area to include either the Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District or the Village of Angelica. Additional treatment and pump capacity would be needed if the service area were expanded to include other areas such as the Village of Angelica.

2. Towns of Caneadea and Rushford, Rushford Lake joint sewer The Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District is a comprehensive service area that includes collection systems around Rushford Lake in the Towns of Rushford and Caneadea and in the Hamlets of Rushford and Caneadea. A low-pressure collection system with individual grinder pumps and a wastewater treatment plant located in the Hamlet of Caneadea is a potential, cost-effective, long-term regional solution for the service area. Water quality improvements to Rushford Lake can be significant by eliminating indirect sanitary discharge to the lake from failing septic systems. This would serve ~3,008 people and the businesses in the Rushford and Caneadea service area. Coordination would include Sewer district formation and Intermunicipal Agreements (IMA).

Project Cost $46,326,000

Debt Service ($2,100,000)

EDU 1,563.3

Cost/EDU ($1,343)

Development of the project should also consider extending the service area to include the Hamlets of Oramel and Belfast.

3. Town of Burns Sewer District Low-pressure sewers along State Route 70 (SR70) with individual grinder pumps that discharge to the Village of Canaseraga POTW would replace existing septic systems

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

118

along SR70. Included are upgrades to an existing pump station in the Village of Canaseraga so it can convey the additional load from the joint sewer district. This system addresses water quality concerns caused by seasonal flooding and high groundwater tables and promotes economic growth along the SR70 corridor. ~94 people benefit from the service area. Coordination includes Sewer district formation and Intermunicipal Agreements (IMA).

Project Cost $2,941,000

Debt Service ($133,294)

EDU 55.5

Cost/EDU ($2,402)

Development of the project should also consider options to include services areas in the Town of Burns east of the Village of Canaseraga and service to Swain Resorts in the Town of Grove.

4. Village of Angelica The Village of Angelica has experienced limited economic growth due, in part, to failing septic systems and limited ability to upgrade systems on existing parcels. In a few instances, the condition of individual treatment systems prohibits the sale or redevelopment of existing parcels. ~648 people benefit from the service area, and coordination would include the formation of a sewer department.

Project Cost $14,035,000

Debt Service ($636,155)

EDU 469.0

Cost/EDU ($1,357)

Development of this project should consider expanding the service area to include the Belfast Sewer District and a regional service area combining Angelica, Belfast, and Allegany County's CR20 Sewer District.

5. Alfred-Almond Expanded Joint Sewer District Parcels in the proposed Alfred-Almond Expanded Joint Sewer District service area face space limitations for septic system upgrade and/or replacement, and the lack of public

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

119

sewers has restricted economic development. The Towns of Alfred and Almond and the Village of Almond have an interest in a regional approach to public sewers. A lowpressure collection system discharging to the Village of Alfred POTW could support institutional, residential, and economic needs in this corridor. This area would serve ~925 people and businesses in the Village of Almond and along SR-21. Coordination includes Sewer district formation, sewer department formation, and review of existing sewer authority vs. Intermunicipal Agreements (IMA).

Project Cost $17,126,000

Debt Service ($776,280)

EDU 630.1

Cost/EDU ($1,232)

Development of this project should also consider options to include potential sewer districts in the Town of Alfred, west of the Village of Alfred. Revisiting the transmission main to Hornell is another alternative for treatment.

6. Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 A former cheese factory site, located south of the Village of Cuba on NYS Route 305, has been identified as an economic development area that can be enhanced by providing public sewers and connecting to the Village of Cuba wastewater collection system. The sewer district service area includes sewers along portions of Prospect Street, Keller Hill Road, Bradley Avenue, NYS Route 305, Haskell Road, and Beebe Hill Road. This service area promotes economic development by enhancing underutilized industrial facilities and eliminating the industrial treatment works associated with the former cheese factory site. In addition to the former cheese factory site, ~147 people benefit from this service area. Coordination would include Sewer district formation and review of the existing Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA) with the Village of Cuba.

Project Cost $3,726,000

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Debt Service ($168,894)

EDU 158.8

Cost/EDU ($1,064)

120

Development of the project should consider options to extend sewer service further south along NYS Route 305 and to expand the Cuba Lake sewer district to include properties not currently being served.

7. Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1 The Town of Bolivar has identified an interest in public sewers along the NYS Route 417 corridor extending from the Village of Bolivar limits to the Town of Genesee limits. Klien Cutlery, LLC is located on Refinery Road in the Town of Bolivar and currently trucks its wastewater to the Village of Bolivar WWTP. Residential concerns include small lot sizes for upgrading individual treatment systems and proximity to private wells. ~86 people and Klien Cutlery benefit from the service area. Coordination includes Sewer district formation and Intermunicipal Agreements (IMA). ~86 people and Klien Cutlery benefit from the service area. Coordination includes Sewer district formation and Intermunicipal Agreements (IMA).

Project Cost $3,580,000

Debt Service ($162,271)

EDU 150.7

Cost/EDU ($1,077)

Development of the project should consider options to expand the service area to include the Town of Bolivar to the east of the Village of Bolivar, the Village of Richburg and potential service areas in the Town of Wirt, outside the Village of Richburg.

8. Town of Wellsville Traux/Morningside Sewer District Town of Wellsville identified areas within the Town that could benefit from public sewers due to lot size, the condition of septic systems, and potential economic growth. Potential sewer districts include the mix of residential, commercial, and industrial parcels northeast of the Village, generally along Andover Road, Baldwin Road, Proctor Road, Truax Road, 1st Avenue, Trapping Brook Road, and associated side streets (collectively called Truax). This service area addresses local concerns with septic systems and ensures the long-term economic benefit of the commercial and industrial areas. There

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

121

are ~729 people and additional businesses within the service area. Coordination includes reviewing the IMA with the Village for the sewer district.

Project Cost $11,326,000

Debt Service ($513,369)

EDU 404.2

Cost/EDU ($1,270)

Development of the project should consider potential service in the Village of Andover for sizing transmission facilities. The transmission main in the Traux service area may need to be upsized if there is public support for sewers in the Village of Andover with a pump station and transmission main that discharges to the Village of Wellsville.

9. Village of Andover The Village of Andover has experienced limited economic growth due, in part, to failing septic systems and limited ability to upgrade systems on existing parcels. In a few instances, the condition of individual treatment systems prohibited the sale or development of existing parcels. The Village currently has a project listed on the New York State Clean Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan for planning, design, and construction of a collection system and wastewater treatment facility. The Village of Andover sewer project includes a local WWTP in the Village. ~865 people and the businesses within the Village benefit from the service area. Coordination would entail the formation of the sewer department.

Project Cost $17,038,000

Debt Service ($772,314)

EDU 557.3

Cost/EDU ($1,386)

Development of the project should consider the option of a regional pump station with force main that discharges to the Village of Wellsville, expanding the service area to include sewer districts in the Towns of Andover and Wellsville along the force main.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

122

STAFFING, MANAGEMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION Qualified staffing is needed for existing and future publicly owned treatment works. Allegany County should work with local school districts and training providers to encourage individuals to consider working in the public sewer sector and provide support for training necessary for operator certification. Recognizing that operator certification depends on the type of treatment process, Allegany County should encourage individuals to obtain the highest level needed in the county so the individual can provide backup assistance to multiple communities. Allegany County can also help with government efficiencies through shared service agreements for equipment and materials procurement, administration of the sewer systems, and emergency staffing needs. The following Tier 1 service areas should be considered for funding assistance by Allegany County to develop the necessary engineering reports needed to define a project and to apply for State and Federal funding assistance to implement a project.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

123

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

124

APPENDIX A A Drainage Basins

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppA_DrainageBasins_24x36-P1

27 36

19A

Town of Centerville

Town of Hume

27B

Fillmore PS

Town of Grove

Town of Granger

Canaseraga WWTP

Village of Canaseraga 4

Town of Burns

16 15B

961F 52

13C

Houghton WWTP

14 15A

15A

243

Town of Rushford

Town of Caneadea

Town of Birdsall

Town of Allen

49 7B

Town of Almond 2A

Village of Almond

Town of New Hudson

Town of Belfast

Town of Angelica

Town of West Almond

Village of Angelica 2

305 43

Alfred WWTP 7C 48

Village of Alfred

244

Belmont WWTP

Town of Cuba 86

446

Town of Alfred

Village of Cuba Cuba

Village of

Town of Friendship

WWTP

Town of Ward

Friendship WWTP

Town of Belmont Amity

Saputo Dairy Foods, LLC

Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

31A

Town of Clarksville

Town of Wirt

Town of Andover

Town of Scio

275

Town of Wellsville

Village of Andover

Wellsville WWTP

Village of Wellsville 417

417

Village of Richburg

Bolivar WWTP

22A

Village of Bolivar

Town of Willing

Town of Alma

Town of Bolivar

Town of Genesee

Town of 248 Independence 19A

248A

Existing Service Area

Cattaraugus Drainage Basin

Tier I Study Area

Tioga Drainage Basin

Tier II Study Area

Upper Allegheny Drainage Basin

Existing WW Facility

Upper Genesee Drainage Basin

0120.24001 SHEET NO. A

MRB Group Engineering, Architecture & Surveying, D.P.C. THE CULVER ROAD ARMORY 145 CULVER ROAD, SUITE 160 ROCHESTER, NY 14620 585-381-9250 WWW.MRBGROUP.COM

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 017763

Drawn By:

TJV

Scale:

1" = 7,000' @22"x34"

Date:

M AY 2 0 2 6

APPENDIX B B Soil Resource Report and Map

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for

Allegany County Area, New York

January 13, 2026

Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Contents Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made................................................................................ 11 Soil Map................................................................................................................ 14 Soil Map..............................................................................................................15 Legend................................................................................................................16 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 17 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................ 30 Allegany County Area, New York.................................................................... 32 1A—Udifluvents and Fluvaquents, frequently flooded, 0 to 3 percent slopes....................................................................................................32 3A—Tioga loam, occasionally flooded, 0 to 3 percent slopes..................... 34 5A—Wayland soils complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded...... 35 6A—Wyalusing silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.......................................... 37 8A—Middlebury silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes......................................... 38 9A—Pawling silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................................. 40 11B—Ischua channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes...............................41 11C—Ischua channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes............................ 43 11D—Ischua channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.......................... 44 11E—Ischua channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes...........................46 11F—Ischua channery silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes...........................47 12C—Franklinville channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes....................49 12D—Franklinville channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes..................50 12E—Franklinville channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes.................. 52 12F—Franklinville channery silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes.................. 53 14A—Hornellsville silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..................................... 55 14B—Hornellsville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes..................................... 56 14C—Hornellsville silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes................................... 58 14D—Hornellsville silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes................................. 59 14E—Hornellsville silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes................................. 61 15A—Willdin channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................. 62 15B—Willdin channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.............................. 63 15C—Willdin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes............................ 65 15D—Willdin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.......................... 66 16A—Almond silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................................68 16B—Almond silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.............................................69 16C—Almond silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.......................................... 71 17B—Salamanca silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.......................................73 17C—Salamanca silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.....................................74 17D—Salamanca silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes...................................76 17E—Salamanca silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes...................................77 18F—Rock outcrop-Arnot complex, 25 to 70 percent slopes......................79 19A—Olean silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................................... 80 19B—Olean silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................................... 81 20A—Unadilla silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................................83

Custom Soil Resource Report 20B—Unadilla silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................................84 20C—Unadilla silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..........................................86 20D—Unadilla silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes........................................87 20E—Unadilla silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes........................................89 21A—Oramel gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..................................... 90 21B—Oramel gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes..................................... 92 21C—Oramel gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...................................93 22A—Allard silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................................................95 22B—Allard silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes................................................96 22C—Allard silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes............................................. 97 25A—Chenango gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes...........................99 25B—Chenango gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.........................100 25C—Chenango gravelly silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.......................101 25D—Chenango gravelly silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.....................103 25E—Chenango gravelly silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes.....................104 25F—Chenango gravelly silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes..................... 105 26A—Chenango channery silt loam, fan, 0 to 3 percent slopes............... 107 26B—Chenango channery silt loam, fan, 3 to 8 percent slopes............... 108 27A—Castile gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................. 109 27B—Castile gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................... 111 28A—Scio silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................................................ 112 29B—Arkport sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes...................................... 113 29C—Arkport sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.................................... 115 29D—Arkport sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.................................. 116 29E—Arkport sandy loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes.................................. 118 29F—Arkport sandy loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes.................................. 119 31A—Collamer silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes........................................ 121 31B—Collamer silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................................ 122 31C—Collamer silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...................................... 123 31D—Collamer silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.................................... 125 32A—Churchville silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..................................... 126 32B—Churchville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes..................................... 127 33A—Wallington silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes...................................... 128 34A—Atherton silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes......................................... 130 35A—Rhinebeck silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes......................................131 35B—Rhinebeck silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes......................................132 35C—Rhinebeck silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes....................................134 36A—Canadice silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................. 135 37A—Tonawanda silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.................................... 136 37B—Tonawanda silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.................................... 138 38A—Niagara silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.......................................... 139 38B—Niagara silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.......................................... 140 38C—Niagara silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes........................................ 142 39A—Atherton mucky silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................143 43A—Canandaigua silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................................. 145 44A—Canandaigua mucky silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes...................... 146 46A—Red Hook silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.......................................147 46B—Red Hook silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.......................................148 49A—Red Hook gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes......................... 150 50A—Canaseraga silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................................... 151 50B—Canaseraga silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes................................... 152 50C—Canaseraga silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes................................. 153 51C—Chadakoin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes....................155 51D—Chadakoin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes..................156

Custom Soil Resource Report 51E—Chadakoin channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes..................157 51F—Chadakoin channery silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes.................. 159 52A—Valois gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................................160 52B—Valois gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes................................162 52C—Valois gravelly silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..............................163 52D—Valois gravelly silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes............................165 52E—Valois gravelly silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes............................166 52F—Valois gravelly silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes............................ 168 53C—Valois-Volusia-Mardin complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes.................. 169 58A—Rushford channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes........................ 172 58B—Rushford channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................ 173 58C—Rushford channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...................... 175 58D—Rushford channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.................... 176 58E—Rushford channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes.................... 178 59B—Yorkshire channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................ 179 59C—Yorkshire channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...................... 180 59D—Yorkshire channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.................... 182 60A—Napoli silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................................183 60B—Napoli silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.............................................184 60C—Napoli silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.......................................... 185 60D—Napoli silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes........................................ 187 61B—Schuyler silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.........................................188 61C—Schuyler silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.......................................190 61D—Schuyler silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.....................................191 61E—Schuyler silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes.....................................193 61F—Schuyler silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes..................................... 194 62B—Mardin channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................ 195 62C—Mardin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..........................197 62D—Mardin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes........................198 62E—Mardin channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes........................ 200 64C—Mardin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony....... 201 64D—Mardin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony..... 203 66B—Volusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony......... 205 66C—Volusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony.......206 67A—Dalton silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................................ 207 67B—Dalton silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................................ 208 67C—Dalton silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.......................................... 210 68A—Volusia channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................211 68B—Volusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................... 212 68C—Volusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes......................... 214 68D—Volusia channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes....................... 215 69A—Erie channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.................................216 69B—Erie channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.................................218 69C—Erie channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.............................. 220 71B—Mongaup channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony......221 71C—Mongaup channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony... 223 71D—Mongaup and Ischua channery silt loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely stony...................................................................... 224 71E—Mongaup and Ischua channery silt loams, 25 to 35 percent slopes, extremely stony...................................................................... 226 71F—Mongaup and Ischua channery silt loams, 35 to 65 percent slopes, extremely stony...................................................................... 228 72B—Towerville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes....................................... 230 72C—Towerville silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.....................................231

Custom Soil Resource Report 72D—Towerville silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes...................................233 72E—Towerville silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes................................... 234 72F—Towerville silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes................................... 236 73A—Gretor channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................237 73B—Gretor channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.............................239 73C—Gretor channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...........................240 75A—Alden mucky silt loam, cool, 0 to 3 percent slopes..........................241 76A—Orpark silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................................243 76B—Orpark silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................................244 76C—Orpark silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..........................................245 77A—Chippewa silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.......................................247 77B—Chippewa silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.......................................248 78A—Hornell silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes........................................... 249 78B—Hornell silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................................... 251 78C—Hornell silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes......................................... 252 78D—Hornell silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes....................................... 253 78E—Hornell silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes....................................... 255 79B—Mongaup channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................ 256 79C—Mongaup channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes......................258 79D—Mongaup channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes....................259 79E—Mongaup channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes.................... 261 79F—Mongaup channery silt loam, 35 to 70 percent slopes.................... 262 80A—Fremont silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes......................................... 264 80B—Fremont silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes......................................... 265 80C—Fremont silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes....................................... 267 80D—Fremont silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes..................................... 269 81A—Varysburg gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes...............................270 81B—Varysburg gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes...............................272 81C—Varysburg gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes............................ 273 81D—Varysburg gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.......................... 274 81E—Varysburg gravelly loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes...........................276 81F—Varysburg gravelly loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes...........................277 84B—Elko silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes................................................279 85B—Onoville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes..........................................280 85C—Onoville silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes........................................282 85D—Onoville silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes......................................283 86C—Eldred silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.......................................... 284 86D—Eldred silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes........................................ 286 87A—Shongo silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.......................................... 287 87B—Shongo silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.......................................... 288 87C—Shongo silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes........................................ 290 88A—Ivory silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................................... 291 88B—Ivory silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................................... 292 88C—Ivory silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.............................................294 89B—Portville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.......................................... 296 89C—Portville silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes........................................297 91A—Natchaug muck, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................................ 298 92A—Catden muck, 0 to 2 percent slopes................................................299 93A—Aquepts, Aquents, and Saprists, inundated, 0 to 3 percent slopes.301 95B—Mandy channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................ 303 95C—Mandy channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.......................... 304 95D—Mandy channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes........................ 306 95E—Mandy channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes........................ 307 95F—Mandy channery silt loam, 35 to 70 percent slopes........................ 309

Custom Soil Resource Report 96B—Carrollton channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes....................... 310 96C—Carrollton channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..................... 312 96D—Carrollton channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes................... 313 96E—Carrollton channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes................... 315 96F—Carrollton channery silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes....................316 97D—Kinzua channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes........................318 97E—Kinzua channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes........................ 319 97F—Kinzua channery silt loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes........................ 321 98D—Kinzua channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 322 98E—Kinzua channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 324 98F—Kinzua channery silt loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 326 99B—Buchanan silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.......................................327 99C—Buchanan silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.................................... 329 99D—Buchanan silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.................................. 331 100D—Udorthents, loamy-skeletal, 0 to 25 percent slopes...................... 332 101D—Udorthents, refuse substratum, 0 to 25 percent slopes................ 334 103C—Knapp Creek-Rock outcrop complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes....... 335 111A—Middlebrook channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.................. 336 111B—Middlebrook channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.................. 338 111C—Middlebrook channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes................339 114B—Lewbeach channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.....................340 114C—Lewbeach channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...................342 114D—Lewbeach channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.................344 114E—Lewbeach channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes.................345 115B—Willowemoc channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.................. 347 115C—Willowemoc channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes................ 348 115D—Willowemoc channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.............. 350 116A—Onteora channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes........................ 351 116B—Onteora channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................ 353 116C—Onteora channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...................... 354 117C—Willdin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony...... 356 117D—Willdin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony.... 357 118B—Ontusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony...... 359 118C—Ontusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony.... 360 120A—Hawksnest channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................... 362 120B—Hawksnest channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes................... 363 120C—Hawksnest channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes................. 364 122B—Vly channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes................................ 366 122C—Vly channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..............................367 122D—Vly channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes............................369 122E—Vly channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes............................ 370 122F—Vly channery silt loam, 35 to 55 percent slopes............................ 371 124B—Lewbath channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes....................... 373 124C—Lewbath channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..................... 374 124D—Lewbath channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes................... 375 124E—Lewbath channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes................... 377 125A—Howard gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................................ 378 125B—Howard gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes................................ 380 125C—Howard gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.............................. 381 125D—Howard gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes............................ 383 125E—Howard gravelly loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes............................ 384

Custom Soil Resource Report 125F—Howard gravelly loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes.............................385 126A—Ontusia channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.........................387 126B—Ontusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.........................388 126C—Ontusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...................... 390 126D—Ontusia channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.................... 391 132A—Wiscoy-Volusia complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................ 393 132B—Wiscoy-Volusia complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................ 395 132C—Wiscoy-Volusia complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes.......................... 397 134C—Bath channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes........................... 399 134D—Bath channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes......................... 400 134E—Bath channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes..........................402 135B—Hudson silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................................ 403 135C—Hudson silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...................................... 405 135D—Hudson silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.................................... 406 135E—Hudson silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slope...................................... 407 135F—Hudson silt loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes.....................................409 140E—Dunkirk silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes.....................................410 150B—Canaseraga silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes cool phase............... 411 167A—Dalton silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, cool phase....................... 413 167B—Dalton silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, cool phase....................... 414 171C—Lordstown channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony415 171D—Lordstown and Towerville soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely stony...................................................................................417 171E—Lordstown and Towerville soils, 25 to 35 percent slopes, extremely stony...................................................................................419 171F—Lordstown and Towerville soils, 35 to 60 percent slopes, extremely stony...................................................................................421 177A—Norchip silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes........................................ 423 177B—Norchip silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................................ 424 179B—Lordstown channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.................... 426 179C—Lordstown channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.................. 427 179D—Lordstown channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes................ 429 179E—Lordstown channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes................ 430 179F—Lordstown channery silt loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes.................432 185B—Onoville channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 433 185C—Onoville channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 435 185D—Onoville channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 436 187B—Shongo silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, extremely bouldery........ 437 187C—Shongo silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely bouldery......439 188B—Kanona silty clay loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................... 440 188C—Kanona silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes............................. 441 195C—Mandy channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 443 195D—Mandy channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 444 195E—Mandy channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 446 195F—Mandy channery silt loam, 35 to 70 percent slopes, extremely bouldery.............................................................................................. 447 200D—Udorthents, loamy, 0 to 25 percent slopes....................................449 216B—Morris silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes...........................................451

Custom Soil Resource Report 216C—Morris silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.........................................452 289B—Ceres channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................... 454 289C—Ceres channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes......................... 455 289D—Ceres channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes....................... 456 289E—Ceres channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes....................... 458 289F—Ceres channery silt loam, 35 to 70 percent slopes........................459 292A—Pope fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................................ 460 293A—Philo silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................................462 300A—Tioga loam, rarely flooded, 0 to 3 percent slopes..........................463 496C—Gilpin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..........................465 496D—Gilpin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes........................466 496E—Gilpin channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes........................467 497D—Rayne channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes...................... 469 497E—Rayne channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes.......................471 800A—Holderton silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 140...................................................................................................... 472 PG—Pits, gravel........................................................................................473 PQ—Pits, quarry....................................................................................... 474 Ur—Urban land......................................................................................... 475 W—Water.................................................................................................. 476 Soil Information for All Uses.............................................................................477 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use..................................................................477 Sanitary Facilities..........................................................................................477 Septic Tank Absorption Fields (NY) (Allegany County Study)...................477 Septic Tank Absorption Fields (Allegany County Study)........................... 609 Sewage Lagoons (Allegany County Study)...............................................733 References..........................................................................................................851 Glossary..............................................................................................................853

How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil

Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

719000

728000

737000

746000

755000

764000

773000

4719000

42° 36' 19'' N

4647000

4656000

4665000

4674000

4683000

4692000

4701000

4710000

42° 36' 19'' N

77° 39' 51'' W

78° 22' 4'' W

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map

41° 54' 49'' N

728000

737000

746000

755000

Map Scale: 1:374,000 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Meters 30000 Feet 0 15000 30000 60000 90000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84 0

5000

10000

20000

764000

773000 77° 39' 51'' W

78° 22' 4'' W

719000

41° 54' 49'' N

Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp

MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Spoil Area Stony Spot

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Very Stony Spot Wet Spot

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Other Special Line Features Water Features

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Major Roads Local Roads

Soil Survey Area: Allegany County Area, New York Survey Area Data: Version 31, Aug 29, 2025

Background Aerial Photography

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 2003

Perennial Water Rock Outcrop

Jan 1, 1999—Dec 31,

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

Udifluvents and Fluvaquents, frequently flooded, 0 to 3 percent slopes

5,246.7

0.8%

Tioga loam, occasionally flooded, 0 to 3 percent slopes

2,154.8

0.3%

Wayland soils complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded

4,420.6

0.7%

Wyalusing silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,477.6

0.2%

Middlebury silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

4,739.3

0.7%

Pawling silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

4,312.0

0.7%

11B

Ischua channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

4,600.1

0.7%

11C

Ischua channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

7,661.9

1.2%

11D

Ischua channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

14,303.3

2.2%

11E

Ischua channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

10,622.3

1.6%

11F

Ischua channery silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

3,170.8

0.5%

12C

Franklinville channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

39.3

0.0%

12D

Franklinville channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

306.2

0.0%

12E

Franklinville channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

1,573.3

0.2%

12F

Franklinville channery silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

727.0

0.1%

14A

Hornellsville silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,401.4

0.2%

14B

Hornellsville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

3,326.5

0.5%

14C

Hornellsville silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

2,584.5

0.4%

14D

Hornellsville silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

1,282.0

0.2%

14E

Hornellsville silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

164.5

0.0%

15A

Willdin channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

126.1

0.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

15B

Willdin channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

5,570.8

0.8%

15C

Willdin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

11,012.5

1.7%

15D

Willdin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

9,745.5

1.5%

16A

Almond silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

11,777.9

1.8%

16B

Almond silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

15,428.0

2.3%

16C

Almond silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

6,532.8

1.0%

17B

Salamanca silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

856.9

0.1%

17C

Salamanca silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

1,830.5

0.3%

17D

Salamanca silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

2,037.0

0.3%

17E

Salamanca silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

817.5

0.1%

18F

Rock outcrop-Arnot complex, 25 to 70 percent slopes

332.0

0.1%

19A

Olean silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

3,888.1

0.6%

19B

Olean silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

671.4

0.1%

20A

Unadilla silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

252.2

0.0%

20B

Unadilla silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

56.8

0.0%

20C

Unadilla silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

33.7

0.0%

20D

Unadilla silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

52.4

0.0%

20E

Unadilla silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

45.8

0.0%

21A

Oramel gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

635.2

0.1%

21B

Oramel gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1,085.2

0.2%

21C

Oramel gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

119.3

0.0%

22A

Allard silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

3,043.4

0.5%

22B

Allard silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

686.5

0.1%

22C

Allard silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

192.3

0.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

25A

Chenango gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

4,686.7

0.7%

25B

Chenango gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

2,419.0

0.4%

25C

Chenango gravelly silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

1,578.1

0.2%

25D

Chenango gravelly silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

752.0

0.1%

25E

Chenango gravelly silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

390.8

0.1%

25F

Chenango gravelly silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

499.5

0.1%

26A

Chenango channery silt loam, fan, 0 to 3 percent slopes

3,398.8

0.5%

26B

Chenango channery silt loam, fan, 3 to 8 percent slopes

4,908.9

0.7%

27A

Castile gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,340.7

0.2%

27B

Castile gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

514.1

0.1%

28A

Scio silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

249.9

0.0%

29B

Arkport sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

141.9

0.0%

29C

Arkport sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

460.4

0.1%

29D

Arkport sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

54.7

0.0%

29E

Arkport sandy loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

109.0

0.0%

29F

Arkport sandy loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

93.4

0.0%

31A

Collamer silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

63.9

0.0%

31B

Collamer silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

330.6

0.0%

31C

Collamer silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

497.8

0.1%

31D

Collamer silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

386.7

0.1%

32A

Churchville silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

4.1

0.0%

32B

Churchville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

10.1

0.0%

33A

Wallington silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

33.4

0.0%

34A

Atherton silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,900.7

0.3%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

35A

Rhinebeck silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,288.6

0.2%

35B

Rhinebeck silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

4,559.7

0.7%

35C

Rhinebeck silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

1,356.8

0.2%

36A

Canadice silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

994.2

0.2%

37A

Tonawanda silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

256.1

0.0%

37B

Tonawanda silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

69.1

0.0%

38A

Niagara silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,442.8

0.2%

38B

Niagara silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

2,360.6

0.4%

38C

Niagara silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

285.9

0.0%

39A

Atherton mucky silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

565.7

0.1%

43A

Canandaigua silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,225.8

0.2%

44A

Canandaigua mucky silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

835.2

0.1%

46A

Red Hook silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,192.5

0.2%

46B

Red Hook silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

215.9

0.0%

49A

Red Hook gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

483.0

0.1%

50A

Canaseraga silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

96.1

0.0%

50B

Canaseraga silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

600.0

0.1%

50C

Canaseraga silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

194.3

0.0%

51C

Chadakoin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

47.2

0.0%

51D

Chadakoin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

50.3

0.0%

51E

Chadakoin channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

293.8

0.0%

51F

Chadakoin channery silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

641.6

0.1%

52A

Valois gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

226.8

0.0%

52B

Valois gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

2,454.2

0.4%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

52C

Valois gravelly silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

2,066.9

0.3%

52D

Valois gravelly silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

2,023.5

0.3%

52E

Valois gravelly silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

1,835.1

0.3%

52F

Valois gravelly silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

867.5

0.1%

53C

Valois-Volusia-Mardin complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes

8,484.4

1.3%

58A

Rushford channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

107.7

0.0%

58B

Rushford channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

3,022.7

0.5%

58C

Rushford channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

4,938.0

0.7%

58D

Rushford channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

4,056.8

0.6%

58E

Rushford channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

1,663.6

0.3%

59B

Yorkshire channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1,528.8

0.2%

59C

Yorkshire channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

3,630.5

0.5%

59D

Yorkshire channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

3,156.0

0.5%

60A

Napoli silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,456.1

0.2%

60B

Napoli silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

17,822.5

2.7%

60C

Napoli silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

25,387.0

3.8%

60D

Napoli silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

1,124.6

0.2%

61B

Schuyler silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

127.2

0.0%

61C

Schuyler silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

1,413.9

0.2%

61D

Schuyler silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

2,825.0

0.4%

61E

Schuyler silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

1,446.9

0.2%

61F

Schuyler silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

607.4

0.1%

62B

Mardin channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1,315.6

0.2%

62C

Mardin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

4,236.7

0.6%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

62D

Mardin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

8,739.5

1.3%

62E

Mardin channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

168.8

0.0%

64C

Mardin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony

281.1

0.0%

64D

Mardin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony

742.9

0.1%

66B

Volusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony

245.8

0.0%

66C

Volusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony

761.9

0.1%

67A

Dalton silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

318.2

0.0%

67B

Dalton silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

984.0

0.1%

67C

Dalton silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

127.2

0.0%

68A

Volusia channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

818.0

0.1%

68B

Volusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

9,702.4

1.5%

68C

Volusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

24,314.7

3.7%

68D

Volusia channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

2,319.7

0.4%

69A

Erie channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

136.0

0.0%

69B

Erie channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1,701.1

0.3%

69C

Erie channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

2,008.3

0.3%

71B

Mongaup channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony

61.3

0.0%

71C

Mongaup channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony

60.2

0.0%

71D

Mongaup and Ischua channery silt loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely stony

802.7

0.1%

71E

Mongaup and Ischua channery silt loams, 25 to 35 percent slopes, extremely stony

2,132.9

0.3%

71F

Mongaup and Ischua channery silt loams, 35 to 65 percent slopes, extremely stony

3,938.3

0.6%

72B

Towerville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

298.3

0.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

72C

Towerville silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

1,101.1

0.2%

72D

Towerville silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

3,024.4

0.5%

72E

Towerville silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

3,262.2

0.5%

72F

Towerville silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

1,449.3

0.2%

73A

Gretor channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

4,551.2

0.7%

73B

Gretor channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

9,793.2

1.5%

73C

Gretor channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

5,465.3

0.8%

75A

Alden mucky silt loam, cool, 0 to 3 percent slopes

12.9

0.0%

76A

Orpark silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

126.1

0.0%

76B

Orpark silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

471.5

0.1%

76C

Orpark silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

571.0

0.1%

77A

Chippewa silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,805.3

0.3%

77B

Chippewa silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1,757.4

0.3%

78A

Hornell silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

175.7

0.0%

78B

Hornell silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

519.5

0.1%

78C

Hornell silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

1,289.6

0.2%

78D

Hornell silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

1,440.1

0.2%

78E

Hornell silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

401.8

0.1%

79B

Mongaup channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

9,861.2

1.5%

79C

Mongaup channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

7,627.0

1.2%

79D

Mongaup channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

7,767.0

1.2%

79E

Mongaup channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

7,670.6

1.2%

79F

Mongaup channery silt loam, 35 to 70 percent slopes

4,112.9

0.6%

80A

Fremont silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

688.1

0.1%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

80B

Fremont silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

2,280.6

0.3%

80C

Fremont silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

3,652.6

0.6%

80D

Fremont silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

363.5

0.1%

81A

Varysburg gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

213.7

0.0%

81B

Varysburg gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1,760.8

0.3%

81C

Varysburg gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

925.3

0.1%

81D

Varysburg gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

881.7

0.1%

81E

Varysburg gravelly loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

2,473.5

0.4%

81F

Varysburg gravelly loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

1,703.7

0.3%

84B

Elko silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

888.1

0.1%

85B

Onoville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

89.8

0.0%

85C

Onoville silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

285.8

0.0%

85D

Onoville silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

455.2

0.1%

86C

Eldred silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

9.0

0.0%

86D

Eldred silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

71.4

0.0%

87A

Shongo silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

10.5

0.0%

87B

Shongo silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

75.4

0.0%

87C

Shongo silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

12.8

0.0%

88A

Ivory silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

7.6

0.0%

88B

Ivory silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

15.6

0.0%

88C

Ivory silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

29.3

0.0%

89B

Portville silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

60.0

0.0%

89C

Portville silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

766.2

0.1%

91A

Natchaug muck, 0 to 2 percent slopes

175.1

0.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

92A

Catden muck, 0 to 2 percent slopes

550.9

0.1%

93A

Aquepts, Aquents, and Saprists, inundated, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,666.9

0.3%

95B

Mandy channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

816.7

0.1%

95C

Mandy channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

1,356.1

0.2%

95D

Mandy channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

506.6

0.1%

95E

Mandy channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

1,583.4

0.2%

95F

Mandy channery silt loam, 35 to 70 percent slopes

1,419.5

0.2%

96B

Carrollton channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

123.9

0.0%

96C

Carrollton channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

169.0

0.0%

96D

Carrollton channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

129.9

0.0%

96E

Carrollton channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

420.1

0.1%

96F

Carrollton channery silt loam, 35 to 50 percent slopes

29.8

0.0%

97D

Kinzua channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

128.0

0.0%

97E

Kinzua channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

830.8

0.1%

97F

Kinzua channery silt loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes

27.2

0.0%

98D

Kinzua channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

46.1

0.0%

98E

Kinzua channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

163.3

0.0%

98F

Kinzua channery silt loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

32.4

0.0%

99B

Buchanan silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1.4

0.0%

99C

Buchanan silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

4.4

0.0%

99D

Buchanan silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

687.4

0.1%

100D

Udorthents, loamy-skeletal, 0 to 25 percent slopes

1,349.1

0.2%

101D

Udorthents, refuse substratum, 0 to 25 percent slopes

293.1

0.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

103C

Knapp Creek-Rock outcrop complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes

166.7

0.0%

111A

Middlebrook channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

336.4

0.1%

111B

Middlebrook channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

2,305.4

0.3%

111C

Middlebrook channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

502.4

0.1%

114B

Lewbeach channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

0.6

0.0%

114C

Lewbeach channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

298.3

0.0%

114D

Lewbeach channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

1,356.9

0.2%

114E

Lewbeach channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

1,652.6

0.2%

115B

Willowemoc channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

737.9

0.1%

115C

Willowemoc channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

4,640.6

0.7%

115D

Willowemoc channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

5,156.1

0.8%

116A

Onteora channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

140.6

0.0%

116B

Onteora channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

2,067.5

0.3%

116C

Onteora channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

3,282.9

0.5%

117C

Willdin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony

462.2

0.1%

117D

Willdin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony

991.2

0.1%

118B

Ontusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony

226.4

0.0%

118C

Ontusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony

1,260.7

0.2%

120A

Hawksnest channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

17.6

0.0%

120B

Hawksnest channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

541.2

0.1%

120C

Hawksnest channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

155.5

0.0%

122B

Vly channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1,774.1

0.3%

122C

Vly channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

2,750.9

0.4%

122D

Vly channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

3,791.6

0.6%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

122E

Vly channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

4,224.3

0.6%

122F

Vly channery silt loam, 35 to 55 percent slopes

2,014.4

0.3%

124B

Lewbath channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

821.1

0.1%

124C

Lewbath channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

731.0

0.1%

124D

Lewbath channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

677.9

0.1%

124E

Lewbath channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

2,183.9

0.3%

125A

Howard gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,360.4

0.2%

125B

Howard gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1,396.4

0.2%

125C

Howard gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

1,357.2

0.2%

125D

Howard gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

826.6

0.1%

125E

Howard gravelly loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

603.9

0.1%

125F

Howard gravelly loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes

1,051.0

0.2%

126A

Ontusia channery silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

5,093.6

0.8%

126B

Ontusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

22,138.5

3.3%

126C

Ontusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

29,150.2

4.4%

126D

Ontusia channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

1,828.0

0.3%

132A

Wiscoy-Volusia complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes

2,367.6

0.4%

132B

Wiscoy-Volusia complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes

22,410.6

3.4%

132C

Wiscoy-Volusia complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes

22,683.0

3.4%

134C

Bath channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

146.6

0.0%

134D

Bath channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

467.5

0.1%

134E

Bath channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

746.8

0.1%

135B

Hudson silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

190.1

0.0%

135C

Hudson silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

309.4

0.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

135D

Hudson silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

839.7

0.1%

135E

Hudson silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slope

2,078.0

0.3%

135F

Hudson silt loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes

1,271.5

0.2%

140E

Dunkirk silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

94.8

0.0%

150B

Canaseraga silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes cool phase

334.2

0.1%

167A

Dalton silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, cool phase

493.3

0.1%

167B

Dalton silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, cool phase

839.0

0.1%

171C

Lordstown channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony

43.3

0.0%

171D

Lordstown and Towerville soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely stony

356.1

0.1%

171E

Lordstown and Towerville soils, 25 to 35 percent slopes, extremely stony

266.2

0.0%

171F

Lordstown and Towerville soils, 35 to 60 percent slopes, extremely stony

2,665.8

0.4%

177A

Norchip silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

3,025.9

0.5%

177B

Norchip silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

2,210.8

0.3%

179B

Lordstown channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

240.7

0.0%

179C

Lordstown channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

475.4

0.1%

179D

Lordstown channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

620.2

0.1%

179E

Lordstown channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

1,599.4

0.2%

179F

Lordstown channery silt loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes

1,532.5

0.2%

185B

Onoville channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

128.2

0.0%

185C

Onoville channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

736.3

0.1%

185D

Onoville channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

394.2

0.1%

187B

Shongo silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

50.2

0.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

187C

Shongo silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

13.6

0.0%

188B

Kanona silty clay loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1,266.5

0.2%

188C

Kanona silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

2,359.2

0.4%

195C

Mandy channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

22.2

0.0%

195D

Mandy channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

39.1

0.0%

195E

Mandy channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

55.7

0.0%

195F

Mandy channery silt loam, 35 to 70 percent slopes, extremely bouldery

13.7

0.0%

200D

Udorthents, loamy, 0 to 25 percent slopes

899.1

0.1%

216B

Morris silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

53.3

0.0%

216C

Morris silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

807.9

0.1%

289B

Ceres channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

439.3

0.1%

289C

Ceres channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

1,054.3

0.2%

289D

Ceres channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

1,065.8

0.2%

289E

Ceres channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

2,041.5

0.3%

289F

Ceres channery silt loam, 35 to 70 percent slopes

720.8

0.1%

292A

Pope fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

60.2

0.0%

293A

Philo silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

33.7

0.0%

300A

Tioga loam, rarely flooded, 0 to 3 percent slopes

1,605.6

0.2%

496C

Gilpin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

58.5

0.0%

496D

Gilpin channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

59.5

0.0%

496E

Gilpin channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

458.2

0.1%

497D

Rayne channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes

81.4

0.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

497E

Rayne channery silt loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes

302.3

0.0%

800A

Holderton silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 140

5,912.3

0.9%

Pits, gravel

885.5

0.1%

Pits, quarry

25.7

0.0%

Urban land

411.7

0.1%

Water

Totals for Area of Interest

3,513.8

0.5%

661,753.2

100.0%

Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The

Custom Soil Resource Report delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppB.1_BelfastSoils_8x11-P1

Belfast Sewer District AVG: 43,460 GPD MAX: 132,100 GPD PEAK: 170 GPM WWTP DAF: 48,000 GPD

Not Limited

Town of Belfast Sewer District

Somewhat limited

Proposed WWTP

Very limited Not rated 1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK BELFAST SEWER DISTRICT - SOILS MAP

SHEET NO. B.1 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

RUSHFORD-CANEADEA JOINT SEWER DISTRICT - SOILS MAP

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District AVG: 170,200 GPD MAX: 481,500 GPD PEAK: 600 GPM WWTP DAF: 188,000 GPD

Not Limited Somewhat limited Very limited

Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District Proposed WWTP

Not rated

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Drawn By:

TJV

SEHEET NO. B.2 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppB.2_Rushford-CaneadeaSoils_11x17-L1

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppB.3_BurnsSoils_8x11-P1

Existing Village of Canaseraga WWTP MAX - ----MIN - ----AVG - ----PF - 0.100

Burns Sewer District #1 AVG: 7,640 GPD MAX: 23,230 GPD PEAK: 30 GPM PS DAF: 36 GPM

Not Limited Somewhat limited Very limited Not rated

Existing Village of Canaseraga Sewer District Town of Burns Sewer District #1 Existing WWTP 1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK TOWN OF BURNS SEWER DISTRICT #1 - SOILS MAP

SHEET NO. B.3 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppB.4_AngelicaSoils_8x11-P1

Village of Angelica AVG: 51,780 GPD MAX: 157,410 GPD PEAK: 20 GPM WWTP DAF: 57,000 GPD

Not Limited

Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District

Somewhat limited

Proposed WWTP

Very limited Not rated 1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK VILLAGE OF ANGELICA SEWER DISTRICT - SOILS MAP

SHEET NO. B.4 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

ALFRED-ALMOND EXPANDED JOINT SEWER DISTRICT - SOILS MAP

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Study Area V Pump Station or WWTP

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY

Study Area V Pump Station

Not Limited Somewhat limited Very limited Not rated

1" = 4,000' @ 11 " x 1 7 "

M AY 2 0 2 6

Scale:

Date:

Existing Village of Alfred WWTP MAX - 0.613 MIN - 0.167 AVG - 0.373 PF - 0.980

Drawn By:

Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District AVG: 76,930 GPD MAX: 233,870 GPD PEAK: 300 GPM PS DAF: 360 GPM

TJV

Village of Alfred Sewer District Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District

SHEET NO.

Existing WWTP

B.5

Proposed WWTP

PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppB.5_Alfred-AlmondSoils_11x17-L1

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppB.6_CubaSoils_8x11-P1

Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 18,120 GPD AVG: 30,730 GPD MAX: 47 GPM PEAK: 57 GPM PS DAF:

Existing Town of Cuba WWTP MAX - 0.685 MIN - 0.197 AVG - 0.119 PF - 0.970 Existing Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

Not Limited

Town of Cuba Sewer District

Somewhat limited

Town of Cuba Sewer District #6

Very limited

Existing WWTP

Not rated 1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK TOWN OF CUBA SEWER DISTRICT #6 - SOILS MAP

SHEET NO. B.6 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppB.7_BolivarSoils_8x11-P1

Existing Village of Bolivar WWTP MAX - 0.833 MIN - 0.099 AVG - 0.363 PF - 0.400

Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1 AVG: 7,150 GPD MAX: 21,740 GPD PEAK: 28 GPM PS DAF: 34 GPM

Not Limited Somewhat limited Very limited Not rated

Village of Bolivar Sewer District Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1 Existing WWTP

1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK TOWN OF BOLIVAR SEWER DISTRICT #1 - SOILS MAP

SHEET NO. B.7 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppB.8_WellsvilleSoils_8x11-P1

Existing Village of Wellsville WWTP MAX - 0.172 MIN - 0.600 AVG - 1.073 PF - 2.200

Not Limited Somewhat limited Very limited Not rated

Village of Wellsville Sewer District Truax/Morningside Sewer District Existing WWTP

1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK TRUAX/MORINGSIDE SEWER DISTRICT - SOILS MAP

SHEET NO. B.8 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppB.9_AndoverSoils_8x11-P1

Village of Andover AVG: 69,900 GPD MAX: 212,500 GPD PEAK: 2,269 GPM WWTP DAF: 77,000 GPD

Not Limited Somewhat limited Very limited

Village of Andover Sewer District Proposed WWTP

Not rated

1" = 4,000' MAY 2026

COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER STUDY ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK VILLAGE OF ANDOVER SEWER DISTRICT - SOILS MAP

SHEET NO. B.9 PROJECT NO. 0120.24001

APPENDIX C C Environmental & Cultural Resources

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

C1 Natural Communities C2 Archaeological Resources C3 Streams and Previously Mapped Wetlands C4 Aquifers C5 Potential Environmental Justice Areas

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

C1 – Natural Communities

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppC.1_NaturalCommunities_24x36-P1

27 36

19A

Town of Centerville

Town of Hume

27B

Fillmore PS

Town of Grove

Town of Granger

Canaseraga WWTP

Village of Canaseraga 4

Town of Burns

16 15B

961F 52

13C

Houghton WWTP

14 15A

15A

243

Town of Rushford

Town of Caneadea

Town of Birdsall

Town of Allen

49 7B

Town of Almond 2A

Village of Almond

Town of New Hudson

Town of Belfast

Town of Angelica

Town of West Almond

Village of Angelica 2

305 43

Alfred WWTP 7C 48

Village of Alfred

244

Belmont WWTP

Town of Cuba 86

446

Town of Alfred

Village of Cuba Cuba

Town of Friendship

WWTP

Town of Ward

Village of

Friendship WWTP

Town of Belmont Amity

Saputo Dairy Foods, LLC

Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

31A

Town of Clarksville

Town of Wirt

Town of Andover

Town of Scio

275

Town of Wellsville

Village of Andover

Wellsville WWTP

Village of Wellsville 417

417

Village of Richburg

Bolivar WWTP

22A

Village of Bolivar

Town of Willing

Town of Alma

Town of Bolivar

Town of Genesee

Town of 248 Independence 19A

248A

Existing Service Area Tier I Study Area

Natural Heritage Communities Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

Tier II Study Area

1 Species Present

Existing WW Facility

2 Species Present

0120.24001 SHEET NO. C.1

3 Species Present 4 Species Present 5 Species Present

MRB Group Engineering, Architecture & Surveying, D.P.C. THE CULVER ROAD ARMORY 145 CULVER ROAD, SUITE 160 ROCHESTER, NY 14620 585-381-9250 WWW.MRBGROUP.COM

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 017763

Drawn By:

TJV

Scale:

1" = 7,000' @22"x34"

Date:

M AY 2 0 2 6

C2 – Archaeological Resources

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppC.2_ArchaeologicalResources_24x36-P1

27 36

19A

Town of Centerville

Town of Hume

27B

Fillmore PS

Town of Grove

Town of Granger

Canaseraga WWTP

Village of Canaseraga 4

Town of Burns

16 15B

961F 52

13C

Houghton WWTP

14 15A

15A

243

Town of Rushford

Town of Caneadea

Town of Birdsall

Town of Allen

49 7B

Town of Almond 2A

Village of Almond

Town of New Hudson

Town of Belfast

Town of Angelica

Town of West Almond

Village of Angelica 2

305 43

Alfred WWTP 7C 48

Village of Alfred

244

Belmont WWTP

Town of Cuba 86

446

Town of Alfred

Village of Cuba Cuba

Village of

Town of Friendship

WWTP

Town of Ward

Friendship WWTP

Town of Belmont Amity

Saputo Dairy Foods, LLC

Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

31A

Town of Clarksville

Town of Wirt

Town of Andover

Town of Scio

275

Town of Wellsville

Village of Andover

Wellsville WWTP

Village of Wellsville 417

417

Village of Richburg

Bolivar WWTP

22A

Village of Bolivar

Town of Willing

Town of Alma

Town of Bolivar

Town of Genesee

Town of 248 Independence 19A

248A

Existing Service Area

Existing WW Facility

Tier I Study Area

Archaeologically Sensitive Areas

Tier II Study Area

0120.24001 SHEET NO. C.2

MRB Group Engineering, Architecture & Surveying, D.P.C. THE CULVER ROAD ARMORY 145 CULVER ROAD, SUITE 160 ROCHESTER, NY 14620 585-381-9250 WWW.MRBGROUP.COM

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 017763

Drawn By:

TJV

Scale:

1" = 7,000' @22"x34"

Date:

M AY 2 0 2 6

C3 – Streams and Previously Mapped Wetlands

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppC.3_StreamsWetlands_24x36-P1

27 36

19A

Town of Centerville

Town of Hume

27B

Fillmore PS

Town of Grove

Town of Granger

Canaseraga WWTP

Village of Canaseraga 4

Town of Burns

16 15B

961F 52

13C

Houghton WWTP

14 15A

15A

243

Town of Rushford

Town of Caneadea

Town of Birdsall

Town of Allen

49 7B

Town of Almond 2A

Village of Almond

Town of New Hudson

Town of Belfast

Town of Angelica

Town of West Almond

Village of Angelica 2

305 43

Alfred WWTP 7C 48

Village of Alfred

244

Belmont WWTP

Town of Cuba 86

446

Town of Alfred

Village of Cuba Cuba

Village of

Town of Friendship

WWTP

Town of Ward

Friendship WWTP

Town of Belmont Amity

Saputo Dairy Foods, LLC

Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

31A

Town of Clarksville

Town of Wirt

Town of Andover

Town of Scio

275

Town of Wellsville

Village of Andover

Wellsville WWTP

Village of Wellsville 417

417

Village of Richburg

Bolivar WWTP

22A

Village of Bolivar

Town of Willing

Town of Alma

Town of Bolivar

Town of Genesee

Town of 248 Independence 19A

248A

Existing Service Area

NYS Informational Wetlands

PWL Streams Classified

Tier I Study Area

NYS Mapped Wetlands

Class A Stream

Tier II Study Area

NWI Wetlands

Class B Stream

Existing WW Facility

Class C Waterbody

Class C Stream Class D Stream

0120.24001 SHEET NO. C.3

MRB Group Engineering, Architecture & Surveying, D.P.C. THE CULVER ROAD ARMORY 145 CULVER ROAD, SUITE 160 ROCHESTER, NY 14620 585-381-9250 WWW.MRBGROUP.COM

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 017763

Drawn By:

TJV

Scale:

1" = 7,000' @22"x34"

Date:

M AY 2 0 2 6

C4 – Aquifers

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppC.4_Aquifers_24x36-P1

27 36

19A

Town of Centerville

Town of Hume

27B

Fillmore PS

Town of Grove

Town of Granger

Canaseraga WWTP

Village of Canaseraga 4

Town of Burns

16 15B

961F 52

13C

Houghton WWTP

14 15A

15A

243

Town of Rushford

Town of Caneadea

Town of Birdsall

Town of Allen

49 7B

Town of Almond 2A

Village of Almond

Town of New Hudson

Town of Belfast

Town of Angelica

Town of West Almond

Village of Angelica 2

305 43

Alfred WWTP 7C 48

Village of Alfred

244

Belmont WWTP

Town of Cuba 86

446

Town of Alfred

Village of Cuba Cuba

Village of

Town of Friendship

WWTP

Town of Ward

Friendship WWTP

Town of Belmont Amity

Saputo Dairy Foods, LLC

Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

31A

Town of Clarksville

Town of Wirt

Town of Andover

Town of Scio

275

Town of Wellsville

Village of Andover

Wellsville WWTP

Village of Wellsville 417

417

Village of Richburg

Bolivar WWTP

Town of Genesee

22A

Village of Bolivar

Town of Willing

Town of Alma

Town of Bolivar

Town of 248 Independence 19A

248A

Existing Service Area

Confined, No Overlying Surfical Aquifer

Tier I Study Area

Confined, Unknown Depth and Thickness

Tier II Study Area

Kame, Kame Terrace, Kame Moraine, Outwash or Alluvium

Existing WW Facility

Moraine Unconfined, High Yield Unconfined, Mid Yield

0120.24001 SHEET NO. C.4

MRB Group Engineering, Architecture & Surveying, D.P.C. THE CULVER ROAD ARMORY 145 CULVER ROAD, SUITE 160 ROCHESTER, NY 14620 585-381-9250 WWW.MRBGROUP.COM

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 017763

Drawn By:

TJV

Scale:

1" = 7,000' @22"x34"

Date:

M AY 2 0 2 6

C5 – Potential Environmental Justice Areas

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppC.5_PEJA_24x36-P1

27 36

19A

Town of Centerville

Town of Hume

27B

Fillmore PS

Town of Grove

Town of Granger

Canaseraga WWTP

Village of Canaseraga 4

Town of Burns

16 15B

961F 52

13C

Houghton WWTP

14 15A

15A

243

Town of Rushford

Town of Caneadea

Town of Birdsall

Town of Allen

49 7B

Town of Almond 2A

Village of Almond

Town of New Hudson

Town of Belfast

Town of Angelica

Town of West Almond

Village of Angelica 2

305 43

Alfred WWTP 7C 48

Village of Alfred

244

Belmont WWTP

Town of Cuba 86

446

Town of Alfred

Village of Cuba Cuba

Town of Friendship

WWTP

Town of Ward

Village of

Friendship WWTP

Town of Belmont Amity

Saputo Dairy Foods, LLC

Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

31A

Town of Clarksville

Town of Wirt

Town of Andover

Town of Scio

275

Town of Wellsville

Village of Andover

Wellsville WWTP

Village of Wellsville 417

417

Village of Richburg

Bolivar WWTP

22A

Village of Bolivar

Town of Willing

Town of Alma

Town of Bolivar

Town of Genesee

Town of 248 Independence 19A

248A

Existing Service Area

Existing WW Facility

Potential Environmental Justice Area

Tier I Study Area Tier II Study Area

0120.24001 SHEET NO. C.5

MRB Group Engineering, Architecture & Surveying, D.P.C. THE CULVER ROAD ARMORY 145 CULVER ROAD, SUITE 160 ROCHESTER, NY 14620 585-381-9250 WWW.MRBGROUP.COM

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 017763

Drawn By:

TJV

Scale:

1" = 7,000' @22"x34"

Date:

M AY 2 0 2 6

APPENDIX D D Existing POTW / POSS

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Facility Name______________________

SPDES #_______________ Facility Operator_________________

Facility phone number (___) __________

Date Completed ________

Regional Reviewer________________

FOAS 100-4/95 Circle units/items that apply

Design Flow - 3 points per MGD or part (Minimum 1 point - Maximum 50 points) 3 points x __________ MGD = __________ Flow Points Unit or Item

Points

Preliminary Treatment (Maximum 8 points)

Unit or Item Phosphorus Removal (required by permit), 4K

Bar Screens and/or Comminutor, 1A

Chemical Addition for neutralization, 4L

Manual Grit Removal, 1B

Advanced Treatment Subtotal4

Mechanical or Aerated Grit Removal, 1C

Disinfection (Maximum 8 points)

Pre-aeration, 1D

Chlorination:

Raw sewage or Effluent pumping, 1E

Gas Chlorination, 5A

Flow equalization basin, 1F

Other Chlorination, 5B

(Preliminary Score) Subtotal1

Dechlorination, 5C

Primary Treatment (Maximum 5 points)

Ultraviolet, 5D

Primary Treatment Including: Primary Clarifiers, Imhoff tanks, Spirogesters, Clarigesters, Fixed Screens, and Hydroscreens, 2A

Ozonization, 5E Bromine Chloride, 5F

Primary Treatment Subtotal2

Disinfection Subtotal5

Secondary Treatment (Maximum 25 points)

Solids Handling / Disposal (Maximum 25 points)

Lagoon (unaerated), 3B

Gravity Thickener, 6A

Intermittent sand filters without recirculation, 3C

Dissolved air floatation thickener, 6B

Intermittent sand filters with recirculation, 3D

Centrifugation, (includes all modifications) 6C

Aerated Lagoon, 3E

Aerobic Digestion, 6D

Trickling Filter / Biological Filter without recirculation, 3F

Single Stage Anaerobic Digestion (unheated), 6E

Trickling Filter / Biological Filter with recirculation, 3G

Single Stage Anaerobic Digestion (heated), 6F

Rotating Biological Contactors, 3H

Two Stage Anaerobic Digestion, 6G

Activated Sludge (includes all process modifications), 3I

Sludge Drying Beds, except vacuum assisted drying bed, 6H

Chemical Coagulation with rapid mix, flocculation, clarification, 3J

Belt Filter Press, 6I

Secondary Treatment Subtotal3

Plate & Frame Press, 6O

Advanced Waste Treatment / Tertiary Treatment (Maximum 20 points)

Vacuum Filters, 6P

Polishing pond, 4A

All other dewatering units, 6J

Microscreens, 4B

Land Application, 6K

Intermittent sand filter, 4C

Composting:

Rapid sand filter, 4D

Invessel, 6L

Activated carbon columns or beds, 4E

Static Pile, 6M

Reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, ion exchange, 4F

Solids Reduction (incineration, wet oxidation), 6N

Nitrification required by permit (Ammonia, TKN, or UOD limit):

Points 8 3

5 2 3 5 5 5

5 8 8 5 5 8 10 3 8 8 8 5 5

10 5 15

Solids Handling/Disposal Subtotal6

by Activated Sludge, 4G

Miscellaneous

Nitrification by other process, 4H

Nutrient addition (nitrogen and/or phosphorus), 7A

Denitrification required by permit (Nitrate or Total Nitrogen limit):

Carbon Regeneration (onsite), 7B

Nitrification by Activated Sludge and Denitrification, 4I

Miscellaneous Subtotal7

Nitrification by other process and Denitrification, 4J

Total Score (add subtotals 1 thru 7 plus Flow Points)

3 10

L:\DOW\FOAS_Certification\Plant Scoring\Plant Scoring & Instructions.pdf

FOAS 100-4/95

Wastewater Treatment Plant Rating Worksheet for Wastewater Treatment Plant Certification (Ref: Part 650.3, 650.6) Attached is the scoring system for wastewater treatment plants in New York State. Scoring will be done to determine the certification grade of the chief operator and the assistant/shift operator needed at each wastewater treatment plant. The operator grades are divided into two designations, a number (1, 2, 3, or 4 with 1 being the lowest and 4 the highest grade), and the letter "A" for wastewater treatment plant operators working at facilities using the activated sludge process. All other treatment processes have no letter designation. The scoring system is based on types of treatment processes at the wastewater treatment plant and flow. Generally the treatment unit receives points only for its designed purpose or function (example - a spare aerobic digester being used as a gravity thickener only receives points for an aerobic digester). Below are some basic guidelines for completing the scoring sheet. These guidelines are intended to cover most but not all possible options. DEC, specifically FOAS, will make the final determination regarding scoring questions. No additional points will be given for units/items not listed in the scoring system. 1)

Flow Scoring - Flow scoring should be based on the 30 day average design flow limit of the treatment plant. If the 30 day average design flow is not known, the SPDES permit 30 day average flow limit should be used. If the average design flow is not known and there is no SPDES permit flow limit, flow points will be based on actual flow measurements - the flow points will be calculated from the maximum recorded 30 day average flow. The calculated flow point score should be rounded to the nearest whole number. Example; 3 pts x 6.4 MGD = 19.2 or 19 Flow Points.

Raw sewage or effluent pumping - can be onsite, or offsite such as a pump station if there are no connections between the pump station and the plant.

An aerated grit chamber is not a preaeration unit.

A flow equalization basin must be a unit designed for flow equalization, not a sewer or an empty tank.

Secondary Treatment - Secondary Clarifier scoring is included in the secondary treatment processes. additional points are given for secondary clarifiers.

Lagoons - No double scoring for lagoons. Example; the first lagoon is aerated and subsequent lagoons are unaerated, scores 7 points for the aerated lagoon, no additional points for the unaerated lagoon.

A lagoon or pond is not an activated sludge process unless it meets the following definition; A mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and aerated. The activated sludge is then separated from the treated wastewater by sedimentation and returned or wasted to the process as needed.

Trickling Filters - No double scoring for trickling filters. Two trickling filters in series or parallel are 1 unit regardless of differences in size, media or recirculation capability. If one or more units has recirculation, the facility receives 11 points (TF with recirculation).

Polishing Pond - to be considered a polishing pond, the pond must directly follow a settling unit that has sludge withdrawal. Example; Two lagoons in series do not receive points for a lagoon and a polishing pond even if the second lagoon is unaerated. A trickling filter followed by a secondary clarifier then a pond or lagoon will receive points for the polishing pond.

10)

Multiple Treatment Units - Two treatment units may be scored if they exist at the WWTP, (see exceptions above), but the maximum scoring for secondary treatment is still 25 points. Example #1; Activated Sludge 20 points + Trickling Filter 11 points = 31 points, would receive 25 points for secondary treatment. Example #2; Trickling Filter with recirculation 11 points followed by an RBC 11 points = 22 points.

11)

Chemical Coagulation with Rapid mix, flocculation, & clarification - To receive credit for this option, there must be separate rapid mix, flocculation and clarification units that are independent of primary or biological treatment systems. Chemical coagulation processes following biological treatment are ineligible.

12)

Rapid Sand Filter - any filter with backwash capability is considered a rapid sand filter.

L:\DOW\FOAS_Certification\Plant Scoring\Plant Scoring & Instructions.pdf

13)

Advanced Waste Treatment, Nitrification - To get points for nitrification the WWTP must have a permit limit for Ammonia, TKN, or UOD. Monitoring alone does not receive the points. Credit for Nitrification is limited to one treatment process (activated sludge or other processes, not both).

14)

Denitrification points - the WWTP must have a permit limit for Nitrates or Total Nitrogen. Denitrification is limited to one treatment process (activated sludge or other processes, not both).

15)

Nitrification/Denitrification - No plant can receive points in both the nitrification and denitrification categories. The nitrification fraction is built into the denitrification points.

16)

Chemical Addition for Neutralization - To receive credit, the chemical addition must be performed for metals removal or be necessary to meet effluent pH limits .

17)

Solids Handling Aerobic Digester - To be considered an aerobic digester the unit must have a volume of at least 5% of the design flow of the plant and have aeration and decant capability.

18)

Sludge Lagoons, Sludge Holding Tanks and/or Wet hauling sludge to another facility does not receive points.

19)

Solids Handling - To receive points for composting or land application, it must be the primary stabilization/solids disposal process of the WWTP (more than 50 percent of the sludge produced by the WWTP must be composted or land applied) and have a valid Part 360 Permit. Example; pilot composting projects do not receive points.

20)

Spray Irrigation of waste is considered the same as raw sewage or effluent pumping and receives 3 points. There is no double scoring for pumping. Example; Influent pumping and spray irrigation only receives 3 points not 6.

21)

Miscellaneous - Nutrient addition, nitrogen or phosphorus, must have permanently installed equipment with the proper tanks and metering pumps to receive points.

22)

Out-of-Service Equipment or Equipment not being used - If a piece of equipment is at the WWTP and not regularly used, but is operable if needed, it does receive points. If a piece of equipment has been abandoned, or disconnected from the flow scheme, or is inoperable, it does not receive points.

23)

Overland Treatment does not receive points.

When each subtotal and the Flow Points are determined, they are all added together to reach the Total WWTP Score. This score, with the following table, establishes the minimum grade of Chief Operator and the Assistant/shift Operator needed at the WWTP. Total Treatment Plant Score

30 and less

31 - 55

56 - 75

76 and greater

Grade of Chief Operator Required

1/1A

2/2A

3/3A

4/4A

Grade of Assistant/Shift Operator Required

1/1A

2/2A

3/3A

If you have any questions please contact the Bureau of Water Compliance, at (518) 402-8177.

L:\DOW\FOAS_Certification\Plant Scoring\Plant Scoring & Instructions.pdf

D1 – Village of Alfred

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) DISCHARGE PERMIT SIC Code: 4952

NAICS Code: 221320

SPDES Number:

NY 0022357

Discharge Class (CL):

DEC Number:

9-0220-00017/00002

Toxic Class (TX):

Effective Date (EDP):

08/01/2021

Major-Sub Drainage Basin:

05 - 03

Expiration Date (ExDP):

07/31/2026

Water Index Number:

PA 3-57-5-47 Item No.: 811 - 103

Compact Area:

SRBC

Modification Dates (EDPM):

This SPDES permit is issued in compliance with Title 8 of Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law of New York State and in compliance with the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. '1251 et.seq.) PERMITTEE NAME AND ADDRESS Name:

Village of Alfred

Street:

7 West University Street

City:

Alfred (V)

State:

Email:

alfredwastewater@yahoo.com

Phone:

(607) 587-8374

Attention:

Becky Prophet, Mayor Zip Code:

14802

is authorized to discharge from the facility described below: FACILITY NAME, ADDRESS, AND PRIMARY OUTFALL Name:

Alfred Wastewater Treatment Plant

Address / Location:

198 North Main Street

City:

Alfred (V)

Facility Location: Primary Outfall No.: Outfall Description:

001

State: NY

County:

Allegany

Zip Code:

14802

Latitude:

42 °

15 ’

52 ” N

& Longitude:

77 °

46 ’

44 ” W

Latitude:

42 °

15 ’

50 ” N

& Longitude:

77 °

46 ’

44 ” W

Treated Sanitary

Receiving Water: Canacadea Creek

Class:

in accordance with: effluent limitations; monitoring and reporting requirements; other provisions and conditions set forth in this permit; and 6 NYCRR Part 750-1 and 750-2. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire on midnight of the expiration date shown above and the permittee shall not discharge after the expiration date unless this permit has been renewed or extended pursuant to law. To be authorized to discharge beyond the expiration date, the permittee shall apply for permit renewal not less than 180 days prior to the expiration date shown above. DISTRIBUTION: CO BWP - Permit Coordinator CO BWC - SCIS RWE RPA EPA Region II NYSEFC

Chief Permit Administrator: Address: Signature:

Scott E. Sheeley Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway, 4th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1750 Date: June 25, 2021

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 2 of 14

DEFINITIONS FOR PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING TERMS TERM

DEFINITION

7-Day Geo Mean

The highest allowable geometric mean of daily discharges over a calendar week.

7-Day Average

The average of all daily discharges for each 7-days in the monitoring period. The sample measurement is the highest of the 7-day averages calculated for the monitoring period.

12-Month Rolling Average (12 MRA)

The current monthly value of a parameter, plus the sum of the monthly values over the previous 11 months for that parameter, divided by 12.

30-Day Geometric Mean

The highest allowable geometric mean of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the antilog of: the sum of the log of each of the daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month.

Action Level

Action level means a monitoring requirement characterized by a numerical value that, when exceeded, triggers additional permittee actions and department review to determine if numerical effluent limitations should be imposed.

Compliance Level / Minimum Level

A compliance level is an effluent limitation. A compliance level is given when the water quality evaluation specifies a Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL) below the Minimum Level. The compliance level shall be set at the Minimum Level (ML) for the most sensitive analytical method as given in 40 CFR Part 136, or otherwise accepted by the Department.

Daily Discharge

The discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for the purposes of sampling. For pollutants expressed in units of mass, the ‘daily discharge’ is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement, the ‘daily discharge’ is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day.

Daily Maximum

The highest allowable Daily Discharge.

Daily Minimum

The lowest allowable Daily Discharge.

Effective Date of Permit (EDP or EDPM)

The date this permit is in effect.

Effluent Limitations

Effluent limitation means any restriction on quantities, quality, rates and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents of effluents that are discharged into waters of the state.

Expiration Date of Permit (ExDP)

The date this permit is no longer in effect.

Instantaneous Maximum

The maximum level that may not be exceeded at any instant in time.

Instantaneous Minimum

The minimum level that must be maintained at all instants in time.

Monthly Average

The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of each of the daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month.

Outfall

The terminus of a sewer system, or the point of emergence of any waterborne sewage, industrial waste or other wastes or the effluent therefrom, into the waters of the State.

Range

The minimum and maximum instantaneous measurements for the reporting period must remain between the two values shown.

Receiving Water

The classified waters of the state to which the listed outfall discharges.

Sample Frequency / Sample Type / Units

See NYSDEC’s “DMR Manual for Completing the Discharge Monitoring Report for the SPDES” for information on sample frequency, type and units.

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 3 of 14

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING OUTFALL

LIMITATIONS APPLY

RECEIVING WATER

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING

001

All Year

Canacadea Creek

08/01/2021

07/31/2026

EFFLUENT LIMITATION

PARAMETER

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Location

Sample Frequency

Sample Type

Inf.

MGD

Continuous

Recorder

6.5-8.5

1/Day

Grab

Daily Maximum

Monitor

⁰C

1/Day

Grab

CBOD5

Monthly Average

mg/L

204

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

CBOD5

7-Day Average

mg/L

327

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Monthly Average

mg/L

245

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

7-Day Average

mg/L

368

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Settleable Solids

Daily Maximum

0.1

mL/L

1/Day

Grab

Dissolved Oxygen

Daily Minimum

7.0

mg/L

1/Week

Grab

UOD (June 1st to Oct 31st)

Daily Maximum

mg/L

200

lbs/d

2/Month

Calculated

UOD (Nov 1st to May 31st)

Daily Maximum

mg/L

550

lbs/d

2/Month

Calculated

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (as N)

Monthly Average

Monitor

mg/L

Monitor

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Ammonia (as N) June 1st to Oct 31st

Daily Maximum

0.87

mg/L

7.1

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Ammonia (as N) Nov 1st to May 31st

Daily Maximum

1.5

mg/L

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Nitrogen, Nitrate (as N)

Monthly Average

Monitor

mg/L

Monitor

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Nitrogen, Nitrite (as N)

Monthly Average

Monitor

mg/L

Monitor

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Total Nitrogen (as N)

Monthly Average

Monitor

mg/L

Monitor

lbs/d

2/Month

Calculated

Total Nitrogen (as N)

Monthly Total

Monitor lbs/mon

1/Month

Calculated

Total Nitrogen (as N)

12-Month Rolling Total

35,000

lbs/yr

1/Month

Calculated

Total Phosphorus (as P)

Monthly Average

Monitor

lbs/d

2/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Total Phosphorus (as P)

Monthly Total

Monitor lbs/mon

1/Month

Calculated

Total Phosphorus (as P)

12-Month Rolling Total

1,200

1/Month

Calculated

Mercury

Daily Maximum

ng/L

1/Quarter

Grab

Mercury

12-Month Rolling Average

ng/L

1/Quarter

Calculated

Copper

Daily Maximum

ug/L

1/Quarter

Grab

Type

Limit

Units

Flow

Monthly Average

0.98

Range

Temperature

Continued on Next Page

0.5

mg/L

Limit

Units

lbs/yr

Eff.

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING (continued)

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 4 of 14

OUTFALL

LIMITATIONS APPLY

RECEIVING WATER

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING

001

May 1st – October 31st

Canacadea Creek

08/01/2021

07/31/2026

EFFLUENT DISINFECTION Required Seasonal from May 1st - October 31st

Limit

Units

Limit

Units

Sample Sample Type Frequency

Inf.

Eff.

Coliform, Fecal

30-Day Geometric Mean

200

No./ 100 mL

1/Week

Grab

Coliform, Fecal

7-Day Geometric Mean

400

No./ 100 mL

1/Week

Grab

Chlorine, Total Residual

Daily Maximum

0.03

mg/L

2/Day

Grab

7,8

FOOTNOTES: 1. Effluent shall not exceed 15% and 15% of influent concentration values for BOD5 & TSS respectively. 2. Ultimate Oxygen Demand (UOD) shall be computed as follows: UOD = (1.5 × CBOD5) + (4.5 × TKN). 3. This is a final effluent limitation. See Schedule of Compliance for interim effluent limitation. 4. Total Nitrogen (as N) = [Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), as N] + [Nitrite (NO2), as N] + [Nitrate (NO3), as N]. 5. Total Nitrogen (as N), and Total Phosphorus (as P), month total (lbs/month) is calculated as the monthly average load (lbs/d) multiplied by the number of days in the month. 6. Total Nitrogen (as N), and Total Phosphorus (as P), 12-month rolling total (lbs/year) is calculated as the current month load (lbs/mon) added to the month loads from the previous eleven months. 7. Reporting for Total Residual Chlorine is only applicable if chlorine is used for disinfection, elsewhere in the treatment process, or the facility otherwise has reasonable potential to discharge chlorine. 8. This is a Compliance Level. The calculated WQBEL is 0.006 mg/L.

MERCURY MINIMIZATION PROGRAM – Type II

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 5 of 14

1. General - The permittee must develop, implement, and maintain a mercury minimization program (MMP), containing the elements set forth below, to reduce mercury effluent levels with the goal of achieving the WQBEL of 0.7 ng/L. 2. MMP Elements - The MMP must be a written document and must include any necessary drawings or maps of the facility and/or collection system. Other related documents already prepared for the facility may be used as part of the MMP and may be incorporated by reference. At a minimum, the MMP must include the following elements as described in detail below: a. Monitoring - Monitoring at outfall, influent and other locations tributary to compliance points may be performed using either USEPA Method 1631 or another sufficiently sensitive method, as approved under 40 CFR Part 136 1. Monitoring of raw materials, equipment, treatment residuals, and other non-wastewater/non-stormwater substances may be performed using other methods as appropriate. Monitoring must be coordinated so that the results can be effectively compared between locations. Minimum required monitoring is as follows: i. Sewage Treatment Plant Influent & Effluent – The permittee must collect samples at each of these locations in accordance with the minimum frequency specified on the pages of the SPDES permit that contain the mercury effluent limitations. ii. Key Locations and Potential Mercury Sources – The permit includes reduced monitoring requirements and does not require key location sampling. See section 2.a.iv below. iii. Hauled Wastes – The permittee must establish procedures for the acceptance of hauled waste to ensure the hauled waste is not a potential mercury source. Loads which may exceed 500 ng/L, 2 must receive approval from the Department prior to acceptance. iv. Monitoring Requirements - The permittee has an EEQ at or below 12 ng/L and the permit includes the following: 1) Reduced requirements a) Conduct influent monitoring, sampling semi-annually, in lieu of monitoring within the collection system, such as at key locations; and b) Conduct effluent compliance sampling semi-annually. 2) If a facility with reduced requirements reports discharges above 12 ng/L for two of four consecutive effluent samples, the Department may undertake a Department-initiated modification to remove the allowance of reduced requirements. 3) Under the decreased permit requirements, the facility must continue to conduct an annual status report, as applicable in accordance with 2.c of this MMP, to determine if any waste streams have changed. v. Additional monitoring must be completed as required elsewhere in this permit (e.g., locations tributary to compliance points). b. Control Strategy - The control strategy must contain the following minimum elements: i. Pretreatment/Sewer Use Law - The permittee must review pretreatment program requirements and the Sewer Use Law (SUL) to ensure it is up-to-date and enforceable with applicable permit requirements and will support efforts to achieve a dissolved mercury concentration of 0.70 ng/L in the effluent. ii. Monitoring and Inventory/Inspections 1) Monitoring shall be performed as described in 2.a above. As mercury sources are found, the permittee must enforce its sewer use law to track down and minimize 1 Outfall monitoring must be conducted using the methods specified in Table 8 of DOW 1.3.10.

2A level of 0.2 mg/L (200,000 ng/L) or more is considered hazardous per 40 CFR Part 261.11. 500 ng/L is used here to alert the permittee

that there is an unusual concentration of mercury and that it will need to be managed appropriately.

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 6 of 14

these sources. 2) The permittee must inventory and/or inspect users of its system as necessary to support the MMP. a) Dental Facilities 1. The permittee must maintain an inventory of each dental facility. 2. The permittee must inspect each dental facility at least once every five years to verify compliance with the wastewater treatment operation, maintenance, and notification elements of 6 NYCRR 374.4. Alternatively, the permittee may develop and implement an outreach program, 3 which informs users of their responsibilities, and collect the “Amalgam Waste Compliance Report for Dental Dischargers” 4 form, as needed, to satisfy the inspection requirements. The permittee must conduct the outreach program at least once every five years and ensure the “Amalgam Waste Compliance Report for Dental Dischargers” are submitted by new users, as necessary. The outreach program could be supported by a subset of site inspections. 3. A file shall be maintained containing documentation demonstrating compliance with 2.b.ii.2)a) above. This file shall be available for review by the Department representatives and copies shall be provided upon request. b) Other potential mercury sources 1. The permittee must maintain an inventory of other potential mercury sources. 2. The permittee must inspect other potential mercury sources once every five years. Alternatively, the permittee may develop and implement an outreach program which informs users of their responsibilities as potential mercury sources. The permittee must conduct the outreach program at least once every five years. The outreach program should be supported by a subset of site inspections. 3. A file shall be maintained containing documentation demonstrating compliance with 2.b.ii.2)b) above. This file shall be available for review by the Department representatives and copies shall be provided upon request. iii. Systems with CSO & Type II SSO Outfalls – Permittees must prioritize potential mercury sources upstream of CSOs and Type II SSOs for mercury reduction activities and/or controlled-release discharge. iv. Equipment and Materials – Equipment and materials (e.g., thermometers, thermostats) used by the permittee, which may contain mercury, must be evaluated by the permittee. As equipment and materials containing mercury are updated/replaced, the permittee must use mercury-free alternatives, if possible. v. Bulk Chemical Evaluation – For chemicals, used at a rate which exceeds 1,000 gallons/year or 10,000 pounds/year, the permittee must obtain a manufacturer’s certificate of analysis, a chemical analysis performed by a certified laboratory, and/or a notarized affidavit which describes the substances’ mercury concentration and the detection limit achieved. If possible, the permittee must only use bulk chemicals utilized in the wastewater treatment process which contain <10 ppb mercury. 3 For example, the outreach program could include education about sources of mercury and what to do if a mercury source is found. 4 The form, “Amalgam Waste Compliance Report for Dental Dischargers,” can be found here:

https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/dentalform.pdf

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 7 of 14

c. Annual Status Report - An annual status report must be completed and maintained on site summarizing: i. All MMP monitoring results for the previous year; ii. A list of known and potential mercury sources 1) If the permittee meets the criteria for MMP Type IV, the permittee must notify the Department for a permittee-initiated modification; iii. All actions undertaken, pursuant to the control strategy, during the previous year; iv. Actions planned, pursuant to the control strategy, for the upcoming year; and v. Progress towards achieving a dissolved mercury concentration of 0.70 ng/L in the effluent (e.g., summarizing reductions in effluent concentrations as a result of the control strategy implementation and/or installation/modification of a treatment system). The first annual status report is due in accordance with the Schedule of Additional Submittals. The permittee must maintain a file with all MMP documentation, including the dental forms required by 6 NYCRR 374.4. The file must be available for review by Department representatives and copies must be provided upon request in accordance with 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(i) and 7502.5(c)(4). 3. MMP Modification - The MMP must be modified whenever: a. Changes at the facility, or within the collection system, increase the potential for mercury discharges; b. Effluent discharges exceed the current permit limitation(s); or c. A letter from the Department identifies inadequacies in the MMP. The Department may use information in the annual or semiannual status reports, as applicable in accordance with 2.c of this MMP, to determine if the permit limitations and MMP Type is appropriate for the facility. DEFINITIONS: Key location – a location within the collection/wastewater system (e.g. including but not limited to a specific manhole/access point, tributary sewer/wastewater connection, or user discharge point) identified by the permittee as a potential mercury source. The permittee may adjust key locations based upon sampling and/or best professional judgement. Potential mercury source – a source identified by the permittee that may reasonably be expected to have total mercury contained in the discharge. Some potential mercury sources include switches, fluorescent lightbulbs, cleaners, degreasers, thermometers, batteries, hauled wastes, universities, hospitals, laboratories, landfills, Brownfield sites, or raw material storage.

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 8 of 14

DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (a) The permittee shall install and maintain identification signs at all outfalls to surface waters listed in this permit, unless the Permittee has obtained a waiver in accordance with the Discharge Notification Act (DNA). Such signs shall be installed before initiation of any discharge. (b) Subsequent modifications to or renewal of this permit does not reset or revise the deadline set forth in (a) above, unless a new deadline is set explicitly by such permit modification or renewal. (c) The Discharge Notification Requirements described herein do not apply to outfalls from which the discharge is composed exclusively of storm water, or discharges to ground water. (d) The sign(s) shall be conspicuous, legible and in as close proximity to the point of discharge as is reasonably possible while ensuring the maximum visibility from the surface water and shore. The signs shall be installed in such a manner to pose minimal hazard to navigation, bathing or other water related activities. If the public has access to the water from the land in the vicinity of the outfall, an identical sign shall be posted to be visible from the direction approaching the surface water. The signs shall have minimum dimensions of eighteen inches by twenty-four inches (18" x 24") and shall have white letters on a green background and contain the following information:

N.Y.S. PERMITTED DISCHARGE POINT SPDES PERMIT No.: NY__________ OUTFALL No. :____ For information about this permitted discharge contact: Permittee Name: _________________________________________________________________________ Permittee Contact: ________________________________________________________________________ Permittee Phone:

(

) - ### - ####

OR: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Office Address: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Phone: (

) - ### -####

(e) Upon request, the permittee shall make available electronic or hard copies of the sampling data to the public. In accordance with the RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS page of your permit, each DMR shall be maintained (either electronically or as a hard copy) on record for a period of five years. (f) The permittee shall periodically inspect the outfall identification sign(s) in order to ensure they are maintained, are still visible, and contain information that is current and factually correct. Signs that are damaged or incorrect shall be replaced within 3 months of inspection. (g) If the permittee believes that any outfall which discharges wastewater from the permitted facility meets any of the DNA waiver criteria, notification must be made to the Department’s Bureau of Water Permits. Provided there is no objection by the Department, a sign for the involved outfall(s) are not required. This notification must include the facility’s name, address, telephone number, contact, permit number, outfall number(s), and reason why such outfall(s) is waived from the requirements of discharge notification. The Department may evaluate the applicability of a waiver at any time and take appropriate measures to assure that the ECL and associated regulations are complied with.

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 9 of 14

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE a) The permittee shall comply with the following schedule: Outfall(s)

Compliance Action

Due Date

001

Schedule of Compliance Status Reports Submit interim status reports on the progress related to meeting the specified final limits.

05/01/2022, and every 9 months thereafter

001

Total Phosphorus Concentration Limit The permittee shall comply with the final effluent concentration limit for total phosphorus of 0.5 mg/L. This requirement will be monitor only until the limit takes effect.

02/01/2023

001

Ammonia Concentration Limit The permittee shall comply with the final effluent concentration limits for ammonia as N of 0.7 mg/L (summer) and 1.5 mg/L (winter). The interim limits are in table below.

08/01/2025

001

Total Copper Concentration Limit The permittee shall comply with the final effluent concentration limits for total copper of 26 ug/L. The interim limits are in table below.

08/01/2025

The above compliance actions are one-time requirements. The permittee shall comply with the above compliance actions to the Department’s satisfaction once. When this permit is administratively renewed by NYSDEC letter entitled “SPDES NOTICE/RENEWAL APPLICATION/PERMIT,” the permittee is not required to repeat the submission(s) noted above. The above due dates are independent from the effective date of the permit stated in the “SPDES NOTICE/RENEWAL APPLICATION/PERMIT” letter. INTERIM EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR PARAMETERS SUBJECT TO THIS SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE Outfall

Parameter(s) Affected

001

Total Phosphorus

Interim Effluent Limit Type Limit Units See Note 1

Monitor

mg/L

Limits Apply Notes Year-Round June October

1.0 001

Ammonia as N

See Note 1

mg/L

November May

2.9 001 Notes:

Total Copper

See Note 1

Monitor

mg/L

Year-Round

Interim Limits Expire

02/01/2023

08/01/2025

1. See permit limits table for sample type and frequency.

b) The permittee shall submit a written notice of compliance or non-compliance with each of the above schedule dates no later than 14 days following each elapsed date, unless conditions require more immediate notice as prescribed in 6 NYCRR Part 750-1.2(a) and 750-2. All such compliance or non-compliance notification shall be sent to the locations listed under the section of this permit entitled RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS. Each notice of non-compliance shall include the following information: 1. A short description of the non-compliance; 2. A description of any actions taken or proposed by the permittee to comply with the elapsed schedule requirements without further delay and to limit environmental impact associated with the non-compliance; 3. Any details which tend to explain or mitigate an instance of non-compliance; and 4. An estimate of the date the permittee will comply with the elapsed schedule requirement and an assessment of the probability that the permittee will meet the next scheduled requirement on time. c) The permittee shall submit copies of any document required by the above schedule of compliance to the NYSDEC Regional Water Engineer and to the Bureau of Water Permits.

MONITORING LOCATIONS

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 10 of 14

The permittee shall take samples and measurements, to comply with the monitoring requirements specified in this permit, at the locations(s) specified below: Influent: Influent Structure Effluent: After UV Disinfection

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 11 of 14

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

A. The regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 750 are hereby incorporated by reference and the conditions are enforceable requirements under this permit. The permittee shall comply with all requirements set forth in this permit and with all the applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 750 incorporated into this permit by reference, including but not limited to the regulations in paragraphs B through I as follows: B. General Conditions 1. Duty to comply 2. Duty to reapply 3. Need to halt or reduce activity not a defense 4. Duty to mitigate 5. Permit actions 6. Property rights 7. Duty to provide information 8. Inspection and entry

6 NYCRR 750-2.1(e) & 2.4 6 NYCRR 750-1.16(a) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(g) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(f) 6 NYCRR 750-1.1(c), 1.18, 1.20 & 2.1(h) 6 NYCRR 750-2.2(b) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(i) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(a) & 2.3

C. Operation and Maintenance 1. Proper Operation & Maintenance 2. Bypass 3. Upset

6 NYCRR 750-2.8 6 NYCRR 750-1.2(a)(17), 2.8(b) & 2.7 6 NYCRR 750-1.2(a)(94) & 2.8(c)

D. Monitoring and Records 1. Monitoring and records 2. Signatory requirements

6 NYCRR 750-2.5(a)(2), 2.5(a)(6), 2.5(c)(1), 2.5(c)(2), & 2.5(d) 6 NYCRR 750-1.8 & 2.5(b)

E. Reporting Requirements 1. Reporting requirements 2. Anticipated noncompliance 3. Transfers 4. Monitoring reports 5. Compliance schedules 6. 24-hour reporting 7. Other noncompliance 8. Other information 9. Additional conditions applicable to a POTW

6 NYCRR 750-2.5, 2.7 & 1.17 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(a) 6 NYCRR 750-1.17 6 NYCRR 750-2.5(e) 6 NYCRR 750-1.14(d) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(c) & (d) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(e) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(f) 6 NYCRR 750-2.9

F. Planned Changes 1. The permittee shall give notice to the Department as soon as possible of planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility when: a. b. c.

The alteration or addition to the permitted facility may meet any of the criteria for determining whether facility is a new source in 40 CFR §122.29(b); or The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are subject either to effluent limitations in the permit, or to notification requirements under 40 CFR §122.42(a)(1); or The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee’s sludge use or disposal practices, and such alteration, addition, or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.

In addition to the Department, the permittee shall submit a copy of this notice to the United States Environmental Protection Agency at the following address: U.S. EPA Region 2, Clean Water Regulatory Branch, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (continued) 2.

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 12 of 14

Notification Requirement for POTWs All POTWs shall provide adequate notice to the Department and the USEPA of the following: a.

Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those pollutants; or b. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the permit. c. For the purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on: i. the quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and ii. any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW. POTWs shall submit a copy of this notice to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, at the following address: U.S. EPA Region 2, Clean Water Regulatory Branch, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 G. Sludge Management The permittee shall comply with all applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360. H. SPDES Permit Program Fee The permittee shall pay to the Department an annual SPDES permit program fee within 30 days of the date of the first invoice, unless otherwise directed by the Department, and shall comply with all applicable requirements of ECL 720602 and 6 NYCRR Parts 480, 481 and 485. Note that if there is inconsistency between the fees specified in ECL 720602 and 6 NYCRR Part 485, the ECL 72-0602 fees govern. I.

Water Treatment Chemicals (WTCs) New or increased use and discharge of a WTC requires prior Department review and authorization. At a minimum, the permittee must notify the Department in writing of its intent to change WTC use by submitting a completed WTC Notification Form for each proposed WTC. The Department will review that submittal and determine if a SPDES permit modification is necessary or whether WTC review and authorization may proceed outside of the formal permit administrative process. The majority of WTC authorizations do not require SPDES permit modification. In any event, use and discharge of a WTC shall not proceed without prior authorization from the Department. Examples of WTCs include biocides, coagulants, conditioners, corrosion inhibitors, defoamers, deposit control agents, flocculants, scale inhibitors, sequestrants, and settling aids. 1. WTC use shall not exceed the rate explicitly authorized by this permit or otherwise authorized in writing by the Department. 2. The permittee shall maintain a logbook of all WTC use, noting for each WTC the date, time, exact location, and amount of each dosage, and, the name of the individual applying or measuring the chemical. The logbook must also document that adequate process controls are in place to ensure that excessive levels of WTCs are not used. 3. The permittee shall submit a completed WTC Annual Report Form each year that they use and discharge WTCs. This form shall be submitted in electronic format and attached to either the December DMR or the annual monitoring report required below. The WTC Notification Form and WTC Annual Report Form are available from the Department’s website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/93245.html

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 13 of 14

RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS A.

The monitoring information required by this permit shall be retained for a period of at least five years from the date of the sampling for subsequent inspection by the Department or its designated agent.

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs): Completed DMR forms shall be submitted for each one (1) month reporting period in accordance with the DMR Manual available on Department’s website. DMRs must be submitted electronically using the electronic reporting tool (NetDMR) specified by NYSDEC. Instructions on the use of NetDMR can be found at https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/103774.html. Hardcopy paper DMRs will only be received at the address listed below for the Bureau of Water Permits, if a waiver from the electronic submittal requirements has been granted by DEC to the facility. Attach the monthly "Wastewater Facility Operation Report" (form 92-15-7) and any required DMR attachments electronically to the DMR or with the hardcopy submittal. The first monitoring period begins on the effective date of this permit, and, unless otherwise required, the reports are due no later than the 28th day of the month following the end of each monitoring period.

The monitoring information required by this permit shall be summarized and reported to the RWE and Bureau of Water Permits at the following addresses: Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water, Bureau of Water Permits 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-3505 Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Water Engineer, Region 9 270 Michigan Ave., Buffalo, New York, 14203

Phone: (518) 402-8111

Phone: (716) 851-7070

Bypass and Sewage Pollutant Right to Know Reporting: In accordance with the Sewage Pollutant Right to Know Act (ECL § 17-0826-a), Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are required to notify DEC and Department of Health within two hours of discovery of an untreated or partially treated sewage discharge and to notify the public and adjoining municipalities within four hours of discovery. Information regarding reporting and other requirements of this program may be found on the Department’s website. In addition, POTWs are required to provide a five-day incident report and supplemental information to the DEC in accordance with Part 750-2.7(d) by utilizing the Division of Water Report of Noncompliance Event form unless waived by DEC on a case-by-case basis.

Schedule of Additional Submittals: The permittee shall submit as a hardcopy the following information to the Regional Water Engineer and to the Bureau of Water Permits, unless otherwise instructed: SCHEDULE OF ADDITIONAL SUBMITTALS Outfall(s)

Required Action

Due Date

001

WATER TREATMENT CHEMICAL (WTC) ANNUAL REPORT FORM The permittee shall submit a completed WTC Annual Report Form each year that Water Treatment Chemicals are used. The form shall be attached to the December DMR.

January 28th Each Year

001

MERCURY MINIMIZATION PLAN The permittee must complete and maintain onsite an annual mercury minimization status report in accordance with the requirements of this permit.

MAINTAIN ONSITE May 1, 2022 and annually thereafter

SPDES Number: NY 0022357 Page 14 of 14

Monitoring and analysis shall be conducted using sufficiently sensitive test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit.

More frequent monitoring of the discharge(s), monitoring point(s), or waters of the State than required by the permit, where analysis is performed by a certified laboratory or where such analysis is not required to be performed by a certified laboratory, shall be included in the calculations and recording of the data on the corresponding DMRs.

Calculations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified in this permit.

Unless otherwise specified, all information recorded on the DMRs shall be based upon measurements and sampling carried out during the most recently completed reporting period.

Any laboratory test or sample analysis required by this permit for which the State Commissioner of Health issues certificates of approval pursuant to section 502 of the Public Health Law shall be conducted by a laboratory which has been issued a certificate of approval. Inquiries regarding laboratory certification should be directed to the New York State Department of Health, Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program.

D2 – Village of Belmont

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) DISCHARGE PERMIT First3.9Q

Industrial Code: Discharge Class (CL): Toxic Class (IX): Major Drainage Basin: Sub Drainage Basin: Water Index Number: Compact Area:

4952 07 N

04 03 Ont 117 IJC

SPDES Number: NY 0031844 DEC Number: 9-0228-00005/00001 Effective Date (EDP): 7/1/2009 Expiration Date (ExDP): 6/30/2014 Modification Dates: (EDPM) 8/1/2011

Name: Village of Belmont Street: 1 Schuyler Street City: Belmont is authorized to discharge from the facility described below:

State:

Zip Code: 14813

County:

Allegany

FACILITY NAME AND ADDRESS Name: Village of Belmont WWTF Location (V): Belmont Facility Address: Corner Erie & Willard Streets Belmont City: 249.096 NYTM-E: at Latitude: 42 0 From Outfall No.: 001 Genesee River into receiving waters known as:

State: NY Zip Code: 14813 NYTM - N: 4679.727 02 • 13 • 48" & Longitude: _78 0 Class:

25 ..

in accordance with: effluent limitations; monitoring and reporting requirements; other provisions and conditions set forth this permit; and 6 NYCRR Part 750-1.2(a) and 750-2. DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR) MAILING ADDRESS Mailing Name: Village of Belmont 1 Schuyler Street Street: City: Belmont Mayor, Village of Belmont Responsible Official or Agent:

State:

NY Zip Code: 14813 Phone: (585) 268-5522

This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire on midnight of the expiration date shown above and the permittee shall not discharge after the expiration date unless this permit has been renewed, or extended pursuant to law. To be authorized to discharge beyond the expiration date, the permittee shall apply for permit renewal not less than 180 days prior to the expiration date shown above. DISTRffiUTION:

CO BWP - Permit Coordinator RWE RPA NYSEFC (Class 05 & 07 only)

Pennit Administrator: Douglas E. Borschel Address: 270 Michigan Ave. Buffalo. New York 14203-2915 Signa,-,:::

Date:

DEC #9-0228-00005/00001

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY0031844 Page 2 of9

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING DEFINITIONS L:\OOW\lSPDESFORMS\!REORGANIZED PERMIT FORMS'O Easv nemlrts\lnd EZ.wnrl

OUTFALL

WASTEWATER TYPE

RECEIVING WATER

This cell describes the type of wastewater authorized for discharge. Examples include process or sanitary wastewater, storm water, non-contact cooling water. PARAMETER e.g. pH, TRC, Temperature, D.O.

PARA METER

MINIMUM The minimum level that must be maintained at all instants in time.

EFFLUENT LIMIT

EFFECTIVE

This cell lists classified waters of the state to which the listed outfall discharges.

The date this page starts in effect. (e.g. EDP or EDPM)

MAXIMUM

UNITS

The maximum level that may not be exceeded at any instant in time.

SU, OF, mg/l, etc.

PRACTICAL QUANTlTATION LIMIT (ML)

Limit types are defmed below in For the purposes of compliance Note I. The effluent limit is assessment, the analytical method developed based on the more specified in the permit shall be used of technology-based to monitor the amount of the pollutant stringent standards, required under the Clean in the outfall to this level, provided Water Act, or New York State water that the laboratory analyst has quality standards. The limit has heen complied with the specified quality derived based on existing assurance/quality control procedures assumptions and rules. These in the relevant method. Monitoring assumptions include receiving water results that are lower than this level hardness, pH and temperature; rates must be reported, but shall not be of this and other discharges to the used to detennine compliance with If the calculated limit. This ML can be receiving stream; etc. assumptions or rules change the neither lowered nor raised without a limit may, after due process and modification of this permit. modification of this permit, change.

EXPIRING

ACTION LEVEL Action Levels are monitoring requirements, as defined below in Note 2, that trigger additional monitoring and permit review when exceeded.

The date this page is no longer in effect. (e.g. ExDP)

SAMPLE FREQ.

UNITS

This can include units offlow, pH, mass, Temperature, concentration. Examples include Ilg/I, lbs/d, etc.

SAMPLE TYPE

SAMPLE SAMPLE FREQUENCY TYPE Examples include Daily, 3/week, weekly, 2/month, monthly, quarterly, 2/yr and yearly

Examples include grab, 24 hour composite and 3 grab samples collected over a 6 hour period.

Note I: DAILY DISCHARGE: The discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for the purposes of sampling. For pollutants expressed in units of mass, the 'daily discharge' is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement, the 'daily discharge' is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. DAILY MAX: The highest allowable daily discharge. DAILY MIN: The lowest allowable daily discharge. MONTHLY AVG (daily avg): The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of each of the daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month. RANGE: The minimum and maximum instantaneous measurements for the reporting period must remain between the two values shown. 7 DAY ARITHMETIC MEAN (7 day average): The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar week. 12 MRA (twelve month rolling avg): The average of the most recent twelve month's monthly averages. 30 DAY GEOMETRIC MEAN (30 d geo meim): The highest allowable geometric mean of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the antilog of: the sum of the log of each of the daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month. 7 DAY GEOMETRIC MEAN (7 d geo mean): The highest allowable geometric mean of daily discharges over a calendar week.

Note 2: ACTION LEVELS: Routine Action Level monitoring results, ifnot provided for on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) fonn, shall be appended to the DMR for the period during which the sampling was conducted. If the additional monitoring requirement is triggered as noted below, the permittee shall undertake a short-term, high-intensity monitoring program for the parameter(s). Samples identical to those required for routine monitoring purposes shall be taken on each of at least three consecutive operating and discharging days and analyzed. Results shall be expressed in terms of both concentration and mass, and shall be submitted no later than the end of the third month following the month when the additional monitoring requirement was triggered. Results may be appended to the DMR or transmitted under separate cover to the same address. If levels higher than the Action Levels are confirmed, the permit may be reopened hy the Department for consideration of revised Action Levels or effluent limits. The pennittee is not authorized to discharge any of the listed parameters at levels which may cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. The additional monitoring requirement is triggered upon receipt by the permittee of any monitoring results in excess of the stated Action Level.

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY0031844 Page 3 of9

DEC #9-0228-00005/00001

INTERIM PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING

001

RECEIVING WATER

LIMITATIONS APPLY:

OUTFALL No.

Genesee River Ont 117

All Year unless otherwise noted

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING CCD + 3 months

EDP

Footnote (3)

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

EFFLUENT LIMIT

PARAMETER Location Sample Frequency

Sample Type

Continuous

Recorder

Ibs/d

lImonth

Ibs/d

mg/I

mg/l

Daily Max.

0.3

Range

Type

Limit

Units

Flow

Monthly average

0.155

MGD

~OD5

Monthly average

mg/I

Ia°Ds

7 day average

mg/I

Solids, Suspended

. Monthly average

Solids, Suspended

7 day average

Solids, Settleable pH Phosphorus (as P) [remperature

Limit

Units

Inf.

Eff.

6 hr. composite

lImonth

6 hr. composite

Ibs/d

lImonth

6 hr. composite

Ibs/d

lImonth

6 hr. composite

mill

Daily

Grab

6.0-9.0

Daily

Grab

30 day average

Monitor

. mg/I

lImonth

6 hr. composite

Daily Max.

Monitor

DeU:

Daily

Grab

Effluent Disinfection required: [ x ] All Year [

(I)

X X

] Seasonal from

Coliform, Fecal

30 day geometric mean

200

No.1 100 ml

l/month

Gra'b

Coliform, Fecal

7 day geometric mean

400

No.1 100 ml

lImonth

Grab

Chlorine, Total Residual

Daily maximum

2.0

mg/l

Daily

Grab

FOOTNOTES:

(I)

(I) and effluent shall not exceed _15_ % and _1_5_ % of influent concentration values for BODs & TSS respectively. (2) Ultimate Oxygen Demand shall be computed as follows: UOD = 1.5 X CBODs + 4.5 X TKN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen). (3) These interim limits shall apply for the existing plant until 3 months after the completion of construction date (CCD). See the compliance schedule on page 8 of this permit.

DEC #9-0228-00005/00001

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY0031844 Page 4 of9

FINAL PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING OUTFALL No. 001

LIMITATIONS APPLY:

RECEIVING WATER

All Year unless otherwise noted

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING

CCD + 3 months ExDP

Genesee River Ont 117

Footnote (3)

EFFLUENT LIMIT

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

PARAMETER

FN Location Sample Frequency

Sample Type

Continuous

Recorder

Ibs/d

lImonth

Ibs/d

mg/I

Daily Max.

0.3

Range

Type

Limit

Units

Flow

Monthly average

0.215

MGD

BODs

Monthly average

mg/I

BODs

7 day average

mg/I

Solids, Suspended

Monthly average

Solids, Suspended

7 day average

Solids, Settleable pH Phosphorus (as P) Temperature

Limit

Units

Inf.

Eff.

6 hr. composite

lImonth

6 hr. composite

Ibs/d

lImonth

6 hr. composite

Ibs/d

lImonth

6 hr. composite

ml/I

Daily

Grab

6.0 - 9.0

Daily

Grab

30 day average

1.0

mg/I

lImonth

6 hr. composite

Daily Max.

Monitor

DelLE

Daily

Grab

(I)

X X

Effluent Disinfection required: [ x ] All Year [ ] Seasonal from _to Coliform, Fecal

30 day geometric mean

200

No.1 100 ml

lImonth

Grab

Coliform, Fecal

7 day geometric mean

400

No.1 100 ml

lImonth

Grab

FOOTNOTES:

(1) and effluent shall not exceed _1_5_ % and _1_5_ % of influent concentration values for BODs & TSS respectively. (2) Ultimate Oxygen Demand shall be computed as follows: UOD = 1.5 X CBODs + 4.5 X TKN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen).

(3) These final limits shall apply for the new plant starting 3 months after the completion of construction date (CCD). See the compliance schedule on page 8 of this permit.

DEC #9-0228-00005/00001

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY0031844 Page50f9

MERCURY MINIMIZATION PROGRAM - Low Priority POTWs The pennittee shall inspect each tributary dental facility at least once every five years to verify compliance with the wastewater treatment operation, maintenance, and notification elements of 6NYCRR Part 374.4. Inspection and/or outreach to other industrial/commercial sectors which may contribute mercury is also recommended. All new or increased tributary discharges, including hauled wastes, which are from sources that are industrial in nature shall be evaluated for mercury content and if levels exceed 500 ng/L then authorization shall be obtained from the Department prior to acceptance. Equipment and materials which may contain mercury shall be also evaluated by the pennittee and replaced with mercury-free alternatives where environmentally preferable. A file shall be maintained containing the notices submitted by dental offices and all other pertinent infonnation. This file shall be available for review by NYSDEC representatives and copies shall be provided upon request. A pennit modification may be necessary to include more stringent requirements for POTWs which do not maintain low mercury effluent levels. Note - the mercury-related requirements in this pennit confonn to the mercury Multiple Discharge Variance specified in NYSDEC policy DOW 1.3.10.

MONITORING LOCATIONS The permittee shall take samples and measurements, to comply with the monitoring requirements specified in this permit, at the location(s) specified below: Influent samples shall be collected from the influent to the plant, prior to any return streams from the treatment process. Final effluent samples shall be collected after the end of all treatment units, and before admixture with the stream.

DEC #9-0228-00005/00001

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY0031844 Page 6 of9

DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (a)

Except as provided in (c) and (f) of these Discharge Notification Act requirements, the permittee shall install and maintain identification signs at all outfalls to surface waters listed in this permit. Such signs shall be installed within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Modification.

(b)

Subsequent modifications to or renewal of this permit does not reset or revise the deadline set forth in (a) above, unless a new deadline is set explicitly by such permit modification or renewal.

(c)

The Discharge Notification Requirements described herein do not apply to outfalls from which the discharge is composed exclusively of storm water, or discharges to ground water.

(d)

The sign(s) shall be conspicuous, legible and in as close proximity to the point of discharge as is reasonably possible while ensuring the maximum visibility from the surface water and shore. The signs shall be installed in such a manner to pose minimal hazard to navigation, bathing or other water related activities. If the public has access to the water from the land in the vicinity of the outfall, an identical sign shall be posted to be visible from the direction approaching the surface water. The signs shall have minimum dimensions of eighteen inches by twenty four inches (18" x 24") and shall have white letters on a green background and contain the following information:

N.Y.S. PERMITTED DISCHARGE POINT SPDES PERMIT No.: NY

OUTFALL No. : For information about this permitted discharge contact: Permittee Name:

Permittee Contact:

Perm ittee Phone:

) - ### - tf:###

OR: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Office Address: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Phone: (

(e)

) - ###-####

For each discharge required to have a sign in accordance with a), the permittee shall, concurrent with the installation of the sign, provide a repository of copies of the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), as required by the RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS page of this permit. This repository shall be open to the public, at a minimum, during normal daytime business hours. The repository may be at the business office repository of the permittee or at an off-premises location of its choice (such location shall be the village, town, city or county clerk's office, the local library or other location as approved by the Department). In accordance with the RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS page of your permit, each DMR shall be maintained on record for a period of five years.

DEC #9-0228-00005/00001 (f)

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY0031844 Page 7 of9

All requirements of the Discharge Notification Act, including public repository requirements, are waived for any outfall meeting any of the following circumstances, provided Department notification is made in accordance with (g): (i)

such sign would be inconsistent with any other state or federal statute;

(ii)

the Discharge Notification Requirements contained herein would require that such sign could only be located in an area that is damaged by ice or flooding due to a one-year storm or storms of less severity;

(iii)

instances in which the outfall to the receiving water is located on private or government property which is restricted to the public through fencing, patrolling, or other control mechanisms. Property which is posted only, without additional control mechanisms, does not qualify for this provision;

(iv)

instances where the outfall pipe or channel discharges to another outfall pipe or channel, before discharge to a receiving water; or

(v)

instances in which the discharge from the outfall is located in the receiving water, two-hundred or more feet from the shoreline of the receiving water.

(g)

If the permittee believes that any outfall which discharges wastewater from the permitted facility meets any of the waiver criteria listed in (f) above, notification (form enclosed) must be made to the Department's Bureau of Water Permits, Central Office, of such fact, and, provided there is no objection by the Department, a sign and DMR repository for the involved outfall(s) are not required. This notification must include the facility's name, address, telephone number, contact, permit number, outfall number(s), and reason why such outfall(s) is waived from the requirements of discharge notification. The Department may evaluate the applicability of a waiver at any time, and take appropriate measures to assure that the ECL and associated regulations are complied with.

(h)

The permittee shall periodically inspect the outfall identification signs in order to ensure that they are maintained, are still visible and contain information that is current and factually correct.

DEC #9-0228-00005/00001

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY0031844 Page 8 of9

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE a)

The pennittee shaH comply with the following schedule' Outfall Number(s) 001

Compliance Action Within two weeks of the completion of construction of the new wastewater treatment facility, the permittee or their cngineer shall submit a letter notifying the Department of the Completion of Construction Date (CCD). This CCD is referenced on pages 3 and 4 of this pennit and differentiates whether Interim or Final Pemlit Limitations are in effect.

Due Date CCD + 2 weeks

The above compliance actions are one time requirements. The permittee shall comply with the above compliance actions to the Department's satisfaction once. When this permit is administratively renewed by NYSDEC letter entitled "SPDES NOTICE/RENEWAL APPLICATION/PERMIT," the permittee is not required to repeat the submission(s) noted above. The above due dates are independent from the effective date of the permit stated in the letter of "SPDES NOTICE/RENEWAL APPLICATION/PERMIT." b)

The pennittee shall submit a written notice of compliance or non-compliance with each of the above schedule dates no later than 14 days following each elapsed date, unless conditions require more immediate notice as prescribed in 6 NYCRR Part 750-1.2(a) and 750-2. All such compliance or non-compliance notification shall be sent to the locations listed under the section of this permit entitled RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORlNG REQUIREMENTS. Each notice of non-compliance shall include the following information: I. A short description of the non-compliance; 2. A description of any actions taken or proposed by the permittee to comply with the elapsed schedule requiremcnts without further delay and to limit environmental impact associated with the non-compliance; 3. A description or any factors which tend to explain or mitigate the non-compliance; and 4. An estimate of the date the pemlittee will comply with the elapsed schedule requirement and an assessment of the probability that the pemlittee will meet the next scheduled requirement on timc.

The permittee shall submit copies of any document required by the above schedule of compliance to NYSDEC Regional Water Engineer at the location listed under the section of this permit entitled RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORlNG REQUIREMENTS and to the Bureau of Water Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, N.Y. 12233-3505, unless otherwise specified in this permit or in writing by thc Department.

DEC #9-0228-00005/00001

SPDES PERMIT NUMBER NY0031844 Page 9 of9

RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS a)

The pennittee shall also refer to 6 NYCRR Part 750-1.2(a) and 750-2 for additional information concerning monitoring and reporting requirements and conditions.

The monitoring information required by this permit shall be summarized, signed and retained for a period of five years from the date of the sampling for subsequent inspection by the Department or its designated agent. Also, monitoring information required by this permit shall be summarized and reported by submitting;

[2f] (if box is checked) completed and signed Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms for each _1_ month reporting period to the locations specified below. Blank forms are available at the Department's Albany office listed below. The first reporting period begins on the effective date ofthis permit and the reports will be due no later than the 28th day of the month following the end of each reporting period.

D (ifbox is checked) an annual report to the Regional Water Engineer at the address specified below. The annual report is due by February 1 and must summarize information for January to December of the previous year in a format acceptable to the Department. ~ (ifbox is checked) a monthly "Wastewater Fal ility Operation Report... " (form 92-15-7) to the:

~ Regional Water Engineer and/or

D County Health Department or Environmental Control Agency specified below

Send the DMRs with original signatures to: Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Bureau of Water Compliance Programs 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-3506

Send a £!!..I!Y of each DMR page to: Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Water Engineer 270 Michigan Avenue Buffalo, New York 14203 Phone: 716-851-7070

Phone: (518) 402-8177 Send an additional...£QJ!Lof each DMR page to:

Allegany County Health Department County Office Building Court Street Belmont, New York 14813

Noncompliance with the provisions of this pennit shall be reported to the Department as prescribed in 6 NYCRR Part 750-1.2(a) and 750-2.

Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this pennit.

If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the pennit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136 or as specified in this pennit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculations and recording of the data on the Discharge Monitoring Reports.

Calculation for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified in this permit.

Unless otherwise specified, all information recorded on the Discharge Monitoring Report shall be based upon measurements and sampling carried out during the most recently completed reporting period.

Any laboratory test or sample analysis required by this permit for which the State Commissioner of Health issues certificates of approval pursuant to section five hundred two of the Public Health Law shall be conducted by a laboratory which has been issued a certificate of approval. Inquiries regarding laboratory certification should be sent to the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, New York State Health Department Center for Laboratories and Research, Division of Environmental Sciences, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12201.

D3 – Village of Bolivar

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) DISCHARGE PERMIT Industrial Code: SPDES Number: 4952 NY0022381 Discharge Class (CL): 07 DEC Number: 9-0238-00014/00001 Toxic Class (TX): Effective Date (EDP): N February 1, 2016 Major Drainage Basin: 02 Expiration Date (ExDP): January 31, 2021 Sub Drainage Basin: Modification Dates: (EDPM) July 1, 2018 01 Water Index Number: PA39 July 25, 2018 Compact Area: ORSANCO This SPDES permit is issued in compliance with Title 8 of Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law of New York State and in compliance with the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. '1251 et.seq.) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). PERMITTEE NAME AND ADDRESS Name:

Village of Bolivar

Street:

252 Main Street

City:

Bolivar

Attention:

State:

James Barnes NY

Zip Code:

14715

is authorized to discharge from the facility described below: FACILITY NAME AND ADDRESS Name: Village of Bolivar WWTF Location Bolivar (C,T,V): Facility Address: West Liberty Street City: Bolivar From Outfall 001 No.: into receiving waters known as:

County: Allegany

State: at Latitude:

42 º

Zip Code: 14715

´´

& Longitude: 78

Class:

Little Genesee Creek

´ 38

´´

C (T)

and (list other Outfalls, Receiving Waters & Water Classifications) Outfall 001A and Outfall 002, Little Genesee Creek, C (T) in accordance with: effluent limitations; monitoring and reporting requirements; other provisions and conditions set forth in this permit; and 6 NYCRR Part 750-1and 750-2. DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR) MAILING ADDRESS Mailing Name: Village of Bolivar WWTF Street:

252 Main Street

City:

Bolivar

State:

Responsible Official or Agent: Mr. James Barnes

Zip Code: 14715

Phone:

(585) 928-2834

CO BWP - Permit Coordinator RWE RPA USEPA Region 2 NYSEFC NYSDOH District Office

Deputy Chief Permit Administrator: Kent P. Sanders Address: Division of Environmental Permits

625 Broadway, 4th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1750 Signature:

Date:

07/25/2018

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 2 of 17

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING DEFINITIONS OUTFALL

WASTEWATER TYPE RECEIVING WATER This cell describes the type of wastewater authorized This cell lists classified for discharge. Examples include process or sanitary waters of the state to which wastewater, storm water, non-contact cooling water. the listed outfall discharges.

PARAMETER MINIMUM e.g. pH, TRC, The minimum level that must be Temperature, D.O. maintained at all instants in time. PARAMETER

EFFLUENT LIMIT or CALCULATED LEVEL Limit types are defined below in Note 1. The effluent limit is developed based on the more stringent of technology-based limits, required under the Clean Water Act, or New York State water quality standards. The limit has been derived based on existing assumptions and rules. These assumptions include receiving water hardness, pH and temperature; rates of this and other discharges to the receiving stream; etc. If assumptions or rules change the limit may, after due process and modification of this permit, change.

MAXIMUM The maximum level that may not be exceeded at any instant in time.

COMPLIANCE LEVEL / MINIMUM LEVEL (ML) For the purposes of compliance assessment, the permittee shall use the approved EPA analytical method with the lowest possible detection limit as promulgated under 40CFR Part 136 for the determination of the concentrations of parameters present in the sample unless otherwise specified. If a sample result is below the detection limit of the most sensitive method, compliance with the permit limit for that parameter was achieved. Monitoring results that are lower than this level must be reported, but shall not be used to determine compliance with the calculated limit. This Minimum Level (ML) can be neither lowered nor raised without a modification of this permit.

EFFECTIVE The date this page starts in effect. (e.g. EDP or EDPM)

UNITS SU, °F, mg/l, etc.

SAMPLE FREQ. See below

EXPIRING The date this page is no longer in effect. (e.g. ExDP) SAMPLE TYPE See below

ACTION UNITS SAMPLE LEVEL FREQUENCY Action This can Examples Levels are include units include Daily, monitoring of flow, pH, 3/week, requirements, mass, weekly, as defined temperature, 2/month, below in or monthly, Note 2, concentration. quarterly, 2/yr which trigger Examples and yearly. All additional include μg/l, monitoring monitoring lbs/d, etc. periods and permit (quarterly, review when semiannual, exceeded. annual, etc.) are based upon the calendar year unless otherwise specified in this Permit.

SAMPLE TYPE Examples include grab, 24 hour composite and 3 grab samples collected over a 6 hour period.

Notes: 1. EFFLUENT LIMIT TYPES: a. DAILY DISCHARGE: The discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for the purposes of sampling. For pollutants expressed in units of mass, the ‘daily discharge’ is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement, the ‘daily discharge’ is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. b. DAILY MAX: The highest allowable daily discharge. c. DAILY MIN: The lowest allowable daily discharge. d. MONTHLY AVG: The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of each of the daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month. e. 7 DAY ARITHMETIC MEAN (7 day average): The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar week. f. 30 DAY GEOMETRIC MEAN: The highest allowable geometric mean of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the antilog of: the sum of the log of each of the daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month. g. 7 DAY GEOMETRIC MEAN: The highest allowable geometric mean of daily discharges over a calendar week. h. 12 MONTH ROLLING AVERAGE: The current monthly value of a parameter, plus the sum of the monthly values over the previous 11 months for that parameter, divided by 12. i. RANGE: The minimum and maximum instantaneous measurements for the reporting period must remain between the two values shown. 2. ACTION LEVELS: Routine Action Level monitoring results, if not provided for on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form, shall be appended to the DMR for the period during which the sampling was conducted. If the additional monitoring requirement is triggered as noted below, the permittee shall undertake a short-term, high-intensity monitoring program for the parameter(s). Samples identical to those required for routine monitoring purposes shall be taken on each of at least three consecutive operating and discharging days and analyzed. Results shall be expressed in terms of both concentration and mass, and shall be submitted no later than the end of the third month following the month when the additional monitoring requirement was triggered. Results may be appended to the DMR or transmitted under separate cover to the same address. If levels higher than the Action Levels are confirmed, the permit may be reopened by the Department for consideration of revised Action Levels or effluent limits. The permittee is not authorized to discharge any of the listed parameters at levels which may cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 3 of 17

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING OUTFALL

LIMITATIONS APPLY:

RECEIVING WATER

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING

001

All Year.

Little Genesee Creek

07/01/2018

01/31/2021

EFFLUENT LIMIT

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

PARAMETER

FN Location Sample Limit Units Frequency

Sample Type

Inf. Eff.

0.4

MGD Continuous

Recorder

Monitor MGD Continuous

Recorder

Type

Limit

Units

Monthly Average

Daily Maximum

Range

6.5-8.5

1/day

Grab

Temperature

Daily Maximum Monitor Deg F

1/day

Grab

CBOD5 (June 1- October 31)

Daily Maximum Monitor mg/l

lbs/d

Monthly Average

mg/l

100

7-Day Average

mg/l

UOD (June 1- October 31)

Daily Maximum

Solids, Suspended (June 1- October 31)

Daily Maximum

(1)

Flow X

(1)

1/month

6-hr. Comp. X

(2)

lbs/d

1/month

6-hr. Comp. X

(1) (2)

150

lbs/d

1/month

6-hr. Comp.

mg/l

200

lbs/d

1/month

Calculated

(3)

mg/l

lbs/d

1/month

6-hr. Comp. X

(2)

Monthly Average

mg/l

100

lbs/d

1/month

6-hr. Comp. X

(1) (2)

7-Day Average

mg/l

150

lbs/d

1/month

6-hr. Comp.

Solids, Settleable (June 1- October 31)

Daily Maximum

0.1

ml/l

1/day

Grab

Solids, Settleable (November 1- May 31)

Daily Maximum

0.3

ml/l

1/day

Grab

Oxygen, Dissolved (June 1- October 31)

Daily Minimum

7.0

mg/l

1/day

Grab

Oxygen, Dissolved (November 1- May 31)

Daily Minimum

2.0

mg/l

1/day

Grab

Nitrogen, TKN (June 1- October 31)

Daily Maximum Monitor mg/l

1/month

6-hr. Comp

Nitrogen, Ammonia (as N) (June 1- October 31)

Daily Maximum

1.6

mg/l

1/month

6-hr. Comp

Nitrogen, Ammonia (as N) (November 1- May 31) Monthly Average

3.6

mg/l

1/month

6-hr. Comp

(1)

BOD5 (November 1- May 31)

Solids, Suspended (November 1- May 31)

Effluent Disinfection required

[ ] All Year

(1)

[ X ] Seasonal from May 1 to October 31

Coliform, Fecal

30-Day Geometric Mean

200

No./ 100 mL

1/month

Grab

(4)

Coliform, Fecal

7 Day Geometric Mean

400

No./ 100 mL

1/month

Grab

(4)

Monthly Average

Monitor

lbs/day

1/day

Grab

X (4)(5)

Chlorine, Total Residual

Monitor µg/L

Daily Maximum

Footnotes listed on page 4 of this permit.

Monitor

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 4 of 17

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING OUTFALL

LIMITATIONS APPLY:

RECEIVING WATER

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING

001A

All Year.

Little Genesee Creek

07/01/2018

01/31/2021

EFFLUENT LIMIT

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

PARAMETER

FN Location Type

Limit

Units

Limit

Units

Sample Frequency

Sample Type

Inf. Eff.

Monthly Average

Monitor

MGD

Per Event

Grab

Daily Maximum

Monitor

MGD

Per Event

Continuous

BOD5

Monthly Average

Monitor

mg/l

Per Event

Grab

Solids, Suspended

Monthly Average

Monitor

mg/l

Per Event

Grab

Solids, Settleable

Daily Maximum

Monitor

ml/l

Per Event

Grab

Nitrogen, Ammonia (as N)

Monthly Average

Monitor

mg/l

Per Event

Grab

Range

Monitor

Per Event

Grab

Daily Maximum

Monitor

Deg F

Per Event

Grab

Flow

pH Temperature

FOOTNOTES: (1) The permittee shall monitor the combined discharge from the ORF and WWTP for the footnoted parameters on a daily basis whenever the ORF is discharging. For grab samples, a second grab sample of the combined discharge shall be collected if the daily sample has already been collected prior to the ORF discharging. No discharge except as caused by flows in excess of the maximum design capacity of the plant (0.8 MGD) when the ORF has completely filled. All flows diverted to the ORF from the headworks of the WWTP and all flows discharged into and from the ORF shall be continuously recorded and totalized. All flow records shall be summarized and reported on the monthly operating report. (2) Effluent shall not exceed

% and

% of influent concentration values for CBOD5, BOD5 & TSS, respectively.

(3) Ultimate Oxygen Demand shall be computed as follows: UOD = 1.5 x CBOD5 + 4.5 x TKN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen) (4) Limits and monitoring requirements are not in effect until May 1, 2023. See the schedule of compliance on page 13 of 17. (5) Total residual chlorine monitoring is only required if using chlorine for disinfection or other means.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 5 of 17

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING OUTFALL

LIMITATIONS APPLY:

RECEIVING WATER

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING

002 (Combined 001 & 01A)

June 1- October 31

Little Genesee Creek

07/01/2018

01/31/2021

COMPLIANCE LIMIT

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

PARAMETER

FN ACTION LEVEL UNITS

Location Sample Frequency

Sample Type

Inf. Eff.

Continuous

Recorder

(1)

Continuous

Recorder

(1)

1/4 hours

Grab

(2)(3)

0.3

ml/l

1/4 hours

Grab

(2)(3)

Daily Max

None

1/4 hours

Visual

(4)(5)

Monthly Average

mg/l

1/4 hours

Composite

% Removal

1/day

Calculated

Monthly Average

mg/l

1/4 hours

Composite

1/day

Calculated

inch

Hourly

Rain Gage

Type

Limit

Units

7-Day Average

Monitor

MGD

Daily Maximum

Monitor

MGD

Range

6.0 – 9.0

Daily Maximum

Flow pH Solids, Settleable Floatables BOD5

(6)(7)(8)

Solids, Suspended

(6)(7)(8) % Removal

Precipitation

Daily Max

Effluent Disinfection required

Monitor

[ ] All Year

[ X ] Seasonal from May 1 to Oct 31

Coliform, Fecal

30-Day Geometric Mean

200

No./ 100 ml

Daily

Grab

(3) (9) (10)

Coliform, Fecal

7 Day Geometric Mean

400

No./ 100 ml

Daily

Grab

(3) (9) (10)

Chlorine, Total Residual

Daily Maximum

µg/l

Daily

Grab

X (10) (11)

FOOTNOTES: (1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(8)

(9) (10) (11)

No discharge except as caused by flows in excess of the maximum design capacity of the plant (0.8 MGD) when the ORF has completely filled. All flows diverted to the ORF from the headworks of the WWTP and all flows discharged into and from the ORF shall be continuously recorded and totalized. All flow records shall be summarized and reported on the monthly operating report. Daily maximum/minimum shall be calculated based on the arithmetic mean of samples taken during any calendar day. Grab samples shall be collected a minimum of once every four hours during each event. Visual observation is required within 30 minutes of the start of the discharge, and a minimum of once every 4 hours during each event. Sampling shall begin within 30 minutes of the start of discharge from the ORF. Report the number of days during the month where at least one visual observation indicates the presence of floatable material. Representative composite sample shall be a composite of grab samples, one taken every four hours. Sampling shall begin within 30 minutes of the start of the discharge from the ORF. Should this action level be exceeded, the permittee shall evaluate the ORF in accordance with its maintenance procedures, approved CMOM Program, and other established practices to determine the cause of the action level exceedance. If a cause is identified, the permittee shall address the cause as soon as practicable and shall submit a written notification to the Regional Water Engineer at the address listed on the Recording, Reporting, and Monitoring page of this Permit with a summary of the actions taken, if any. This requirement supersedes the Action Level requirements listed on Page 2 of this Permit for these parameters. Percent removal shall be calculated by subtracting the measured effluent concentration of the combined discharge from the ORF and the treatment system from the measured influent concentration, and dividing the result by the influent concentration. The percent removal limit of “monitor only” is an interim limit. The final limit with be assessed on January 31, 2016. No./100 ml calculated as a geometric mean of the grab samples taken during each day of overflow. Limits and monitoring requirements are not in effect until May 1, 2023. See the schedule of compliance on page 13 of 17. Total residual chlorine monitoring is only required if using chlorine for disinfection or other means.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 6 of 17

Mercury Minimization Program for Low Priority POTWs The permittee shall inspect each tributary dental facility at least once every five years to verify compliance with the wastewater treatment operation, maintenance, and notification elements of 6NYCRR Part 374.4. Inspection and/or outreach to other industrial/commercial sectors which may contribute mercury is also recommended. All new or increased tributary discharges, including hauled wastes, which are from sources that are industrial in nature must be evaluated for mercury content and, if levels exceed 500 ng/L, authorization must then be obtained from the Department prior to acceptance. Equipment and materials which may contain mercury shall also be evaluated by the permittee and replaced with mercury-free alternatives where environmentally preferable. A file shall be maintained containing the notices submitted by dental offices and all other pertinent information. This file shall be available for review by NYSDEC representatives and copies shall be provided upon request. A permit modification may be necessary to include more stringent requirements for POTWs which do not maintain low mercury effluent levels. Note: the mercury-related requirements in this permit conform to the mercury Multiple Discharge Variance specified in NYSDEC policy DOW 1.3.10.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 7 of 17

DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (a) Except as provided in (c) and (g) of these Discharge Notification Act requirements, the permittee shall install and maintain identification signs at all outfalls to surface waters listed in this permit. Such signs shall be installed before initiation of any discharge. (b) Subsequent modifications to or renewal of this permit does not reset or revise the deadline set forth in (a) above, unless a new deadline is set explicitly by such permit modification or renewal. (c) The Discharge Notification Requirements described herein do not apply to outfalls from which the discharge is composed exclusively of storm water, or discharges to ground water. (d) The sign(s) shall be conspicuous, legible and in as close proximity to the point of discharge as is reasonably possible while ensuring the maximum visibility from the surface water and shore. The signs shall be installed in such a manner to pose minimal hazard to navigation, bathing or other water related activities. If the public has access to the water from the land in the vicinity of the outfall, an identical sign shall be posted to be visible from the direction approaching the surface water. The signs shall have minimum dimensions of eighteen inches by twenty four inches (18" x 24") and shall have white letters on a green background and contain the following information:

(

) - ### - ####

OR: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Office Address: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Phone: (

) - ### -####

(e) For each discharge required to have a sign in accordance with a), the permittee shall, concurrent with the installation of the sign, provide a repository of copies of the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), as required by the RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS page of this permit. This repository shall be open to the public, at a minimum, during normal daytime business hours. The repository may be at the business office repository of the permittee or at an off-premises location of its choice (such location shall be the village, town, city or county clerk’s office, the local library or other location as approved by the Department). In accordance with the RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS page of your permit, each DMR shall be maintained on record for a period of five years (f) The permittee shall periodically inspect the outfall identification sign(s) in order to ensure they are maintained, are still visible, and contain information that is current and factually correct. Signs that are damaged or incorrect shall be replaced within 3 months of inspection.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 8 of 17

DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (continued) (g) All requirements of the Discharge Notification Act, including public repository requirements, are waived for any outfall meeting any of the following circumstances, provided Department notification is made in accordance with (h) below: (i) such sign would be inconsistent with any other state or federal statute; (ii) the Discharge Notification Requirements contained herein would require that such sign could only be located in an area that is damaged by ice or flooding due to a one-year storm or storms of less severity; (iii) instances in which the outfall to the receiving water is located on private or government property which is restricted to the public through fencing, patrolling, or other control mechanisms. Property which is posted only, without additional control mechanisms, does not qualify for this provision; (iv) instances where the outfall pipe or channel discharges to another outfall pipe or channel, before discharge to a receiving water; or (v) instances in which the discharge from the outfall is located in the receiving water, two-hundred or more feet from the shoreline of the receiving water. (h) If the permittee believes that any outfall which discharges wastewater from the permitted facility meets any of the waiver criteria listed in (g) above, notification (form enclosed) must be made to the Department’s Bureau of Water Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, N.Y. 12233-3505, of such fact, and, provided there is no objection by the Department, a sign and DMR repository for the involved outfall(s) are not required. This notification must include the facility’s name, address, telephone number, contact, permit number, outfall number(s), and reason why such outfall(s) is waived from the requirements of discharge notification. The Department may evaluate the applicability of a waiver at any time, and take appropriate measures to assure that the ECL and associated regulations are complied with.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 9 of 17

OVERFLOW RETENTION FACILITIES (ORFs) In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 750-2.8(b)(2) and 40 CFR 122.41, bypasses of the collection and treatment system without treatment are prohibited except when (1) the bypass is necessary and unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, public health hazard, environmental degradation, or severe property damage and (2) there is no feasible alternative to the bypass and (3) the permittee complies with the notice requirements in 6 NYCRR Part 750-2.7. Pursuant to ECL 17-0505, ORF outfalls are required to be listed in permit. The following ORF outfalls constitute approved anticipated bypasses, provided that the permittee maintains compliance with the attached effluent limits, Best Management Practices, compliance schedule, and CMOM Plan. The discharges from the listed ORFs is only allowed after the plant’s full capacity has been utilized and maximized, and the capacity of the ORF has been reached. The Department reserves the right to modify these requirements upon promulgation of the forthcoming USEPA peak wet weather flow policy to meet the requirements of that policy. The following onsite ORFs have been identified which discharge from the Village of Bolivar WWTP:

Outfall No.

Description

Latitude/Longitude

Receiving Stream/Class

001A

Overflow Retention Facility Bypass Outfall

42º 3’ 51” / 78º 10’ 28”

Little Genesee Creek/ C (T)

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 10 of 17

SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION OF ORF (a)

The permittee shall monitor the effluent from the ORF for all permitted parameters cited above at the specified monitoring frequency and sample type. This data and the sampling information required by the” Monitoring and Limitations” table above, shall be summarized on a “Wastewater Facility Operation Report” [Form 92-15-7, or similar ] and submitted to the Regional Water Engineer.

(b)

The facilities shall be operated in conjunction with the tributary sewer system, pump stations and the POTW Treatment Plant to maximize pollutant removal.

(c)

The permittee shall not divert to the retention basin unless either the peak hourly flow or the maximum daily design flow of the treatment process are exceeded. The peak capacity at the WWTP is 0.8 MGD (from Addendum #3 to the Wastewater Facilities Plan for the Village of Bolivar, 1989).

(d)

The permittee shall not discharge from the ORF unless the tank volume is full and the treatment process cannot accept additional wastewater.

(e)

The contents of the ORF (i.e. captured wastewater) shall not be delivered to the POTW Treatment Plant at a rate which would exceed the peak daily or peak hourly flow or loading.

(f)

Flow shall not be delivered to the POTW Treatment Plant at a rate that will cause an upset as defined by 6 NYCRR Part 7502, “Operating in Accordance with a SPDES Permit.”

(g)

Wet Weather Operation Plan: The permittee shall develop and implement a Wet Weather Operation Plan (WWOP). The WWOP shall outline the optimum operational procedures to transition from dry weather operation mode to wet weather operation mode, and back to dry weather operation mode. These procedures shall be used to optimize the treatment of the maximum volume of wet weather flows possible at the treatment plant during wet weather events, while minimizing discharges through the permitted overflow retention facility (ORF) and meeting the effluent limitations in this permit. The WWOP shall be submitted to the NYSDEC Regional Water Engineer at the location listed under the section of this permit entitled RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS and to the Bureau of Water Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, N.Y. 12233-3505, within three months

of the effective date of this Permit. (h)

Monthly Collection System Overflow Report: The permittee shall submit to the Regional Water Engineer a Monthly Collection System Overflow Report summarizing, for each day that an overflow occurs any overflow points, an estimate of the total volume and duration of each overflow, measurements of the total amount of rainfall, a description of the source/cause of each overflow and visual observations of water quality at each outfall.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 11 of 17

CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN 1.

General Standards: The permittee shall develop, maintain and implement a Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) program. The Program should be effective at reducing wet weather flows and eliminating separate sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) that receive less than secondary treatment as required by the Clean Water Act to ensure the protection of public health, receiving water(s) and the environment during wet weather period from a separate sanitary sewer system serving publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The primary performance measures for the CMOM Program are: -Reductions in the number of backups and SSOs -Reduction in peak wet weather flows in the system -Minimization of pump station failures and overflows due to equipment malfunction

Compliance Due Date: Within 6 months of the EDPM, the permittee shall submit an approvable CMOM Program, including an implementation schedule, to the Regional Water Engineer for review and approval. The permittee shall begin implementation of the approved CMOM Program within 3 months of Departmental approval. The permittee shall review, update and modify the CMOM plan annually and submit an annual report describing all actions taken in the preceding year no later than February 1st of each year. The submitted CMOM Program, once approved, shall supersede the requirements listed in this section for purposes of compliance with this Permit.

Components of CMOM Program: The following components, at a minimum, shall be addressed in the development of the CMOM Program. Note that while these components shall be addressed by the permittee, the permittee may address these and any additional items using organizational and implementation methods applicable to and tailored to their specific system: Goals Organization Legal Authority Measures and activities Design and Inspection Standards Overflow Emergency Response Plan System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan Monitoring and evaluation the effectiveness of the CMOM program The permittee may include measures undertaken and completed as part of other ongoing programs, as well as Asset Management planning and principles, to satisfy any applicable CMOM program requirements. The permittee may also indicate “not applicable” for any portions of the CMOM Program that do not apply to its facility or collection system based upon its knowledge of the system. Guidance for developing and evaluating CMOM programs can be found at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/sso/toolbox.cfm?program_id=4

Compliance with CMOM Requirements: As stated in (2) above, compliance with the submitted and approved CMOM Program shall constitute compliance with the CMOM requirements in this permit. Any future CMOM requirements promulgated by either the Department or USEPA will not go into effect for this facility, and the facility shall not be required to comply with these additional requirements, until such time as the facility's permit and approved CMOM Program are modified to include the future CMOM requirements. As part of that modification, a schedule of compliance will be included to allow adequate time for the permittee to update its approved CMOM Program to address the future CMOM requirements.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 12 of 17

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE a)

The permittee shall comply with the following schedule:

Outfall(s) 001, 002

Parameter(s) Affected Fecal Coliform, Total Residual Chlorine

Interim Effluent Limit(s) N/A

Compliance Action

Due Date

The permittee shall submit an approvable engineering report, prepared by a Professional Engineer licensed to practice engineering in New York State, detailing the disinfection designs that will be used to comply with the final effluent limitations for Fecal Coliform and Total Residual Chlorine.

May 1, 2020

The permittee shall submit approvable Engineering Plans, Specifications, and Construction Schedule for the implementation of effluent disinfection.

May 1, 2021

The permittee shall begin construction of the treatment facilities in accordance with the Department approved schedule.

May 1, 2022

The permittee shall complete construction and commence operation of the system, and comply with the final effluent limitations for Fecal Coliform and Total Residual Chlorine.

May 1, 2023

The above compliance actions are one time requirements. The permittee shall comply with the above compliance actions to the Department’s satisfaction once. When this permit is administratively renewed by NYSDEC letter entitled “SPDES NOTICE/RENEWAL APPLICATION/PERMIT,” the permittee is not required to repeat the submission(s) noted above. The above due dates are independent from the effective date of the permit stated in the “SPDES NOTICE/RENEWAL APPLICATION/PERMIT” letter. a)

For any action where the compliance date is greater than 9 months past the previous compliance due date, the permittee shall submit interim progress reports to the Department every nine (9) months until the due date for these compliance items are met.

The permittee shall submit a written notice of compliance or non-compliance with each of the above schedule dates no later than 14 days following each elapsed date, unless conditions require more immediate notice as prescribed in 6 NYCRR Part 750-1.2(a) and 750-2. All such compliance or non-compliance notification shall be sent to the locations listed under the section of this permit entitled RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS. Each notice of non-compliance shall include the following information: 1. A short description of the non-compliance; 2. A description of any actions taken or proposed by the permittee to comply with the elapsed schedule requirements without further delay and to limit environmental impact associated with the non-compliance; 3. A description or any factors which tend to explain or mitigate the non-compliance; and 4. An estimate of the date the permittee will comply with the elapsed schedule requirement and an assessment of the probability that the permittee will meet the next scheduled requirement on time.

The permittee shall submit copies of any document required by the above schedule of compliance to the NYSDEC Regional Water Engineer at the location listed under the section of this permit entitled RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS and to the Bureau of Water Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, N.Y. 12233-3505, unless otherwise specified in this permit or in writing by the Department.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 13 of 17

SCHEDULE OF SUBMITTALS a)

The permittee shall submit the following information to the Regional Water Engineer at the address listed on the Recording, Reporting and Monitoring page of this Permit, and to the Bureau of Water Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany NY 12233-3505:

Outfall(s)

001, 001A, 002

Parameter(s) Affected

Required Action

February 1, 2019

NA The permittee shall review, update and modify the CMOM Plan annually and submit an annual report describing all actions taken in the preceding year.

Due Date

1. CMOM PROGRAM:

February 1, 2020 And so on, annually. January 20, 2014

Submit an approvable plan for continuous ongoing sewer system assessment, flow monitoring, correction, and maintenance, including an implementation schedule. 2. NO FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS:

July 19, 2016

In accordance with Federal Statutes, the permittee shall submit a No Feasible Alternative Analysis for the discharge from the ORF. This report shall be prepared by a Professional Engineer currently licensed to practice in New York State. The Department reserves the right to modify this permit pending the results of this Analysis.

b) Unless noted otherwise, the above actions are one time requirements. The permittee shall submit the results of the above actions to the satisfaction of the Department. When this permit is administratively renewed by NYSDEC letter entitled “SPDES NOTICE/RENEWAL APPLICATION/PERMIT”, the permittee is not required to repeat the above submittal(s), unless noted otherwise. The above due dates are independent from the effective date of the permit stated in the letter of “SPDES NOTICE/RENEWAL APPLICATION/PERMIT.”

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 14 of 17

MONITORING LOCATIONS The permittee shall take samples and measurements, to comply with the monitoring requirements specified in this permit, at the locations(s) specified below: -Influent samples shall be taken from the influent channel at the headworks of the plant. -Effluent samples for Outfall 001 shall be taken from the exit of the post aeration basin. -Effluent samples for Outfall 01A shall be taken from the wet well for the Bypass Pump Station. -Effluent samples for Outfall 002 shall be taken at the sampling port on the Bypass Pump Station.

Control Building

Aerobic Digester

MH “A” (w/flow measure)

MH “B”

Oxidation Ditch

Storm Overflow Structure

Entrance Structure Influent

MH “G”

Lift PS

Flow Equalization Basin

Key Sample Flow MH “C”

Plant Flow ORF Flow Clarifier 1

Sampling Location Outfall 01A

Clarifier 2

MH “D”

Bypass PS

Outfall 002

Post Aeration

To Little Genesee Creek MH “E”

Outfall 001

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 15 of 17

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. The regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 750 are hereby incorporated by reference and the conditions are enforceable requirements under this permit. The permittee shall comply with all requirements set forth in this permit and with all the applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 750 incorporated into this permit by reference, including but not limited to the regulations in paragraphs B through I as follows: B. General Conditions 1. Duty to comply 2. Duty to reapply 3. Need to halt or reduce activity not a defense 4. Duty to mitigate 5. Permit actions 6. Property rights 7. Duty to provide information 8. Inspection and entry

6 NYCRR 750-2.1(e) & 2.4 6 NYCRR 750-1.16(a) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(g) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(f) 6 NYCRR 750-1.1(c), 1.18, 1.20 & 2.1(h) 6 NYCRR 750-2.2(b) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(i) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(a) & 2.3

C. Operation and Maintenance 1. Proper Operation & Maintenance 2. Bypass 3. Upset

6 NYCRR 750-2.8 6 NYCRR 750-1.2(a)(17), 2.8(b) & 2.7 6 NYCRR 750-1.2(a)(94) & 2.8(c)

D. Monitoring and Records 1. Monitoring and records 2. Signatory requirements

6 NYCRR 750-2.5(a)(2), 2.5(a)(6), 2.5(c)(1), 2.5(c)(2), & 2.5(d) 6 NYCRR 750-1.8 & 2.5(b)

E. Reporting Requirements 1. Reporting requirements for POTWs 2. Anticipated noncompliance 3. Transfers 4. Monitoring reports 5. Compliance schedules 6. 24-hour reporting 7. Other noncompliance 8. Other information 9. Additional conditions applicable to a POTW

6 NYCRR 750-2.5, 2.7 & 1.17 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(a) 6 NYCRR 750-1.17 6 NYCRR 750-2.5(e) 6 NYCRR 750-1.14(d) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(c) & (d) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(e) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(f) 6 NYCRR 750-2.9

Planned Changes 1. The permittee shall give notice to the Department as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when: a. b.

The alteration or addition to the permitted facility may meet of the criteria for determining whether facility is a new source in 40 CFR §122.29(b); or The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to effluent limitations in the permit, or to notification requirements under 40 CFR §122.42(a)(1); or The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee’s sludge use or disposal practices, and such alteration, addition, or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 16 of 17

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS continued G. Notification Requirement for POTWs 1. All POTWs shall provide adequate notice to the Department and the USEPA of the following: a. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those pollutants; or b. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the permit. c. For the purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on: i. the quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and ii. any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW. POTWs shall submit a copy of this notice to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, at the following address: U.S. EPA Region 2, Clean Water Regulatory Branch, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866Sludge Management The permittee shall comply with all applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360. H. Sludge Management The permittee shall comply with all applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360. I.

SPDES Permit Program Fee The permittee shall pay to the Department an annual SPDES permit program fee within 30 days of the date of the first invoice, unless otherwise directed by the Department, and shall comply with all applicable requirements of ECL 72-0602 and 6 NYCRR Parts 480, 481 and 485. Note that if there is inconsistency between the fees specified in ECL 72-0602 and 6 NYCRR Part 485, the ECL 72-0602 fees govern.

Water Treatment Chemicals (WTCs) New or increased use and discharge of a WTC requires prior Department review and authorization. At a minimum, the permittee must notify the Department in writing of its intent to change WTC use by submitting a completed WTC Notification Form for each proposed WTC. The Department will review that submittal and determine if a SPDES permit modification is necessary or whether WTC review and authorization may proceed outside of the formal permit administrative process. The majority of WTC authorizations do not require SPDES permit modification. In any event, use and discharge of a WTC shall not proceed without prior authorization from the Department. Examples of WTCs include biocides, coagulants, conditioners, corrosion inhibitors, defoamers, deposit control agents, flocculants, scale inhibitors, sequestrants, and settling aids. 1. WTC use shall not exceed the rate explicitly authorized by this permit or otherwise authorized in writing by the Department. 2. The permittee shall maintain a logbook of all WTC use, noting for each WTC the date, time, exact location, and amount of each dosage, and, the name of the individual applying or measuring the chemical. The logbook must also document that adequate process controls are in place to ensure that excessive levels of WTCs are not used. 3. The permittee shall submit a completed WTC Annual Report Form each year that they use and discharge WTCs. This form shall be attached to either the December DMR or the annual monitoring report required below. The WTC Notification Form and WTC Annual Report Form are available from the Department’s website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/93245.html

SPDES Number: NY0022381 Page 17 of 17

RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS A.

The monitoring information required by this permit shall be summarized and reported by submitting: Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs): Completed DMR forms shall be submitted for each 1 month reporting period in accordance with the DMR Manual available on Department’s website. DMRs must be submitted electronically using the electronic reporting tool (NetDMR) specified by NYSDEC. Instructions on the use of NetDMR are available in the DMR Manual. Attach the monthly "Wastewater Facility Operation Report" (form 9215-7) and any required DMR attachments electronically to the DMR. To submit via hard copy: Hard copy paper DMRs will only be accepted by the Department if a waiver from the electronic submittal requirements has been granted by DEC to the facility. Attach a hard copy of the monthly "Wastewater Facility Operation Report" (form 92-15-7) to the DMR. The Facility Operation report and DMRs shall be sent to: Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water, Bureau of Water Compliance 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-3506 Phone: (518) 402-8177 The first monitoring period begins on the effective date of this permit, and, unless otherwise required, the reports are due no later than the 28th day of the month following the end of each monitoring period.

Bypass and Sewage Pollutant Right to Know Reporting: In accordance with the Sewage Pollutant Right to Know Act (ECL § 170826-a), Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are required to notify DEC and Department of Health within two hours of discovery of an untreated or partially treated sewage discharge and to notify the public and adjoining municipalities within four hours of discovery. Information regarding reporting and other requirements of this program may be found on the Department’s website. In addition, POTWs are required to provide a five-day incident report and supplemental information to the DEC in accordance with Part 750-2.7(d) by utilizing the Department’s Non-Compliance Report Form unless waived by DEC on a caseby-case basis.

Monitoring and analysis shall be conducted using sufficiently sensitive test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit.

Calculations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified in this permit.

Unless otherwise specified, all information recorded on the DMRs shall be based upon measurements and sampling carried out during the most recently completed reporting period.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits NYSDEC HEADQUARTERS 625 BROADWAY ALBANY, NY 12233 (518) 402-9167

SPDES PERMIT RENEWAL 12/11/2020

JAMES BARNES BOLIVAR (V) SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 252 MAIN ST BOLIVAR NY 14715

Permittee Name: VILLAGE OF BOLIVAR Facility Name: BOLIVAR WWTP Ind. Code: 4952 County: ALLEGANY DEC ID: 9-0238-00014/00001 SPDES No.: NY0022381 Permit Effective Date: 2/1/2021 Permit Expiration Date: 1/31/2026

Dear Permittee, The State Pollutant Elimination System (SPDES) permit renewal for the facility referenced above is approved with the new effective and expiration dates. This letter together with the previous valid permit for this facility effective on 02/01/2016 and any subsequent modifications constitute authorization to discharge wastewater in accordance with all terms, conditions and limitations specified in the previously issued permit(s). As a reminder, SPDES permits are renewed at a central location in Albany in order to make the process more efficient. All other concerns with your permit, including applications for permit modification or transfer to a new owner, a name change, and other questions, should be directed to: Regional Permit Administrator NYSDEC Region 9 Headquarters 270 Michigan Ave Buffalo, NY 14203-2915 (716) 851-7165 If you have already filed an application for modification of your permit, it will be processed separately by that office. If you have questions concerning this permit renewal, please contact Michael R Schaefer at (518) 402-9167. Sincerely, Karyn Hanson Deputy Permit Administrator cc: RPA BWC

RWE File

BWP EPA

D4 – Town of Caneadea, Houghton Sewer District

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) DISCHARGE PERMIT Industrial Code: Discharge Class (CL): Toxic Class (TX): Major Drainage Basin: Sub Drainage Basin: Water Index Number: Compact Area:

SPDES Number: DEC Number: Effective Date (EDP): Expiration Date (ExDP): Modification Dates: (EDPM)

4952 07 N 04 03 ONT-117 IJC

NY0024431 9-0242-00006/00001 07/01/2014 06/30/2019 06/01/2017 08/01/2018

Caneadea (T)

Street:

PO Box 596

Attention: Mr. David Stenzel, Public Works Superintendent

City:

Caneadea

State:

Zip Code:

14717

is authorized to discharge from the facility described below: FACILITY NAME AND ADDRESS Name:

Houghton Sewer District WWTF

Location (C,T,V):

Caneadea (T)

Facility Address:

St Rte 19 and Genesee Rd

City:

Caneadea

From Outfall No.:

001

County: Allegany

State: at Latitude:

42 º

´´

Zip Code: 14717

& Longitude: 78

into receiving waters known as: Genesee River (Upper)

Class:

´ 42

´´

and (list other Outfalls, Receiving Waters & Water Classifications) in accordance with: effluent limitations; monitoring and reporting requirements; other provisions and conditions set forth in this permit; and 6 NYCRR Part 750-1and 750-2. DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR) MAILING ADDRESS Mailing Name: Houghton Sewer District Street:

PO Box 596

City:

Caneadea

State:

Responsible Official or Agent: Mr. David Stenzel

Zip Code: 14717

Phone:

(585) 567-8410

CO BWP - Permit Coordinator RWE RPA USEPA Region 2 NYSEFC NYSDOH District Office

Deputy Chief Permit Administrator: Kent P. Sanders Address: Division of Environmental Permits

625 Broadway, 4th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1750 Signature:

Date: 07/18/2018

SPDES Number: NY 002 4431 Page 2 of 10

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING DEFINITIONS OUTFALL

PARAMETER MINIMUM e.g. pH, TRC, The minimum level that must be Temperature, D.O. maintained at all instants in time. PARAMETER

MAXIMUM The maximum level that may not be exceeded at any instant in time.

EFFECTIVE The date this page starts in effect. (e.g. EDP or EDPM)

UNITS SU, °F, mg/l, etc.

SAMPLE FREQ. See below

EXPIRING The date this page is no longer in effect. (e.g. ExDP) SAMPLE TYPE See below

SAMPLE TYPE Examples include grab, 24 hour composite and 3 grab samples collected over a 6 hour period.

SPDES Number: NY 002 4431 Page 3 of 10

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING OUTFALL

LIMITATIONS APPLY:

RECEIVING WATER

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING

001

[X] All Year [ ] Seasonal from ______ to ______

Genesee River

08/01/2018

6/30/2019

EFFLUENT LIMIT

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

PARAMETER

FN Location

Flow

Type

Limit

Units

Monthly Average

0.28

MGD

Monthly Average

Limit

mg/L 45

Monthly Average

Inf.

Continuous

Recorder

lbs/day

1/Month

6-hr. Comp.

lbs/day

1/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Eff.

105 70

Solids, Suspended Solids, Settleable

Sample Type

BOD5 7-Day Average

Sample Frequency

Units

mg/L 7-Day Average

Daily Maximum

0.30

mL/L

1/Day

Grab

Range

6.0 – 9.0

1/Day

Grab

105

Temperature

Daily Maximum

Monitor Deg. C

1/Day

Grab

Phosphorus (as P)

Monthly Average

Monitor

1/Month

6-hr. Comp.

Effluent Disinfection required

mg/L

[ ] All Year

[ X ] Seasonal from May 1 to October 31

Coliform, Fecal

30-Day Geometric Mean

200

No./ 100 mL

1/Month

Grab

Coliform, Fecal

7 Day Geometric Mean

400

No./ 100 mL

1/Month

Grab

Monthly Average

Monitor

1/Day

Grab

2,3

Chlorine, Total Residual

Monitor µg/L

Daily Maximum

750

lbs/day 1.8

FOOTNOTES: (1)

Effluent shall not exceed

% and

% of influent concentration values for BOD5 & TSS respectively.

(2)

Limits and monitoring requirements are not in effect until May 1, 2023. See the schedule of compliance on page 6.

(3)

Total residual chlorine monitoring is only required if using chlorine for disinfection or other means.

SPDES Number: NY 002 4431 Page 4 of 10

(

) - ### - ####

OR: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Office Address: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Phone: (

) - ### -####

SPDES Number: NY 002 4431 Page 5 of 10

DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS continued) (g) All requirements of the Discharge Notification Act, including public repository requirements, are waived for any outfall meeting any of the following circumstances, provided Department notification is made in accordance with (h) below: (i)

such sign would be inconsistent with any other state or federal statute;

(ii) the Discharge Notification Requirements contained herein would require that such sign could only be located in an area that is damaged by ice or flooding due to a one-year storm or storms of less severity; (iii) instances in which the outfall to the receiving water is located on private or government property which is restricted to the public through fencing, patrolling, or other control mechanisms. Property which is posted only, without additional control mechanisms, does not qualify for this provision; (iv) instances where the outfall pipe or channel discharges to another outfall pipe or channel, before discharge to a receiving water; or (v)

instances in which the discharge from the outfall is located in the receiving water, two-hundred or more feet from the shoreline of the receiving water.

(h) If the permittee believes that any outfall which discharges wastewater from the permitted facility meets any of the waiver criteria listed in (g) above, notification (form enclosed) must be made to the Department’s Bureau of Water Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, N.Y. 12233-3505, of such fact, and, provided there is no objection by the Department, a sign and DMR repository for the involved outfall(s) are not required. This notification must include the facility’s name, address, telephone number, contact, permit number, outfall number(s), and reason why such outfall(s) is waived from the requirements of discharge notification. The Department may evaluate the applicability of a waiver at any time, and take appropriate measures to assure that the ECL and associated regulations are complied with.

SPDES Number: NY 002 4431 Page 6 of 10

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE a)

The permittee shall comply with the following schedule:

Outfall(s) 001

Parameter(s) Affected

Interim Effluent Limit(s)

Fecal Coliform Total Residual Chlorine

N/A

Compliance Action

Due Date

May 1, 2020

The permittee shall submit approvable Engineering Plans, Specifications, and Construction Schedule for the Implementation of effluent disinfection.

May 1, 2021

The permittee shall begin construction of the treatment facilities in accordance with the Department approved schedule.

May 1, 2022

The permittee shall complete construction and commence operation of the system, and comply with the final effluent limitations for Fecal Coliform and Total Residual Chlorine.

May 1, 2023

d) The permittee shall submit copies of any document required by the above schedule of compliance to the NYSDEC Regional Water Engineer at the location listed under the section of this permit entitled RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS and to the Bureau of Water Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, N.Y. 12233-3505, unless otherwise specified in this permit or in writing by the Department.

SPDES Number: NY 002 4431 Page 7 of 10

Raw Sewage

Grit Chamber

Sludge

Primary Settling Tank

Sludge Grit Remover

Fine Bar Screen

Pumps

Primary Settling Tank

Trickling Filter

Recirc. Building

Primary Digester

Secondary Digester

Final Clarifier

Sludge Press + Final Clarifier

Drying Beds

To Outfall 001

SPDES Number: NY 002 4431 Page 8 of 10

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. The regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 750 are hereby incorporated by reference and the conditions are enforceable requirements under this permit. The permittee shall comply with all requirements set forth in this permit and with all the applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 750 incorporated into this permit by reference, including but not limited to the regulations in the following paragraphs: B. General Conditions 1. Duty to comply 2. Duty to reapply 3. Need to halt or reduce activity not a defense 4. Duty to mitigate 5. Permit actions 6. Property rights 7. Duty to provide information 8. Inspection and entry

6 NYCRR 750-2.1(e) & 2.4 6 NYCRR 750-1.16(a) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(g) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(f) 6 NYCRR 750-1.1(c), 1.18, 1.20 & 2.1(h) 6 NYCRR 750-2.2(b) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(i) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(a) & 2.3

C. Operation and Maintenance 1. Proper Operation & Maintenance 2. Bypass 3. Upset

6 NYCRR 750-2.8 6 NYCRR 750-1.2(a)(17), 2.8(b) & 2.7 6 NYCRR 750-1.2(a)(94) & 2.8(c)

D. Monitoring and Records 1. Monitoring and records 2. Signatory requirements

6 NYCRR 750-2.5(a)(2), 2.5(a)(6), 2.5(c)(1), 2.5(c)(2), & 2.5(d) 6 NYCRR 750-1.8 & 2.5(b)

6 NYCRR 750-2.5, 2.7 & 1.17 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(a) 6 NYCRR 750-1.17 6 NYCRR 750-2.5(e) 6 NYCRR 750-1.14(d) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(c) & (d) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(e) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(f) 6 NYCRR 750-2.9

SPDES Number: NY 002 4431 Page 9 of 10

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS continued G. Notification Requirement for POTWs 1. All POTWs shall provide adequate notice to the Department and the USEPA of the following: a. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those pollutants; or b. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the permit. c. For the purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on: i. the quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and ii. any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW. POTWs shall submit a copy of this notice to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, at the following address: U.S. EPA Region 2, Clean Water Regulatory Branch, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 H. Sludge Management The permittee shall comply with all applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360. I.

Water Treatment Chemicals (WTCs) New or increased use and discharge of a WTC requires prior Department review and authorization. At a minimum, the permittee must notify the Department in writing of its intent to change WTC use by submitting a completed WTC Notification Form for each proposed WTC. The Department will review that submittal and determine if a SPDES permit modification is necessary or whether WTC review and authorization may proceed outside of the formal permit administrative process. The majority of WTC authorizations do not require SPDES permit modification. In any event, use and discharge of a WTC shall not proceed without prior authorization from the Department. Examples of WTCs include biocides, coagulants, conditioners, corrosion inhibitors, defoamers, deposit control agents, flocculants, scale inhibitors, sequestrants, and settling aids. 1. WTC use shall not exceed the rate explicitly authorized by this permit or otherwise authorized in writing by the Department. 2. The permittee shall maintain a logbook of all WTC use, noting for each WTC the date, time, exact location, and amount of each dosage, and, the name of the individual applying or measuring the chemical. The logbook must also document that adequate process controls are in place to ensure that excessive levels of WTCs are not used. 3. The permittee shall submit a completed WTC Annual Report Form each year that they use and discharge WTCs. This form shall be attached to either the December DMR or the annual monitoring report required below. The WTC Notification Form and WTC Annual Report Form are available from the Department’s website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/93245.html

SPDES Number: NY 002 4431 Page 10 of 10

RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS A.

Monitoring and analysis shall be conducted using sufficiently sensitive test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit.

Calculations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified in this permit.

Unless otherwise specified, all information recorded on the DMRs shall be based upon measurements and sampling carried out during the most recently completed reporting period.

H. Any laboratory test or sample analysis required by this permit for which the State Commissioner of Health issues certificates of approval pursuant to section 502 of the Public Health Law shall be conducted by a laboratory which has been issued a certificate of approval. Inquiries regarding laboratory certification should be directed to the New York State Department of Health, Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program.

D5 – Village of Canaseraga

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits NYSDEC HEADQUARTERS 625 BROADWAY ALBANY, NY 12233 (518) 402-9167

SPDES PERMIT RENEWAL 10/24/2022

MARY UNDERWOOD VILLAGE OF CANASERAGA PO BOX 235 CANASERAGA NY 14822

Permittee Name: VILLAGE OF CANASERAGA Facility Name: CANASERAGA WWTP Ind. Code: 4952 County: ALLEGANY DEC ID: 9-0240-00036/00002 SPDES No.: NY0269573 Permit Effective Date: 1/1/2023 Permit Expiration Date: 12/31/2027

Dear Permittee, The State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit renewal for the facility referenced above is approved with the new effective and expiration dates. This letter together with the previous valid permit for this facility effective on 01/01/2018 and any subsequent modifications constitute authorization to discharge wastewater in accordance with all terms, conditions and limitations specified in the previously issued permit(s). As a reminder, SPDES permits are renewed at a central location in Albany in order to make the process more efficient. All other concerns with your permit, including applications for permit modification or transfer to a new owner, a name change, and other questions, should be directed to: Regional Permit Administrator NYSDEC Region 9 Headquarters 700 Delaware Ave Buffalo, NY 14209 (716) 851-7165 If you have already filed an application for modification of your permit, it will be processed separately by that office. If you have questions concerning this permit renewal, please contact THOMAS A RASCONA at (518) 402-5107. Sincerely, -DPHV - (OGUHG (QYLURQPHQWDO $QDO\VW cc: RPA BWC

RWE File

BWP EPA

D6 – Village of Cuba

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

D7 – Town of Friendship Sewer District

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits NYSDEC HEADQUARTERS 625 BROADWAY ALBANY, NY 12233 (518) 402-9167

SPDES PERMIT RENEWAL 3/3/2021

TOWN OF FRIENDSHIP 4 E MAIN ST PO BOX 177 FRIENDSHIP NY 14739-0177

Permittee Name: TOWN OF FRIENDSHIP Facility Name: FRIENDSHIP STP Ind. Code: 4952 County: ALLEGANY DEC ID: 9-0250-00006/00001 SPDES No.: NY0029301 Permit Effective Date: 3/3/2021 Permit Expiration Date: 2/28/2026

Dear Permittee, The State Pollutant Elimination System (SPDES) permit renewal for the facility referenced above is approved with the new effective and expiration dates. This letter together with the previous valid permit for this facility effective on 01/01/2016 and any subsequent modifications constitute authorization to discharge wastewater in accordance with all terms, conditions and limitations specified in the previously issued permit(s). As a reminder, SPDES permits are renewed at a central location in Albany in order to make the process more efficient. All other concerns with your permit, including applications for permit modification or transfer to a new owner, a name change, and other questions, should be directed to: Regional Permit Administrator NYSDEC Region 9 Headquarters 270 Michigan Ave Buffalo, NY 14203-2915 (716) 851-7165 If you have already filed an application for modification of your permit, it will be processed separately by that office. If you have questions concerning this permit renewal, please contact Michael R Schaefer at (518) 402-9167. Sincerely, Karyn Hanson Deputy Permit Administrator cc: RPA BWC

RWE File

BWP EPA

D8 – Village of Wellsville

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 2 of 14

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING DEFINITIONS OUTFALL

PARAMETER MINIMUM e.g. pH, TRC, The minimum level that must be Temperature, D.O. maintained at all instants in time. PARAMETER

MAXIMUM The maximum level that may not be exceeded at any instant in time.

EFFECTIVE The date this page starts in effect. (e.g. EDP or EDPM)

UNITS SU, °F, mg/l, etc.

SAMPLE FREQ. See below

EXPIRING The date this page is no longer in effect. (e.g. ExDP) SAMPLE TYPE See below

SAMPLE TYPE Examples include grab, 24 hour composite and 3 grab samples collected over a 6 hour period.

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 3 of 14

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING OUTFALL

LIMITATIONS APPLY:

RECEIVING WATER

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING

001

[ X ] All Year [ ] Seasonal from _____ to _____

Genesee River

12/01/2017

05/31/2020

EFFLUENT LIMIT

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

PARAMETER

FN Location

Flow

Type

Limit

Monthly Average

Monitor

Monthly Average

CBOD5 UOD (Jun 1st – Oct 31st)

Units

Limit

Units

Sample Frequency

Sample Type

Inf.

Eff.

2.2

MGD Continuous

Recorder

460 mg/L

7-Day Average

Daily Maximum

mg/L

lbs/day

1/Week

24-hr. Comp.

1,2

630

lbs/day

1/Week

24-hr. Comp.

730

Dissolved Oxygen (Jun 1st – October 31st) Ammonia (as NH3) (Jun 1st – October 31st) Ammonia (as NH3) (Nov 1st – May 31st)

Daily Minimum

5.0

mg/L

1/Week

Grab

Monthly Average

7.0

mg/L

130

lbs/day

1/Week

24-hr. Comp.

Monthly Average

mg/L

240

lbs/day

1/Week

24-hr. Comp.

TKN (as N) (Jun 1st – Oct 31st)

Daily Maximum

Monitor

mg/L

1/Week

24-hr. Comp.

Range

6.0 – 8.5

2/Day

Grab

Monthly Average

1.0

mg/L

1/Week

24-hr. Comp.

Monthly Average

lbs/day

1/Week

24-hr. Comp.

1,2

pH Phosphorus (as P) Solids, Suspended

550 mg/L

7-Day Average

Solids, Settleable

Daily Maximum

0.10

mL/L

2/Day

Grab

Solids, Dissolved

Daily Maximum

Monitor

mg/L

1/Week

24-hr. Comp.

Mercury, Total

Daily Maximum

ng/L

Monitor

g/day

Quarterly

Grab

Phenolics, Total

Monthly Average

Monitor

mg/L

0.46

lbs/day

2/Month

24-hr. Comp.

Effluent Disinfection required

830

[ ] All Year

[ X ] Seasonal from May 1 to October 31

Coliform, Fecal

30-Day Geometric Mean

200

No./ 100 mL

1/Week

Grab

Coliform, Fecal

7 Day Geometric Mean

400

No./ 100 mL

1/Week

Grab

Monthly Average

Monitor

lbs/day

2/Day

Grab

5,6

Eff.

Chlorine, Total Residual

Monitor µg/L

Daily Maximum

0.46

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing

Action Level

Units

Sample Frequency

Sample Type

WET - Acute Invertebrate

See footnote

0.30

TUa

Quarterly

See footnote

WET - Acute Vertebrate

See footnote

0.30

TUa

Quarterly

See footnote

WET - Chronic Invertebrate

See footnote

5.0

TUc

Quarterly

See footnote

WET - Chronic Vertebrate

See footnote

5.0

TUc

Quarterly

See footnote

FOOTNOTES ON PAGE 4 AND 5.

Inf.

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 4 of 14

PERMIT LIMITS, LEVELS AND MONITORING (continued) OUTFALL

LIMITATIONS APPLY:

RECEIVING WATER

EFFECTIVE

EXPIRING

001

[ X ] All Year [ ] Seasonal from _____ to _____

Genesee River

12/01/2017

05/31/2020

EFFLUENT LIMIT PARAMETER

Type

Action Level

Units

Aluminum, Total

Daily Maximum

Monitor

Copper, Total

Daily Maximum

Monitor

Temperature

Daily Maximum

°F

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Location

Action Level

Units

Sample Frequency

Sample Type

mg/L

4.5

lbs/day

Quarterly

24-hr. Comp.

mg/L

0.40

lbs/day

Quarterly

24-hr. Comp.

2/Day

Grab

Inf.

Eff.

FOOTNOTES: (1)

Effluent shall not exceed 1st to October 31st.

% and

% of influent concentration values for CBOD5 & TSS respectively from June

(2)

Effluent shall not exceed 25 November 1st to May 31st.

% and

% of influent concentration values for CBOD5 & TSS respectively from

(3)

Ultimate Oxygen Demand shall be computed as follows: UOD = 1.5 x CBOD5 + 4.5 x TKN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen).

(4)

Total Phenolics is the sum of chlorinated and unchlorinated Phenolics.

(5)

Limits and monitoring requirements are not in effect until May 1, 2022. See the schedule of compliance on page 9.

(6)

Total residual chlorine monitoring is only required if using chlorine for disinfection or other means.

(7)

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing: Testing Requirements - WET testing shall consist of Chronic only. WET testing shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and TOGS 1.3.2 unless prior written approval has been obtained from the Department. The test species shall be Ceriodaphnia dubia (water flea - invertebrate) and Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow - vertebrate). Receiving water collected upstream from the discharge should be used for dilution. All tests conducted should be static-renewal (two 24 hr composite samples with one renewal for Acute tests and three 24 hr composite samples with two renewals for Chronic tests). The appropriate dilution series bracketing the IWC and including one exposure group of 100% effluent should be used to generate a definitive test endpoint, otherwise an immediate rerun of the test is required. WET testing shall be coordinated with the monitoring of chemical and physical parameters limited by this permit so that the resulting analyses are also representative of the sample used for WET testing. The ratio of critical receiving water flow to discharge flow (i.e. dilution ratio) is 2:1 for acute, and 4:1 for chronic. Discharges which are disinfected using chlorine should be dechlorinated prior to WET testing or samples shall be taken immediately prior to the chlorination system. Monitoring Period - WET testing shall be performed at the specified sample frequency during calendar years ending in 1 and 6. Reporting - Toxicity Units shall be calculated and reported on the DMR as follows: TUa = (100)/(48 hr LC50) or (100)/(48 hr EC50) (note that Acute data is generated by both Acute and Chronic testing) and TUc = (100)/(NOEC) when Chronic testing has been performed or TUc = (TUa) x (10) when only Acute testing has been performed and is used to predict Chronic test results, where the 48 hr LC50 or 48 hr EC50 and NOEC are expressed in % effluent. This must be done for both species and using the Most Sensitive Endpoint (MSE) or the lowest NOEC and corresponding highest TUc. Report a TUa of 0.3 if there is no statistically significant toxicity in 100% effluent as compared to control. The complete test report including all corresponding results, statistical analyses, reference toxicity data, daily average flow at the time of sampling and other appropriate supporting documentation, shall be submitted within 60 days following the end of each test period to the Toxicity Testing Unit, Bureau of Watershed Assessment and Management, 625 Broadway, Fourth Floor, Albany, NY 12233-3502. A summary page of the test results for the invertebrate and vertebrate species indicating TUa, 48 hr LC50 or 48 hr EC50 for Acute tests and/or TUc, NOEC, IC25, and most sensitive endpoints for Chronic tests, should also be included at the beginning of the test report.

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 5 of 14

FOOTNOTES (continued) WET Testing Action Level Exceedances - If an action level is exceeded then the Department may require the permittee to conduct additional WET testing including Acute and/or Chronic tests. Additionally, the permittee may be required to perform a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) in accordance with Department guidance. If such additional testing or performance of a TRE is necessary, the permittee shall be notified in writing by the Regional Water Engineer. The written notification shall include the reason(s) why such testing or a TRE is required. (8)

Sampling Requirements – If the discharge temperature exceeds the Action Level of 70 degrees Fahrenheit the permittee shall, within one week, undertake the following one day monitoring program: Monitoring Program – Temperature shall be measured at the following three locations on the same day once in the morning and once in the afternoon: 1. effluent as close as practical to the outfall without influence from the receiving water, 2. receiving water at the bridge downstream from effluent, as shown on page 11, 3. receiving water 0 to 10 feet upstream of the outfall. The receiving water sampling locations shall be documented by the permittee and used for all subsequent monitoring, depicted on the Monitoring Locations page, locations 2 and 3 above, shall be used for monitoring unless a different location is approved by the Department. Temperature monitoring (i.e., collection and analysis of one round of influent, effluent, upstream, and downstream samples) shall be completed within one hour. In addition, the permittee shall provide a qualitative measure of streamflow during the monitoring program. The permittee is exempt from this temperature monitoring program whenever conditions at or near the in-stream monitoring locations are unsafe due to weather. Reporting – Results shall be appended to the corresponding Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and emailed in spreadsheet format to spdes.temperaturedata@dec.ny.gov.

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 6 of 14

MERCURY MINIMIZATION PROGRAM – High Priority POTWs 1. General - The permittee shall develop, implement, and maintain a Mercury Minimization Program (MMP). The MMP is required because the permit limit exceeds the statewide water quality based effluent limit (WQBEL) of 0.70 nanograms/liter (ng/L) for Total Mercury. The goal of the MMP will be to reduce mercury effluent levels in pursuit of the WQBEL. Note – The mercury-related requirements in this permit conform to the mercury Multiple Discharge Variance specified in NYSDEC policy DOW 1.3.10. 2. MMP Elements - The MMP shall be documented in narrative form and shall include any necessary drawings or maps. Other related documents already prepared for the facility may be used as part of the MMP and may be incorporated by reference. As a minimum, the MMP shall include an on-going program consisting of: periodic monitoring designed to quantify and, over time, track the reduction of mercury; an acceptable control strategy for reducing mercury discharges via cost-effective measures, which may include more stringent control of tributary waste streams; and submission of periodic status reports. A. Monitoring - The permittee shall conduct periodic monitoring designed to quantify and, over time, track the reduction of mercury. All permit-related wastewater and stormwater mercury compliance point (outfall) monitoring shall be performed using EPA Method 1631. Use of EPA Method 1669 during sample collection is recommended. Unless otherwise specified, all samples shall be grabs. Monitoring at influent and other locations tributary to compliance points may be performed using either EPA Methods 1631 or 245.7. Monitoring of raw materials, equipment, treatment residuals, and other non-wastewater/nonstormwater substances may be performed using other methods as appropriate. Monitoring shall be coordinated so that the results can be effectively compared between internal locations and final outfalls. Minimum required monitoring is as follows: i. Sewage Treatment Plant Influent & Effluent, and Type II SSO Outfalls - Samples at each of these locations shall be collected in accordance with the minimum frequency specified on the mercury permit limits page. ii. Key Locations in the Collection System and Potential Significant Mercury Sources - The minimum monitoring frequency at these locations shall be semi-annual. Monitoring of properly treated dental facility discharges is not required. iii. Hauled Wastes - Hauled wastes which may contain significant mercury levels shall be periodically tested prior to acceptance to ensure compliance with pretreatment/local limits requirements and/or determine mercury load. iv. Additional monitoring shall be completed as may be required elsewhere in this permit or upon Department request. B. Control Strategy - An acceptable control strategy is required for reducing mercury discharges via cost-effective measures, including but not limited to more stringent control of industrial users and hauled wastes. The control strategy will become enforceable under this permit and shall contain the following minimum elements: i. Pretreatment/Local Limits - The permittee shall evaluate and revise current requirements in pursuit of the goal. ii. Periodic Inspection - The permittee shall inspect users as necessary to support the MMP. Each dental facility shall be inspected at least once every five years to verify compliance with the wastewater treatment operation, maintenance, and notification elements of 6NYCRR Part 374.4. Other mercury sources shall also be inspected once every five years. Alternatively, the permittee may develop an outreach program which informs these users of their responsibilities once every five years and is supported by a subset of site inspections. Monitoring shall be performed as above. iii. Systems with CSO & Type II SSO Outfalls - Priority shall be given to controlling mercury sources upstream of CSOs and Type II SSOs through mercury reduction activities and/or controlled-release discharge. Effective control is necessary to avoid the need for the Department to establish mercury permit limits at these outfalls. iv. Equipment and Materials – Equipment and materials which may contain mercury shall be evaluated by the permittee and replaced with mercury-free alternatives where environmentally preferable. v. Bulk Chemical Evaluation - For chemicals used at a rate which exceeds 1,000 gallons/year or 10,000 pounds/year, the permittee shall obtain a manufacturer's certificate of analysis and/or a notarized affidavit which describes the substances' mercury concentration and the detection limit achieved. The permittee shall only use bulk chemicals which contain <10 ppb mercury, if available. C. Annual Status Report - An annual status report shall be submitted to the Regional Water Engineer and to the Bureau of Water Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, N.Y. 12233-3505, summarizing: (a) all MMP monitoring results for the previous year; (b) a list of known and potential mercury sources; (c) all action undertaken pursuant to the strategy during the previous year; (d) actions planned for the upcoming year; and, (e) progress toward the goal. The first annual status report is due one year after the permit is modified to include the MMP requirement and follow-up status reports are due annually thereafter. A file shall be maintained containing all MMP documentation, including the dental forms required by 6NYCRR Part 374.4, which shall be available for review by NYSDEC representatives. Copies shall be provided upon request. 3. MMP Modification - The MMP shall be modified whenever: (a)changes at the facility or within the collection system increase the potential for mercury discharges; (b) actual discharges exceed 50 ng/L; (c) a letter from the Department identifies inadequacies in the MMP; or, (d) pursuant to a permit modification.

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 7 of 14

(

) - ### - ####

OR: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Office Address: NYSDEC Division of Water Regional Phone: (

) - ### -####

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 8 of 14

such sign would be inconsistent with any other state or federal statute;

instances in which the discharge from the outfall is located in the receiving water, two-hundred or more feet from the shoreline of the receiving water.

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 9 of 14

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE a)

The permittee shall comply with the following schedule:

Outfall(s) 001

Parameter(s) Affected

Interim Effluent Limit(s)

Fecal Coliform Total Residual Chlorine

N/A

Compliance Action

Due Date

May 1, 2019

The permittee shall submit approvable Engineering Plans, Specifications, and Construction Schedule for the Implementation of effluent disinfection.

May 1, 2020

The permittee shall begin construction of the treatment facilities in accordance with the Department approved schedule.

May 1, 2021

The permittee shall complete construction and commence operation of the system, and comply with the final effluent limitations for Fecal Coliform and Total Residual Chlorine.

May 1, 2022

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 10 of 14

MONITORING LOCATIONS The permittee shall take samples and measurements, to comply with the monitoring requirements specified in this permit, at the locations(s) specified below: 

Influent Sampling Location – Prior to any plant internal waste returns and prior to the aerated grit chamber and following the grinder.

Sample Point from Open Chamber 

Effluent Sampling Location – Effluent chamber prior to discharge to the Genesee River.

Final Effluent Sampling Location

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 11 of 14

MONITORING LOCATIONS (continued) 

Downstream Temperature Sampling Location – Sample shall be taken within 25 feet of the southwest shore.

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 12 of 14

6 NYCRR 750-2.1(e) & 2.4 6 NYCRR 750-1.16(a) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(g) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(f) 6 NYCRR 750-1.1(c), 1.18, 1.20 & 2.1(h) 6 NYCRR 750-2.2(b) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(i) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(a) & 2.3

C. Operation and Maintenance 1. Proper Operation & Maintenance 2. Bypass 3. Upset

6 NYCRR 750-2.8 6 NYCRR 750-1.2(a)(17), 2.8(b) & 2.7 6 NYCRR 750-1.2(a)(94) & 2.8(c)

D. Monitoring and Records 1. Monitoring and records 2. Signatory requirements

6 NYCRR 750-2.5(a)(2), 2.5(a)(6), 2.5(c)(1), 2.5(c)(2), & 2.5(d) 6 NYCRR 750-1.8 & 2.5(b)

6 NYCRR 750-2.5, 2.7 & 1.17 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(a) 6 NYCRR 750-1.17 6 NYCRR 750-2.5(e) 6 NYCRR 750-1.14(d) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(c) & (d) 6 NYCRR 750-2.7(e) 6 NYCRR 750-2.1(f) 6 NYCRR 750-2.9

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 13 of 14

Water Treatment Chemicals (WTCs) New or increased use and discharge of a WTC requires prior Department review and authorization. At a minimum, the permittee must notify the Department in writing of its intent to change WTC use by submitting a completed WTC Notification Form for each proposed WTC. The Department will review that submittal and determine if a SPDES permit modification is necessary or whether WTC review and authorization may proceed outside of the formal permit administrative process. The majority of WTC authorizations do not require SPDES permit modification. In any event, use and discharge of a WTC shall not proceed without prior authorization from the Department. Examples of WTCs include biocides, coagulants, conditioners, corrosion inhibitors, defoamers, deposit control agents, flocculants, scale inhibitors, sequestrants, and settling aids. 1. WTC use shall not exceed the rate explicitly authorized by this permit or otherwise authorized in writing by the Department. 2. The permittee shall maintain a logbook of all WTC use, noting for each WTC the date, time, exact location, and amount of each dosage, and, the name of the individual applying or measuring the chemical. The logbook must also document that adequate process controls are in place to ensure that excessive levels of WTCs are not used. 3. The permittee shall submit a completed WTC Annual Report Form each year that they use and discharge WTCs. This form shall be attached to either the December DMR or the annual monitoring report required below. The WTC Notification Form and WTC Annual Report Form are available from the Department’s website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/93245.html

SPDES Number: NY0020621 Page 14 of 14

RECORDING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS A.

The monitoring information required by this permit shall be summarized, signed and retained for a period of at least five years from the date of the sampling for subsequent inspection by the Department or its designated agent. Also, monitoring information required by this permit shall be summarized and reported by submitting; X (if box is checked) completed and signed Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms for each ONE (1) month reporting period to the locations specified below. Blank forms are available at the Department's Albany office listed below. The first reporting period begins on the effective date of this permit and the reports will be due no later than the 28th day of the month following the end of each reporting period. (if box is checked) an annual report to the Regional Water Engineer at the address specified below. The annual report is due by February 1 each year and must summarize information for January to December of the previous year in a format acceptable to the Department. X (if box is checked) a monthly "Wastewater Facility Operation Report..." (form 92-15-7) to the: X Regional Water Engineer and/or County Health Department or Environmental Control Agency specified below Send the original (top sheet) of each DMR page to: Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water, Bureau of Water Compliance 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-3506

Send the first copy (second sheet) of each DMR page to: Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Water Engineer, Region 9 270 Michigan Avenue Buffalo, New York 14023-2999

Phone: (518) 402-8177

Phone: (716) 851-7070

Send an additional copy of each DMR page to: B.

Monitoring and analysis shall be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit.

Calculations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified in this permit.

Unless otherwise specified, all information recorded on the DMRs shall be based upon measurements and sampling carried out during the most recently completed reporting period.

D9 – Town of Hume Sewer District

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

July 17, 2023 Town Supervisor Town of Hume PO Box 302 Fillmore, New York 14735 Re: Town of Hume Wastewater Treatment Plant SPDES No. NY0203858 Municipal Wastewater and Disinfection Improvements Plans & Specifications Approval Dear Supervisor Darlene Mason: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has reviewed the submission listed below for the referenced water pollution control project. The proposed project consists of the following major components: 

Upgrades to the existing Route 19A pump station, including duplex solid handling pumps, variable frequency drives, emergency generator, influent flow meter, and remote monitoring system; and



Installation of 17,690 linear feet (LF) of 6-inch HDPE forcemain sanitary sewer pipe, 1,640 LF of 6-inch DR-17 HDPE carrier pipe, eight 5-foot diameter manholes, and 10 5-foot diameter air/vacuum release manholes.

The following submission is hereby approved: Project Title: Municipal Wastewater and Disinfection Improvements Date of Documents: May 2023 Consulting Firm: MRB Engineering Prepared by: Shawn R. Bray (License #: 071383) Please be advised that this determination is subject to the conditions listed on the page 3. The DEC does not assume responsibility for the design of the project. The NYS-licensed professional engineer who designed the system and has certified that the project meets all requirements is responsible for the design. Our review is a technical review of the processes involved in conveying and/or treating sewage rather than a complete detailed review of the design. Further, this approval does not negate the need to obtain other necessary permits or approvals prior to construction.

Page 1 of 3

Supervisor Mason July 17, 2023 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Sevon Thompson at (716) 851-7106 or sevon.thompson@dec.ny.gov. Sincerely,

Damianos T. Skaros, P.E. Regional Water Engineer Enclosure: Construction Completion Certification ec: MRB Group – Shawn Bray (Shawn.Bray@mrbgroup.com) NYSDEC DOW Region 9 – Sevon Thompson (sevon.thomspon@dec.ny.gov) NYSDEC DOW Region 9 – Melanie Wright, P.E. (melanie.wright@dec.ny.gov)

Page 2 of 3

Supervisor Mason July 17, 2023 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (1)

THAT the facilities shall be operated in compliance with State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit No. NY0203858 issued to the Town of Hume.

(2)

THAT this approval letter and conditions, and the approved submissions be kept on file by the Town of Hume.

(3)

THAT the facility or the approved plans for the facility shall not be changed or modified or otherwise altered without prior written approval by DEC.

(4)

THAT this approval may be modified, suspended or revoked pursuant to Article 17 of the NYS ECL where DEC finds a violation of any term of this approval or that this approval was obtained by misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts.

(5)

THAT this approval in no way relieves the permittee, owner and/or developer or any of their employees from obtaining all other approvals or permits required by DEC or any other municipal agency.

(6)

THAT within 60 days after completion of construction, the professional engineer supervising construction shall provide “as-built” drawings to the Town of Hume.

(7)

THAT within thirty (30) days following completion of construction, the NYS-licensed professional engineer (PE) shall submit a construction completion certificate to this office, certifying the constructed facilities have been under their supervision and the work has been completed in accordance with the approved engineering report and plans.

(8)

THAT this project must be constructed in accordance with the approved schedule and be in operation by May 2024.

(9)

THAT the facilities shall not receive or be committed to receive wastes beyond their design capacity.

Page 3 of 3

November 21, 2024

Honorable Michael A. Cox Town Of Caneadea 8911 State Route 19 P.O. Box 596 Caneadea, New York 14717 Dear Supervisor Cox: Receiving New Waste From Town Of Hume SD Caneadea (T) Houghton SD WWTP Allegany County SPDES Permit # NY 0024431 This office has completed its review of the document entitled, “Town of Caneadea – Downstream Sewer Capacity Analysis” (MRB, November 13, 2024). The letter report as submitted to the Department and received on November 18, 2024, are hereby approved by this Department. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (716) 851-7070. Regards,

Damianos T. Skaros, P.E. Regional Water Engineer WM/slr ec:

William Murray, P.E. Professional Engineer 1, NYSDEC Region 9 Sevon Thompson, NYSDEC Region 9 Derek Anderson, P.E. (MRB)

APPENDIX E E Study Areas

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

FILE PATH LOCATION

N:\0120.24001.000\dwg\GIS Data\AlleganyCountyProjectAreas\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures\AlleganyCounty_ProjectAreaFigures.aprx AppE_StudyAreas_24x36-P1

SA IB

36 19A

Town of Centerville

Town of Hume

SA IC

EXISTING SA IA

Town of Grove

Town of Granger

SA IB FM

SA IA

27B

4 16 EXISTING FM

243

Village of Canaseraga

SA IIIA

Burns Sewer District #1 AVG: 7,640 GPD MAX: 23,230 GPD PEAK: 30 GPM PS DAF: 36 GPM

15B

SA IIIB SA IIIB

EXISTING

961F 52

Existing Town of Caneadea, Houghton WWTP 0.179 0.079 0.126 0.280

EXISTING

SA IIIA

III

SA IA 23

Existing Village of Canaseraga WWTP ------------0.100

13C 15A

15A

Town of Burns

SA IIB FM

Town of Rushford

SA IIA

7E SA IID

Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District AVG: 170,200 GPD MAX: 481,500 GPD PEAK: 600 GPM WWTP DAF: 188,000 GPD

Town of Caneadea

Town of Birdsall

Town of Allen

SA IIB

49 7B

Belfast Sewer District AVG: 43,460 GPD MAX: 132,100 GPD PEAK: 170 GPM WWTP DAF: 48,000 GPD

SA IIC FM

Town of Almond

SA IIC 2A

Village of Angelica 51,780 GPD AVG: 157,410 GPD MAX: 20 GPM PEAK: WWTP DAF: 57,000 GPD SA IVA FM2

Town of New Hudson

Town of Belfast

Town of Angelica

Village of Angelica

SA IVA FM1

Town of West Almond

16 SA IVA FM3

305

SA IVA

SA V FM SA VA

Village of Almond

Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District AVG: 76,930 GPD MAX: 233,870 GPD PEAK: 300 GPM PS DAF: 360 GPM Existing Village of Alfred WWTP 0.613 0.167 0.373 0.980

SA VB

SA VC SA VIIC

EXISTING

7C SA VIC (4)

7D 25

EXISTING

Town of Cuba

SA VIC (3) SA VID

Existing Town of Cuba WWTP 0.685 0.197 0.119 0.970

446

Existing Village of Belmont WWTP 0.256 0.066 0.134 0.155

SA VIC (1)

EXISTING SA VIA

Existing Great Lakes Cheese WWTP

SA VIB

SA VIIB

VII Town of Friendship

Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 18,120 GPD AVG: 30,730 GPD MAX: 47 GPM PEAK: 57 GPM PS DAF:

SA VIIB FM2

Village of

Existing Saputo Dairy Foods, LLC Industrial WWTP

Town of Belmont Amity

Village of Alfred

SA VD

Town of Alfred

Town of Ward

EXISTING

SA VIIB FM1

SA VC

244

SA VIID

EXISTING

Existing Town of Friendship WWTP 0.225 0.049 0.119 0.286

SA VIIB FM3

31A

SA VIIA

SA IXF

10 SA XA 9

Town of Scio

Town of Clarksville

Town of Wirt

Existing Village of Wellsville WWTP 0.172 0.600 1.073 2.200

275

SA VIIIC SA VIIID

Existing Village of Bolivar WWTP 0.833 0.099 0.363 0.400

SA VIIIF

Town of Wellsville

SA VIIIF FM SA VIIIF

EXISTING

SA VIIIA

Town of Genesee

SA IXD SA IXD SA IXB

Village of Wellsville 417

X 30

EXISTING

SA IXD SA IXD

SA VIIID

VIII

Village of Richburg

Village of Bolivar

SA XA FM

SA IXC SA IXC SA IXC

417

SA VIIID

Town of Andover

SA IXA

Village of Andover

22A SA IXE

SA XIA FM

SA VIIIB

Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1 7,150 GPD AVG: 21,740 GPD MAX: 28 GPM PEAK: 34 GPM PS DAF:

Town of Willing

Town of Alma

Town of Bolivar

Town of Independence

248

SA XIA

19A

SA VIIIE

SA VIIIE FM

248A

SA VIIIE FM

Study Area I

Study Area IX

Study Area VIII

Existing Service Area

Existing WWTP

Study Area II

Study Area V

Study Area X

Tier I

Study Area III

Study Area VI

Study Area XI

Tier II

Proposed WWTP or Pump Station

Study Area IV

Study Area VII

Tier III Tier IV Transmission Main

0120.24001 SHEET NO. E

MRB Group Engineering, Architecture & Surveying, D.P.C. THE CULVER ROAD ARMORY 145 CULVER ROAD, SUITE 160 ROCHESTER, NY 14620 585-381-9250 WWW.MRBGROUP.COM

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 017763

Drawn By:

TJV

Scale:

1" = 7,000' @22"x34"

Date:

M AY 2 0 2 6

APPENDIX F F Opinion of Probable Project Costs

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

F1 – Tier 1 Service Areas

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

Probable cost estimates prepared for this study are based on low-pressure sewer systems in 2025 to provide a baseline suitable for comparing service area capital costs. Further analysis by engineers for specific projects will determine which type of system is most suitable for each service area. These costs are for comparative purposes only.

TIER 1 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

Study Area I - Town of Hume Study Area II - Town Caneadea Study Area II - Town of Rushford Study Area II - Town of Belfast Belfast Sewer District #1 w/ Hamlet of Belfast WWTP #1

13,857,515.00

($628,130.22)

371.3

($1,691.71)

46,325,660.00

($2,099,838.75)

1,563.3

($1,343.25)

Study Area III - Towns of Grove and Burns Town of Burns Sewer District #1

2,940,665.00

($133,293.78)

55.5

($2,401.69)

Study Area IV - Village of Angelica Village of Angelica WWTP

14,034,545.00

($636,154.59)

469.0

($1,356.55)

17,125,932.02

($776,280.27)

630.1

($1,232.00)

Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea and Rushford Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District Hamlet of Rushford, Rushford Lake, Hamlet of Caneadea w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP - WWTP #3 Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea and Belfast Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea, Rushford and Belfast Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea, Rushford and Belfast with Hamlet of Rushford

Study Areas IV, II & VII - Towns of Angelica and Belfast, Village of Angelica and Allegany County Sewer District Study Area V - Village of Almond Study Area V -Towns of Alfred and Almond, and Village of Almond Village of Almond - Expanded Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District Study Area V -Town of Alfred

TIER 1 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area VI - Town of Cuba Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 (Former cheese plant.)

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

3,726,060.00

($168,893.98)

158.8

($1,063.90)

3,579,940.00

($162,270.69)

150.7

($1,076.78)

11,325,705.00

($513,368.92)

404.2

($1,270.24)

Study Area VI - Oil Spring Territory Study Area VII – Allegany County CR20 Sewer District Study Area VII - Town of Friendship Study Area VII - Town of Amity Study Area VIII - Town of Bolivar Town of Bolivar Sewer District #1 (SR-417-S) Study Area VIII - Town of Genesee Study Area VIII - Towns of Bolivar and Genesee Study Area VIII - Village of Richburg and Town of Wirt Study Area IX - Town of Wellsville Town of Wellsville Sewer District #2 & #3 (Truax - Proctor - Morningside) Study Area IX - Town of Scio

TIER 1 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area X -Village of Andover Village of Andover w/ Village WWTP Study Area XI - Town of Independence

Project Cost $

17,038,435.00

Debt Service ($772,314.22)

EDU 557.3

Cost/EDU ($1,385.81)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

F2 – Tier 2 Service Areas

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

TIER 2 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area I - Town of Hume Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District - PS

Fillmore SD Ext #2 (Hume) - LPS Fillmore Sewer Extensions #1, #2 and #3

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

$ $ $

5,216,765.00 3,161,250.00 5,472,475.00

($236,464.31) ($143,292.41) ($248,055.07)

110.0 107.3 208.7

($2,149.68) ($1,336.06) ($1,188.86)

20,962,600.00

($950,187.86)

560.4

($1,695.55)

3,778,432.02

($171,267.89)

78.3

($2,187.33)

30,776,525.00

($1,395,031.17)

915.0

($1,524.62)

15,529,852.02

($703,933.52)

601.4

($1,170.59)

Study Area II - Town Caneadea Study Area II - Town of Rushford Study Area II - Town of Belfast Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea and Rushford Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea and Belfast Caneadea-Belfast Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP #4 Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea, Rushford and Belfast Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea, Rushford and Belfast with Hamlet of Rushford Study Area III - Towns of Grove and Burns Towns of Burns and Grove, Swain-Garwood Joint Sewer District Study Area IV - Village of Angelica Study Areas IV, II & VII - Towns of Angelica and Belfast, Village of Angelica and Allegany County Sewer District Angelica - Belfast Joint Sewer District - Belfast WWTP #2 Study Area V - Village of Almond Study Area V -Towns of Alfred and Almond, and Village of Almond Village of Almond - Alfred-Almond Joint Sewer District Study Area V -Town of Alfred

TIER 2 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area VI - Town of Cuba Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 w/ Extension #1

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

4,989,155.00

($226,147.26)

184.8

($1,224.07)

3,121,187.07

($141,476.44)

111.3

($1,271.13)

5,927,695.00

($268,689.18)

234.7

($1,144.82)

Study Area VIII - Village of Richburg and Town of Wirt Richburg-Wirt Joint Sewer District

6,066,790.00

($274,994.05)

287.5

($956.67)

Study Area IX - Town of Wellsville Town of Wellsville Sewer District #2 (Truax - Proctor) Wellsville-Willing Joint Sewer District (Stannard) Town of Wellsville Sewer Districts #2, #3 & #4

$ $ $

5,673,390.00 9,216,800.00 13,815,365.00

($257,162.10) ($417,776.97) ($626,219.65)

235.1 385.3 554.0

($1,093.84) ($1,084.29) ($1,130.46)

Study Area IX - Town of Scio Scio Sewer District #1 w/ Wellsville-Scio Joint Sewer District

13,712,800.00

($621,570.61)

506.9

($1,226.34)

Study Area VI - Oil Spring Territory Study Area VII – Allegany County CR20 Sewer District Study Area VII - Town of Friendship Town of Friendship Sewer District Extension #1 Study Area VII - Town of Amity Study Area VIII - Town of Bolivar Town of Bolivar Sewer Districts #1 and #2 Study Area VIII - Town of Genesee Study Area VIII - Towns of Bolivar and Genesee

TIER 2 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

Study Area X -Village of Andover Study Area XI - Town of Independence Whitesville Sewer District WWTP

13,610,235.00

($616,921.57)

267.7

($2,304.96)

F3 – Tier 3 Service Areas

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

TIER 3 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

Study Area I - Town of Hume Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District - WWTP Wiscoy-Rossburg PS w/ Hume SD Extensions

$ $

5,971,250.00 10,689,240.00

($270,663.43) ($484,519.39)

81.5 318.7

($3,321.02) ($1,520.54)

Study Area II - Town Caneadea Town of Caneadea, Caneadea SD - WWTP #1 Town of Caneadea, Caneadea SD - PS #1

$ $

6,776,315.00 5,208,335.00

($307,155.23) ($236,082.20)

112.6 136.6

($2,727.84) ($1,728.27)

Study Area II - Town of Rushford Hamlet of Rushford SD - WWTP Hamlet of Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District - WWTP

$ $

8,910,510.00 37,985,580.00

($403,893.53) ($1,721,801.54)

227.1 1,450.7

($1,778.48) ($1,186.92)

$ $

40,926,245.00 39,510,005.00

($1,855,095.32) ($1,790,900.32)

1,336.2 1,360.2

($1,388.39) ($1,316.69)

44,909,420.00

($2,035,643.75)

1,587.3

($1,282.50)

19,567,435.00

($886,948.15)

584.4

($1,517.71)

54,838,555.00

($2,485,709.28)

1,784.0

($1,393.37)

54,795,000.00

($2,483,735.03)

1,808.0

($1,373.79)

61,225,685.00

($2,775,223.62)

2,011.1

($1,379.99)

60,909,560.00

($2,760,894.38)

2,035.1

($1,356.67)

1,822,285.00

($82,600.11)

88.5

($933.33)

Study Area II - Town of Belfast Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea and Rushford Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP #2 Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea PS #2 Rushford-Caneadea Joint Sewer District Hamlet of Rushford, Rushford Lake, Hamlet of Caneadea w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP - PS #3 Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea and Belfast Caneadea-Belfast Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea PS #4 Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea, Rushford and Belfast Belfast, Caneadea and Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP - WWTP #5 Belfast, Caneadea and Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea PS - PS #5 Study Area II - Towns of Caneadea, Rushford and Belfast with Hamlet of Rushford Belfast, Caneadea, Rushford and Rushford Lake and Rushford Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea WWTP #6 Belfast, Caneadea, Rushford and Rushford Lake and Rushford Joint Sewer District w/ Hamlet of Caneadea PS #6 Study Area III - Towns of Grove and Burns Town of Burns Sewer District #2 Study Area IV - Village of Angelica Study Areas IV, II & VII - Towns of Angelica and Belfast, Village of Angelica and Allegany County Sewer District

TIER 3 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area V - Village of Almond Village of Almond - WWTP Village of Almond - TM to Alfred Village of Almond - TM to Hornell

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

$ $ $

9,620,422.02 8,801,307.02 9,687,862.02

($436,072.25) ($398,943.60) ($439,129.16)

259.7 259.7 259.7

($1,679.46) ($1,536.47) ($1,691.23)

2,828,265.00

($128,198.94)

88.5

($1,448.58)

Study Area V -Towns of Alfred and Almond, and Village of Almond Study Area V -Town of Alfred Town of Alfred Sewer Extension District #1

TIER 3 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area VI - Town of Cuba Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 - Extension #1 Town of Cuba Sewer District #7 (West Main) Town of Cuba Sewer District #8 (East Side) Town of Cuba Sewer District #5 - Extension #1 Town of Cuba Sewer District #5 - Extension #2 Town of Cuba Sewer Districts #5, #7 and #8 Combined Town of Cuba Sewer Extensions, All Combined

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,263,095.00 1,129,620.00 2,340,730.00 1,808,235.00 2,575,365.00 7,853,950.00 12,843,105.00

($57,253.28) ($51,203.15) ($106,100.07) ($81,963.26) ($116,735.55) ($356,002.02) ($582,149.28)

26.0 17.1 45.3 41.9 65.0 169.3 354.0

($2,202.05) ($3,003.12) ($2,342.16) ($1,956.16) ($1,795.93) ($2,103.41) ($1,644.49)

Study Area VIII - Town of Bolivar Town of Bolivar Sewer District #2 (SR-417-E)

2,347,755.00

($106,418.49)

84.0

($1,266.89)

Study Area VIII - Town of Genesee Town of Genesee Sewer District #1 w/ WWTP #1 in Ceres Town of Genesee Sewer District #1 w/ TM to Village of Portville Town of Genesee Sewer District #2 w/ WWTP #2 Town of Genesee Sewer District #2 w/ TM to Village of Portville

$ $ $ $

11,241,405.00 10,498,160.00 13,214,025.00 10,796,020.00

($509,547.79) ($475,858.16) ($598,962.25) ($489,359.49)

250.0 274.5 303.3 303.3

($2,038.60) ($1,733.86) ($1,975.14) ($1,613.72)

Study Area VIII - Towns of Bolivar and Genesee Genesee-Bolivar Joint Sewer District

11,322,895.00

($513,241.55)

400.7

($1,281.02)

Study Area VIII - Village of Richburg and Town of Wirt Village of Richburg Town of Wirt Sewer District #1 (Messer Hill Rd) Town of Wirt Sewer District #2 (SR275, CR8)

$ $ $

3,579,940.00 1,157,720.00 1,316,485.00

($162,270.69) ($52,476.86) ($59,673.33)

150.7 105.3 31.5

($1,076.78) ($498.59) ($1,894.39)

Study Area IX - Town of Wellsville Wellsville-Scio Joint Sewer District (No Scio hamlet.) Town of Wellsville Sewer District #3 (Morningside) Town of Wellsville Sewer District #4 (Side Streets)

$ $ $

4,952,625.00 5,652,315.00 2,489,660.00

($224,491.43) ($256,206.82) ($112,850.73)

165.5 169.1 149.8

($1,356.85) ($1,515.57) ($753.34)

Study Area IX - Town of Scio Scio Sewer District #1 w/ Scio WWTP

12,500,285.00

($566,610.01)

341.4

($1,659.67)

Study Area VI - Oil Spring Territory Study Area VII – Allegany County CR20 Sewer District Study Area VII - Town of Friendship Study Area VII - Town of Amity

TIER 3 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Scio Sewer District #1 w/ Scio-Amity Joint Sewer District

Project Cost $

12,927,405.00

Debt Service ($585,970.41)

EDU 442.1

Cost/EDU ($1,325.43)

TIER 3 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area X -Village of Andover Village of Andover w / TM to Wellsville Village of Andover w/ Andover-Wellsville Joint Sewer District Study Area XI - Town of Independence Whitesville Sewer District w/TM to Wellsville WWTP Independence-Willing-Wellsville Joint Sewer District

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

$ $

19,983,315.00 28,858,700.00

($905,799.06) ($1,308,100.45)

557.3 955.2

($1,625.33) ($1,369.52)

$ $

17,502,085.00 26,918,395.00

($793,330.44) ($1,220,150.75)

267.7 788.6

($2,964.06) ($1,547.33)

Probable cost estimates prepared for this study are based on low-pressure sewer systems to provide a baseline suitable for comparing service area capital costs. Further analysis by engineers for specific projects will determine which type of system is most suitable for each service area. These costs are for comparative purposes only.

F4 – Tier 4 Service Areas

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

TIER 4 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

Study Area I - Town of Hume Wiscoy-Rossburg Sewer District - WWTP Wiscoy-Rossburg PS w/ Hume SD Extensions

$ $

5,971,250.00 10,689,240.00

($270,663.43) ($484,519.39)

81.5 318.7

($3,321.02) ($1,520.54)

Study Area II - Town Caneadea Town of Caneadea, Caneadea SD - WWTP #1 Town of Caneadea, Caneadea SD - PS #1

$ $

6,776,315.00 5,208,335.00

($307,155.23) ($236,082.20)

112.6 136.6

($2,727.84) ($1,728.27)

Study Area II - Town of Rushford Hamlet of Rushford SD - WWTP Hamlet of Rushford / Rushford Lake Joint Sewer District - WWTP

$ $

8,910,510.00 37,985,580.00

($403,893.53) ($1,721,801.54)

227.1 1,450.7

($1,778.48) ($1,186.92)

$ $

40,926,245.00 39,510,005.00

($1,855,095.32) ($1,790,900.32)

1,336.2 1,360.2

($1,388.39) ($1,316.69)

44,909,420.00

($2,035,643.75)

1,587.3

($1,282.50)

19,567,435.00

($886,948.15)

584.4

($1,517.71)

54,838,555.00

($2,485,709.28)

1,784.0

($1,393.37)

54,795,000.00

($2,483,735.03)

1,808.0

($1,373.79)

61,225,685.00

($2,775,223.62)

2,011.1

($1,379.99)

60,909,560.00

($2,760,894.38)

2,035.1

($1,356.67)

1,822,285.00

($82,600.11)

88.5

($933.33)

TIER 4 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area V - Village of Almond Village of Almond - WWTP Village of Almond - TM to Alfred Village of Almond - TM to Hornell

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

$ $ $

9,620,422.02 8,801,307.02 9,687,862.02

($436,072.25) ($398,943.60) ($439,129.16)

259.7 259.7 259.7

($1,679.46) ($1,536.47) ($1,691.23)

2,828,265.00

($128,198.94)

88.5

($1,448.58)

Study Area V -Towns of Alfred and Almond, and Village of Almond Study Area V -Town of Alfred Town of Alfred Sewer Extension District #1

TIER 4 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area VI - Town of Cuba Town of Cuba Sewer District #6 - Extension #1 Town of Cuba Sewer District #7 (West Main) Town of Cuba Sewer District #8 (East Side) Town of Cuba Sewer District #5 - Extension #1 Town of Cuba Sewer District #5 - Extension #2 Town of Cuba Sewer Districts #5, #7 and #8 Combined Town of Cuba Sewer Extensions, All Combined

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,263,095.00 1,129,620.00 2,340,730.00 1,808,235.00 2,575,365.00 7,853,950.00 12,843,105.00

($57,253.28) ($51,203.15) ($106,100.07) ($81,963.26) ($116,735.55) ($356,002.02) ($582,149.28)

26.0 17.1 45.3 41.9 65.0 169.3 354.0

($2,202.05) ($3,003.12) ($2,342.16) ($1,956.16) ($1,795.93) ($2,103.41) ($1,644.49)

Study Area VIII - Town of Bolivar Town of Bolivar Sewer District #2 (SR-417-E)

2,347,755.00

($106,418.49)

84.0

($1,266.89)

$ $ $ $

11,241,405.00 10,498,160.00 13,214,025.00 10,796,020.00

($509,547.79) ($475,858.16) ($598,962.25) ($489,359.49)

250.0 274.5 303.3 303.3

($2,038.60) ($1,733.86) ($1,975.14) ($1,613.72)

Study Area VIII - Towns of Bolivar and Genesee Genesee-Bolivar Joint Sewer District

11,322,895.00

($513,241.55)

400.7

($1,281.02)

Study Area VIII - Village of Richburg and Town of Wirt Village of Richburg Town of Wirt Sewer District #1 (Messer Hill Rd) Town of Wirt Sewer District #2 (SR275, CR8)

$ $ $

3,579,940.00 1,157,720.00 1,316,485.00

($162,270.69) ($52,476.86) ($59,673.33)

150.7 105.3 31.5

($1,076.78) ($498.59) ($1,894.39)

Study Area IX - Town of Wellsville Wellsville-Scio Joint Sewer District (No Scio hamlet.) Town of Wellsville Sewer District #3 (Morningside) Town of Wellsville Sewer District #4 (Side Streets)

$ $ $

4,952,625.00 5,652,315.00 2,489,660.00

($224,491.43) ($256,206.82) ($112,850.73)

165.5 169.1 149.8

($1,356.85) ($1,515.57) ($753.34)

Study Area IX - Town of Scio Scio Sewer District #1 w/ Scio WWTP

12,500,285.00

($566,610.01)

341.4

($1,659.67)

Study Area VI - Oil Spring Territory Study Area VII – Allegany County CR20 Sewer District Study Area VII - Town of Friendship Study Area VII - Town of Amity

TIER 4 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Scio Sewer District #1 w/ Scio-Amity Joint Sewer District

Project Cost $

12,927,405.00

Debt Service ($585,970.41)

EDU 442.1

Cost/EDU ($1,325.43)

TIER 4 SERVICE AREAS PROJECT Study Area X -Village of Andover Village of Andover w / TM to Wellsville Village of Andover w/ Andover-Wellsville Joint Sewer District Study Area XI - Town of Independence Whitesville Sewer District w/TM to Wellsville WWTP Independence-Willing-Wellsville Joint Sewer District

Project Cost

Debt Service

EDU

Cost/EDU

$ $

19,983,315.00 28,858,700.00

($905,799.06) ($1,308,100.45)

557.3 955.2

($1,625.33) ($1,369.52)

$ $

17,502,085.00 26,918,395.00

($793,330.44) ($1,220,150.75)

267.7 788.6

($2,964.06) ($1,547.33)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

APPENDIX G G References

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

REFERENCES 1.

Our Vision, Our Mission: Outlook for 2030, Allegany County Comprehensive Plan. (Allegany County, September 2019.)

Comprehensive Plan, Alfred, NY. (Town and Village of Alfred, 2020.)

Comprehensive Plan, Town of Alma, Allegany County, New York, An Economic Development Roadmap. (Town of Alma Community Development Organization, Inc., July 2016.)

Comprehensive Plan, Town of Amity. (Comprehensive Planning Committee, October 1, 2022.)

Comprehensive Plan, Town and Village of Almond, New York. (Town and Village of Almond Comprehensive Plan Board, 2018.)

Comprehensive Plan, Village of Angelica. (Village of Angelica Board, February 18, 2020.)

Comprehensive Plan 2024, Town of Belfast. (December 2, 2024.)

A Strategic Plan for Bolivar New York, 2019. (Village of Bolivar 2019.)

Comprehensive Plan 2014, Town of Burns, Village of Canaseraga. (The Corns Comprehensive Planning Board, October 2014.)

10.

Comprehensive Plan, Town of Caneadea. (Town of Caneadea, July 21, 2020.)

11.

Cuba Comprehensive Plan, A Joint Effort Between the Town & Village. (Cuba Comprehensive Plan Committee & Allegany County Office of Planning, February 2021.)

12.

Comprehensive Plan, Town of Grove & Hamlet of Swain. (The Grove Comprehensive Planning Board in Cooperation with the Board of: Town of Grove, April 2009.)

13.

Comprehensive Plan, Town of Hume. (Town of Hume, January 8, 2025.)

14.

Comprehensive Plan, Town of Rushford. (Town of Rushford, undated.)

15.

Plan Wellsville, A Comprehensive Plan for the Future. (Village and Town of Wellsville, NY 2024.)

16.

Comprehensive Plan 2023, Town of Willing. (Town of Willing, 2023.)

17.

Allegany County New York Comprehensive Sewer Study, (Metcalf & Eddy Engineers, November 15, 1968.)

18.

Western Four County Comprehensive Sewerage Study, Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, and Wyoming Counties, NY. (O’Brian & Gere, May 1979.)

19.

Wastewater Infrastructure Needs of New York State. (March 2008.)

20.

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2022 Southern Tier West Region. (Southern Tier West Regional Planning and Development Board, September 2022.)

21.

US Census.

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

22.

2024 County and Economic Development Regions Population Estimates, Analysis of the US Census Bureau Vintage 2024 Total County Population Estimates. (Cornell University Program for Applied Demographics, March 2025.)

23.

Cornell Program on Applied Demographics in cooperation with the New York State Center for Rural Schools. (Cornell University Program for Applied Demographics, March, 2025.)

24.

Final Intended Use Plan, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Federal Fiscal Year 2026. (Effective October 1, 2025 – September 30, 2026.)

25.

New York State, Department of State (www.dos.ny.gov).

26.

New York State, Office of the Comptroller (www.osc.ny.gov/public-authorities).

27.

Intermunicipal Cooperation and Consolidation, Exploring Opportunities for Savings and Improved Service Delivery. (Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of Local Government and School Accountability, undated, circa 01/01/2010.)

28.

Guide to Developing a Municipal Wastewater Project for Small, Rural Communities in New York State. (Lamont Engineers, 2007.)

29.

Wastewater Management Handbook for Local Representatives. (NYWEA, January 2013.)

30.

Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. (Health Research, Inc., 2014 Edition.)

31.

New York State Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems. (NYSDEC, March 5, 2014.)

32.

Guides for the Design of Wastewater Treatment Work, TR-16. (New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, 2011 Ed, 2016 Rev.)

33.

Residential Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. (NYSDOH, Bureau of Water Supply, 2012.)

34.

Wastewater Treatment Standards – Residential Onsite Systems. (Appendix 75-A of part 75, Section 201(1)(1) of the New York Public Health Law.)

35.

6 CRR-NY 750 State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits

36.

40 CFR Part 403 General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution (EPA June 26, 1978.)

37.

Model Sewer Use Law (Incorporating Federal Pretreatment Language). (1994 Revision)

38.

EPA Model Pretreatment Ordinance. (USEPA Office of Wastewater Management/Permits Division, January 2007.)

39.

Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. (USEPA March 1973.)

40.

The Northeast Guide for Estimating Staffing at Publicly and Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants. (NEIWPCC November 2008.)

41.

Guidelines for Staffing Wastewater Treatment Plants (TOGS 1.5.4). (August 21, 1990.)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026

42.

New York State Flood Risk Management Guidance for Implementation of the Community Risk and Resiliency Act. (NYSDEC, August 2020.)

43.

Stormwater Management Design Manual. (NYSDEC, July 31, 2024.)

44.

Preparing for Extreme Weather at Wastewater Utilities: Strategies and Tips. (NEIWPCC, September 2016.)

45.

Allegany County, New York Flod Risk Review (FRR) Meeting, Flood Risk Project. (FEMA August 27, 2025)

46.

Custom Soil Resource Report for Allegany County Area, New York. (USDA NCRS 1/13/2026.)

47.

SPDES Permits for facilities in Allegany County.

48.

Town and Village 2025 Budgets.

49.

Low Pressure Sewer Systems Using Environment One Grinder Pumps. (Environment One)

50.

2022 Census of Agriculture, New York State and County Data: Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 32. (US Department of Agriculture)

MRB Project No. 0120.24001.000 Comprehensive Sewer Study Allegany County, New York July 2026