Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Chapter 18D:
Wastewater Reuse Alternative
18D.1.
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Chapter 18 of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) presents and analyzes alternatives to the Proposed Project. The analysis of alternatives in this DEIS is presented in four parts that, together with an introduction, make up Chapter 18: Chapter 18A, which analyzes process and operational alternatives to the Proposed Project (other than the Ambrey Pond Reservoir Alternative and the Wastewater Reuse Alternative); Chapter 18B, which evaluates design alternatives for the Proposed Project; Chapter 18C, which assesses the Ambrey Pond Reservoir Alternative; and Chapter 18D (this chapter), which assesses the Wastewater Reuse Alternative.
To comply with SEQRA, environmental impact statements (EISs) must include an evaluation of alternatives that seeks to identify reasonable alternatives available. As set forth in the SEQRA regulations, EISs must include a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. 1 The SEQRA regulations call for analysis of a No Action Alternativein which the Proposed Project is not implementedas well as a range of alternatives, that may also include, as appropriate, alternative: (a) sites; (b) technology; (c) scale or magnitude; (d) design; (e) timing; (f) use; and (g) types of action. 2 This chapter presents and analyzes an alternative to the Proposed Project involving the reuse of wastewater to supplement the water sources supplying Lake DeForest reservoir. Chapter 18A, Process and Operational Alternatives, of this DEIS describes the potential for using reclaimed sewage plant effluent or stormwater runoff for non-potable water uses, such as irrigation, or to recharge aquifers. These concepts were found to be either cost-prohibitive and/or limited in their ability to meet the Projects purpose and need, which is to address the anticipated future demand for an additional 7.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of water in Rockland County. Such measures could be part of overall water conservation initiatives on a project- or site-specific basis but would not be a viable alternative to the Proposed Project. The most feasible alternative for using treated wastewater as reclaimed water that would meet the Projects purpose and need is described and evaluated in this chapter. That alternative would use wastewater from one of the countys sewage treatment plants and treat it for discharge to Lake DeForest, to supplement the water that is available from the reservoir for use by Rockland County. A variation of this alternative, in which the reclaimed water is instead discharged to the
1 2
6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v). Ibid.
18D-1
Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS
Hackensack River at the base of the Lake DeForest dam, referred to in this chapter as the River Discharge Option, is described at the end of this chapter. After this introduction, this chapter of the DEIS includes the following sections: Section 18D.2: Section 18D.3: Section 18D.4: Section 18D.5: Description of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative. Ability of this Alternative to Meet the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project. Effects of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative. Description and Evaluation of Wastewater Reuse Alternative River Discharge Option
18D.2.
18D.2.1.
DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE

OVERVIEW
This alternative considers the potential for using treated sewage effluent from the Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant (RCSD1 WWTP) in Orangeburg by providing further treatment so that it can be released into the Lake DeForest reservoir. This would increase the safe yield of the Lake DeForest reservoir for United Water New York Inc.s (United Water) Rockland County customers by as much as 7.8 mgd to produce 7.5 mgd of potable water, which would meet the purpose and need for the Project. This alternative is described below. As noted above, a variation of this alternative, in which the reclaimed water is instead discharged to the Hackensack River at the base of the Lake DeForest dam (referred to as the River Discharge Option), is described at the end of this chapter in section 18D.5. As discussed in Chapter 18A (section 18A.5.2), alternative water supply sources that use treated wastewater or stormwater are becoming more popular across the U.S. as supplements to existing water supply systems as potable water sources become stressed due to increasing demands for water. In some locations, this gray water is used for non-potable uses, such as for irrigation. The use of reclaimed water to supplement stream, ground water, or surface water supplies used as water supply sources is also considered as a viable alternative more frequently. California and Florida have a number of completed and ongoing reclaimed water projects. This alternative includes the following elements: Pumping of treated effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP in Orangeburg; Additional, advanced treatment of the effluent at a new Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWTP) so that it can be similar to the quality of the water in Lake DeForest and meet water quality standards for discharge into a Class AA water body; Discharge of the reclaimed water into Lake DeForest reservoir; Detention of the reclaimed water in the reservoir for mixing and assimilation with reservoir waters; Withdrawal of blended reservoir water and reclaimed water for final treatment at the existing Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant (which would be expanded to accommodate the additional flow) to meet all federal and state drinking water standards; and Distribution of the treated water to consumers.
18D-2
Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative
The Wastewater Reuse Alternative has been developed to produce the 7.5 mgd of potable water that would meet the purpose and need for the Project. The overall efficiency of the AWTP process is estimated as 75 to 80 percent (depending on the specific processes selected), meaning that the amount of water produced by the plant would be 20 to 25 percent less than the amount of secondary effluent pumped from the RCSD1 WWTP to the plant. The Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant is approximately 95 percent efficient. Therefore, the overall process efficiency of both the AWTP and Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would be 70 to 75 percent. In addition, some water is lost through evaporation in the reservoir. Overall, approximately 10 to 10.7 mgd of influent water is required to produce 7.8 mgd of reclaimed water from the AWTP and 7.5 mgd of potable water from the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. More information on the components of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative is provided below. Figure 18D-1 provides a schematic flow diagram for this alternative. 18D.2.2. 18D.2.2.1. COMPONENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The wastewater treatment plants that serve Rockland County were reviewed for their suitability in providing treated sewage effluent for reuse under this alternative. To provide enough sewage effluent to result in the full 7.5 mgd of finished water required to meet the purpose and need for the Project, up to 10.7 mgd of plant effluent must be available at the selected wastewater treatment plant. The only wastewater treatment plant in Rockland County that processes enough sewage to produce 10.7 mgd of effluent is the RCSD1 WWTP in Orangeburg. The RCSD1 WWTP currently has sewage effluent flows of over 20 mgd and a permitted capacity of 28.9 mgd. The RCSD1 WWTP is located east of Route 303 in Orangeburg, near the intersection of Route 303 with the Palisades Interstate Parkway, and serves locations in the Towns of Ramapo and Clarkstown and several parcels in the Town of Orangetown. The RCSD1 WWTP is currently treating wastewater to a secondary level. In this alternative, wastewater would be treated to a tertiary level at a new advanced water treatment plant, discussed below. The RCSD1 WWTP currently discharges its effluent to the Hudson River via an outfall into the river. The current outfall location is within the Piermont Marsh Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (SCFWH) area. This discharge is governed by a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. In this alternative, the amount of discharge to the Hudson River would be decreased by 10.7 mgd at the outfall location. It should be noted that wastewater treatment plants experience violations of their discharge permits, particularly during storm events. The RCSD1 WWTP has had violations of its SPDES permit. Thus, an alternative that utilizes wastewater treatment plant effluent as a new water supply source must account for this, including in the proposed design and treatment process. 18D.2.2.2. PUMPING AND TRANSMISSION TO LAKE DEFOREST
Treated wastewater effluent would be pumped from the RCSD1 WWTP to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Site, where it would be subjected to further treatment (discussed below). To accomplish this, a new connection to either the RCSD1 WWTPs existing chlorine contact chamber or existing effluent outfall pipe would be created and a new effluent pumping station would be constructed. At full build-out, the pumping station would have four parallel pumps
18D-3
12.1.11
Hackensack River 10 MGD Water from Reservoir 10.7 MGD Treated Effluent Advanced Water Treatment Plant 7.8 MGD Treated Wastewater Lake DeForest 7.8 MGD Additional Water from Reservoir 9.8 MGD treated water for use by Rockland County 7.5 MGD additional treated water for use by Rockland County
Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant
Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant

(increase capacity for 7.8 MGD additional raw water)
Water spills over Lake DeForest Dam when reservoir is full (i.e., rain events)
Per Lake DeForest permit: At least 9.75 MGD must be released for downstream users. Additional releases possible.
Hackensack River
2 MGD At least 7.75 MGD
Village of Nyack water system intake
Downstream reservoirs in NJ Existing conditions New conditions with alternative in place
Figure 18D-1
UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project
Flow Chart for Wastewater Reuse Alternative
sized to pump 10.7 mgd of effluent from the new connection to the RCSD1 WWTP. A new electrical service from Orange and Rockland would be required for this new pumping station. From the pumping station, the effluent would be transmitted via a new buried effluent transmission main (force main) to a new advanced wastewater treatment plant to the south of the Lake DeForest dam. This force main would be approximately 5.6 miles long. Two force main route options have been identified for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, to allow for flexibility in developing this alternative. Both routes would run north from the RCSD1 WWTP under Route 303 to Leber Road (see Figure 18D-2 and Figure 18D-3). From there, one route would bend to the west and follow other roadways to reach Lake DeForest and the other would continue beneath Route 303, as follows: Option 1 would divert from Route 303 onto County Routes 36 and 15. From Route 303, the force main would follow Leber Road (County Road 36), Western Highway (County Road 15), West Nyack Road, and Strawtown Road. Close to the reservoir, the main would turn east beneath Old Mill Road to the existing United Water Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Site. The length of the force main under this option would be approximately 29,300 linear feet, or about 5.6 miles. Option 2 would continue northward beneath Route 303 until just north of the New York State Thruway, at which point it would turn westward onto Snake Hill Road and then continue onto Old Mill Road to the existing United Water Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Site. The length of the force main under this option would be approximately 29,600 linear feet, or about 5.6 miles.
The transmission lines would utilize either 24- or 30-inch iron ductile pipe that would be buried a minimum of four feet below the road surface. Under either route option, the force main would cross railroad rights-of-way and the Hackensack River. In the Hackensack River, the crossing would be made using either an open cut method or a trenchless technology, such as pipe jacking. Under the open cut method, a temporary dam would be installed to isolate one side of the river for installation of the transmission main; the procedure would then be repeated for the other side of the river. Pipe jacking is a technique that involves digging access pits and hydraulically jacking (i.e., pushing) a steel casing through the ground from the first (launching) pit to the second (receiving) pit. The pipe is then installed within the steel casing. With pipe jacking, there is no need for excavation in the river during construction. Where the effluent force main crosses beneath active railroad tracks, it would be installed using the pipe jacking technique. Both route options would also pass below the New York State Thruway (I-87) at the location where the road under which the force mains are buried passes beneath the Thruway. 18D.2.2.3. ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR TERTIARY TREATMENT
At Lake DeForest, a new AWTP would provide tertiary treatment to the treated wastewater effluent, so that the resulting, processed water (reclaimed water) would be similar to the quality of the water in Lake DeForest and meet regulatory standards for discharge to Lake DeForest. Lake DeForest is designated as a Class AA fresh water body by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). In accordance with 6 NYCRR 701.5, the best uses of Class AA waters are a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. . . .This classification may be given to those waters that, if subjected to approved disinfection treatment, with additional
18D-4
12.1.11
Lake DeForest
HUDSON RIVER
Lake DeForest WTP and AWTP
Village of Nyack Water Supply Intake
OPTION 2
OPTION 1
Rockland County Sewer District No 1 WWTP
Legend
Village of Nyack Water Supply Intake Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant
NE W NE YO W RK JE RS EY
Lake Tappan
Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Force Main Route Option 1 Force Main Route Option 2
Figure 18D-2
Location of Wastewater Reuse Alternative
12.1.11
250
150
15 0
150
0 30
45 0
550

250
Lake DeForest
0 10
30 0
350
35 0
500
100
55 0
150
150
0 40
55 0
45 0
0 55
Snake Hill Rd.

150
30 0
200
100
100
550
Old Mill Rd.

400
0 10
10 0
450
250
100
OPTION 1
West Nyack Rd.
250
300
150
250
0 25
200
0 25
100
0 30
300
250
Clarkstown
200 200
350
350
0 35
30 0
300
OPTION 2
300
150
200
350 400
150
350
30 0
0 35
40 0
400
500
200
50 0
200
450
150
Western Highway
600
600
450
150
Route 303
600
55 0
25 0
10 0
100
250
0 30
60 0
OPTION 1
350
0 50
Leber Rd.
10 0
100
350
0 40
550
150
300
20 0
200
30 0
50 0
100
Legend
Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant
100
Orangetown
650
150
20 0
Route 303
50 0
550
60 0
600
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Force Main Route Option 1 Force Main Route Option 2 Transmission Main to Discharge Point (see Figure 18D-2)
150
250
25 0
Rockland County Sewer District No 1 WWTP

100
100
EL +68
150
100
Rockland County Towns/Villages

0 2000 5000 FEET
25 0
150
SCALE
Wastewater Reuse Alternative
Figure 18D-3
150
200
50 ft Elevation Contours
250
200
650
400
300 250
250
350
0 25
Strawtown Rd.
15 0
50 0
0 20
0 30
300
0 40
500
60 0
0 20
350
250
250
200
0 10
250
100
450
350
100
0 40
0 35
0 25
200
150
0 15
500
150
150
0 25 0 25
400
0 10
0 60
treatment if necessary to remove naturally present impurities, meet or will meet New York State Department of Health drinking water standards and are or will be considered safe and satisfactory for drinking water purposes. United Water must also meet existing permit requirements, as well as protect the riparian rights of the communities that utilize the water downstream of Lake DeForest, as more fully discussed below in section 18D.2.5, Permitting Requirements. The resulting water that is released from Lake DeForest into the Hackensack River would be of a quantity and quality such that the current use of the water by downstream users is not diminished. 18D.2.2.3.1. Treatment Standards
New York State does not have standards for reclaimed water to ensure that the processed water meets or is better than the water quality of the water body or groundwater to which it is discharged. Because New York State does not have any standards for the use of reclaimed water as a drinking water supply or supplement, the implementation of this alternative will present a challenge to the public and regulatory review processes necessary to carry out this alternative. However, although no applicable wastewater reuse standards exist in New York State, many wastewater treatment plants in New York State currently discharge treated effluent into water bodies that are used for drinking water. In the absence of specific standards for reclaimed water use and treatment in New York State, a set of potential treatment standards was developed for use in the development and analysis of this alternative. The standards used herein are based on the existing Class AA fresh water standards in New York State. In addition, this analysis was informed by a review of relevant wastewater discharge, wastewater reuse, drinking water, and freshwater classifications standards in California, a state that has made effective use of its wastewater effluent resources. The applicable California standards reviewed included standards for reuse of wastewater effluent for non-potable uses. The only standards in California for potable use of recycled water are related to recharge of groundwater with recycled water. Table 18D-1, below, summarizes the potential treatment standards reflected in this alternative. The conceptual design of this alternatives AWTP was then developed so that the reclaimed water it would produce would meet or be better than these standards. 18D.2.2.3.2. AWTP Conceptual Design
The potential water treatment process that may be used at the AWTP is presented below. The plants processes are modeled after wastewater reuse treatment facilities in California and Florida, both of which have stringent water reuse requirements. The treatment process is conceptually designed to achieve the standards set forth in Table 18D-1, and, as such, would produce water that meetsor in some instances may be better thanthe existing water quality in Lake DeForest and the NYSDEC Class AA fresh water quality standards. With this alternative, the water treatment process would likely be tested and refined through a pilot study prior to finalizing permit applications, the water treatment process, and the AWTP design. It is anticipated that the pilot testing would take place at the RCSD1 WWTP site and would require water storage receptacles and temporary structures or trailers to be brought onto the site during the pilot study period. The first step in developing the conceptual design was to determine the existing effluent quality for the RCSD1 WWTP for average total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia, and total phosphorus for use in determining the size of treatment 18D-5
trains to be included in the AWTP. This was done by reviewing SPDES discharge monitoring reports from the RCSD1 WWTP. The average concentrations of these parameters reported in the effluent are shown in Table 18D-2.
Table 18D-1 Potential Applicable Treatment Standards

Parameter Units Potential Standard 25 40 22 44 Parameter Units Potential Standard 200 400 240 50 Biochemical Oxygen Demand CBOD5 (monthly average, Nov to May) mg/l CBOD5 (7-day average, Nov to May) UOD (daily maximum, Jun to Oct) UOD (daily maximum, Nov to May) Suspended Solids Monthly average 7-day average Settleable Solids, daily maximum Dissolved Solids (Individual sample, maximum pH Ammonia/Ammonium Ammonia (NH3 monthly average, Jun to Oct) Ammonia (NH3 monthly average, Nov to May) Sum of NH3 and NH4 as N Nitrate/Nitrogen Nitrate (as N) Nitrate (as N) TKN Nitrogen (monthly average) Total Phosphorus (12-month rolling average) Dissolved Oxygen (daily minimum) Dissolved Oxygen (individual sample, minimum) Source: mg/l mg/l mg/l 1.9 3.8 2.0 mg/l mg/l mg/l Fecal/Total Coliform Fecal (30-day geometric mean) #/100ml Fecal (7-day geometric mean) #/100 ml Total Coliform (not to exceed more than 20% of samples) #/100ml Total Coliform (monthly median, maximum) #/100 ml Chlorine/Chlorination Total Residual Chlorine (daily maximum) mg/l Chlorination modal contact (minimum) mg/l Chlorination CT Value (minimum) Min-mg/l Tertiary Media Bed Filtration Media bed filtration rate (maximum) Media bed turbidity (24-hour average, maximum) Media bed turbidity (not to exceed more than 5% of 24-hour samples) Media bed turbidity (individual sample maximum) gpm/sf NTU NTU NTU 5 2 5 10
mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l SU
15 23 0.1 500 6.5-8.5
0.1 90 450
mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
10.0 1.0 7.6 0.2 7.0 4.0
Tertiary Membrane Filtration Turbidity (not to exceed more than 5% of 24-hour samples NTU Turbidity (individual sample, maximum) NTU
0.2 0.5
Californias Title 22 Recycled Water standards; NYSDEC standards for Class AA fresh surface waters.
18D-6
Table 18D-2 Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 WWTP Average Effluent Water Quality, December 2009 July 2010
Parameter Total suspended solids Biochemical oxygen demand Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Ammonia Total phosphorous (as P) Source: mg/l 25.4 24.8 31.8 27 2.9
RCSD1 WWTP SPDES discharge monitoring reports, 12/2009 7/2010.
As shown in Figure 18D-4, the AWTP would include four basic processes: 1. A biological process is required, such as Biologically Active Filters (BAF) or Nitrifying Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), to remove biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, and phosphorous. This is similar to the biological processes typically included in standard tertiary wastewater treatment plants. Biological processes use bacteria to digest and filter the pollutants. 2. Microfiltration (MF) as a pretreatment step for reverse osmosis (which is the third step). This step would remove bacteria, viruses, and suspended solids. 3. Reverse Osmosis (RO) to remove nitrates formed in the BAF or MBR, any residual organics, personal care products, bacteria, and viruses. 4. Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP) using high-intensity ultraviolet (UV) light and hydrogen peroxide for disinfection and to oxidize and destroy any trace levels of contaminants that may remain. To allow operational flexibility and the ability to develop this alternative in phases (discussed later in this chapter), each of these processes would be provided in a number of treatment trains. The AWTP would be located at the existing United Water Lake DeForest property on Old Mill Road. This site currently houses the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. As shown in Figure 18D-5, the AWTP would be housed within process buildings close to the Hackensack River, to the east of the existing water treatment buildings. The AWTP would include the wastewater treatment process areas, a dewatering building for the waste streams produced, electrical substations, emergency generators, an administration building, and a pump station for pumping treated water to the head of the reservoir, as discussed in the next section. 18D.2.2.4. TRANSMISSION TO HEAD OF RESERVOIR
From the AWTP, treated water would be pumped to the north end (head) of the reservoir. A pump station would be located at the AWTP for this purpose. At full build-out, 7.8 mgd of treated water would be transmitted to the head of the reservoir. The transmission main would be a 24-inch iron ductile pipe that would be routed from the AWTP to Old Mill Road, then following Strawtown Road northward, crossing Congers Road and continuing on Ridge Road to a discharge point where Ridge Road crosses the lake, as shown in Figure 18D-6. The transmission main would be approximately 20,800 linear feet long (3.9
18D-7
12.1.11
BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE FILTERS
MICROFILTERS
REVERSE OSMOSIS
UV MODULES
10.7 MGD by Force Main 13 MGD
Main from Force Wastewater Treatment Plant
7.8 MGD Treated Wastewater
BOD Removal
RO Pretreat Bacteria Suspended Solids
Nitrates Organics Bacteria/Virus
Disinfection Oxidation
Pump
Reclaimed Water Treatment Process
Figure 18D-4
12.1.11
Expansion to Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
100
200 FEET
SCALE
Wastewater Reuse Alternative Site Plan at Lake DeForest
Figure 18D-5
12.1.11
Lake D eFores t
Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Transmission Main to Discharge Point
Cong ers L ake

1000 2000
3000 FEET
SCALE
Wastewater Reuse Alternative Transmission Main to Discharge Point in Lake DeForest
Figure 18D-6
miles). The discharge line would be located within the roadway right-of-way, and buried a minimum of four feet below the road surface. About one mile north of the dam, where Strawtown Road crosses an inlet to Lake DeForest the pipe would be placed at least four feet below the streambed using jacking or the open cut method. At the reservoir, a new headwall with erosion control measures to dissipate the flow velocity would be installed to release the reclaimed water into the waters of the lake. 18D.2.2.5. DETENTION AND ASSIMILATION OF RECLAIMED WATER IN THE RESERVOIR
The reclaimed water would supplement the reservoirs natural water sources (primarily the Hackensack River), and would mix with and become assimilated with the reservoir water. The water would travel southward in the reservoir to the dam, where it would then be withdrawn for use by United Water or discharged downstream to the Hackensack River. 1 The time that the reclaimed water spends in the reservoir would provide an additional step in the treatment process, allowing it to assimilate with the other waters feeding the reservoir. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 5.6 billion gallons of water, and typically ranges from 100 percent full to a low of 40 to 60 percent full during a typical year. During drought years, however, the amount of water in the reservoir can drop to as low as 12 percent of the reservoirs capacity (which occurred during the drought of record, in the 1960s). Based on normal operations and assuming that a total of approximately 20 mgd is withdrawn from the reservoir at the southern end for use by Rockland County or is discharged for downstream users (discussed later in this section), it is estimated that water takes up to 140 days to travel from the head of the reservoir to the southern end when the reservoir is full. This travel time, referred to as detention time, decreases as the amount of water in the reservoir decreases. Table 18D-3 provides the estimated detention times in the reservoir for different water volumes. As shown in Table 18D-3, during some times of the year the detention time may be as low as 56 days. No state regulations currently set mandatory detention times for treated wastewater in a surface water body prior to withdrawal as a source for potable water. In California, there are draft regulations pertaining to the minimum detention time for indirect potable reuse (i.e., reuse of wastewater). These draft regulations currently only address recharge of aquifers, not surface water augmentation in reservoirs. However, the draft regulations developed for groundwater require two to six months of detention time in an aquifer prior to withdrawal as a source for potable water. By comparison, the reclaimed water discharged to Lake DeForest would likely have a detention time in the reservoir as low as 56 days during some times of the year.
According to the permit that governs the withdrawal of water from Lake DeForest, water supply application (WSA) 2189, when the total storage in the three downstream water supply reservoirs (Lake Tappan, Woodcliff Lake, and Oradell Reservoir) is more than 50 percent of their capacity, release from Lake DeForest shall be made to maintain a daily average flow of 9.75 mgd in the stream immediately above the intake works of the Village of Nyack (see discussion in section 1.3.1.1.1 of Chapter 1).
18D-8
Table 18D-3 Estimated Detention Time in Reservoir

Reservoir Volume (Percent of Full Capacity) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Detention Time (Days) 140 126 112 98 84 70 56 42 28 14
18D.2.2.6.
IMPROVEMENTS TO LAKE DEFOREST WATER TREATMENT PLANT
United Water currently withdraws water from the southern end of the reservoir, near the dam, and treats it at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. The treatment plant uses standard water treatment technologies, including flocculation, clarification (dissolved air flotation), filtration, and chlorination, to produce clean drinking water in compliance with drinking water standards. Operation of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant is governed by permits from NYSDEC and the NYSDOH. As discussed below in section 18D.2.5 (and described in greater detail in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, section 1.3.1.1.1), the NYSDEC water supply permit, WSA 2189, allows at least 10 mgd of water to be withdrawn from the reservoir for use by Rockland County. To preserve the safe yield in the reservoir (which is 10 mgd for Rockland County) in case of drought conditions, United Water operates Lake DeForest to withdraw an annual average of 10 mgd for use by Rockland County customers. The NYSDOH permit (Log No. 16321, CWS NY4303673) limits daily intake of raw water to the treatment plant to 20.8 mgd, with a maximum daily production of up to 20 mgd, and the running annual average intake of raw water to 10 mgd. With withdrawal of 10 mgd, the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant can produce approximately 9.5 mgd of finished water. With this alternative, the additional water supplied to Lake DeForestthe 7.8 mgd of reclaimed waterwould allow an additional 7.8 mgd of water to be withdrawn from Lake DeForest for use by Rockland County. This would require an increase to the capacity of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, from its current capacity for daily intake of raw water of 20.8 mgd to an expanded capacity of 28.6 mgd. This increase in treatment capacity would require a number of upgrades to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant: Upgrade to the power supply to accommodate the expanded water treatment plant and the AWTP. The existing power supply is a 4.16 kV service located approximately 1.5 miles away. Voltage drop is currently an operational issue as noted by power loss when high service pumps are started. Installation of a 13.2 kV supply would be necessary to supply new loads associated with this alternative.
18D-9
Expansion of the exiting Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) system, which removes suspended floatables, solids, oil and grease. Expansion of the multimedia filter capacity. Upgrade and expansion to the chemical storage and feed facilities. Addition of a second clearwell and finished water pumping facility. Expanded sludge processing capacity to process the additional sludge created by the expansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant and to process sludge created at the adjacent AWTP. The existing lagoon system would be replaced by a mechanical sludge dewatering system.
As shown in Figure 18D-5 above, these new process elements would be located in several different buildings at the existing water treatment plant site. As shown in the figure, these new buildings and the new buildings at the AWTP would fill most of the available land to the south of the dam. 18D.2.2.7. CONNECTIONS TO UNITED WATERS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Finished water from the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant is currently pumped into the existing United Water distribution system. The additional 7.5 mgd of finished water in this alternative would most likely require improvements to the distribution system, such as larger distribution mains near the reservoir. 18D.2.3. PHASING
Like the Proposed Project, this alternative would be implemented in three phases, based on growth in water demand as Rockland Countys population increases. The phases would be sized like the phases of the Proposed Project, so that Phase 1 provides 2.5 mgd of finished water, Phase 2 provides 5 mgd of finished water, and Phase 3 provides 7.5 mgd of finished water. Similar to the phasing approach of the Proposed Project, the new buildings, pump stations, and transmission mains would be constructed during Phase 1. The buildings would be sized to house Phase 2 equipment, while the transmission mains would be sized for full build-out (Phase 3) capacity. Additional treatment trains and plant expansion at the AWTP and the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, and additional pumping capacity at the pump stations would be added for Phases 2 and 3 in response to increasing water demands as Rockland Countys population grows. 18D.2.4. 18D.2.4.1. OPERATION OPERATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE
The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would add reclaimed water to Lake DeForest, allowing an increase in the amount of water that can be withdrawn from the reservoir for use by Rockland County. The amount of water that must and may be released from the reservoir to the Hackensack River for downstream users would remain unchanged. In addition, water would continue to spill over the Lake DeForest dam when the reservoir reaches capacity. At those times, United Water closes the release valve at the dam since the water that spills over the dam, or a combination of the spilling water and a reduced amount of water released, is enough to
18D-10
satisfy the minimum flow requirements in the Hackensack River. Refer to Figure 18D-1, above, for an illustration of how this alternative would change operations at Lake DeForest. In this alternative, the operating plan for the AWTP could be adjusted seasonally in response to changes in demand for water, but shorter term adjustments would be difficult because of the biological treatment processes included in the plant. As described above, the AWTP would include a biological processsuch as BAF or MBRto remove nitrogen. The biological process uses bacteria to remove nitrogen, phosphorous, and biochemical oxygen demand. Because these bacteria must be continuously fed to survive, the biological process train cannot be completely shut down. Instead, a reduced flow of wastewater effluent would have to be maintained through the AWTP to keep the biological processes active. Flow through the AWTP may be reduced, potentially by 30 to 50 percent of capacity, over a period of one to two days. The amount and rate of reduction possible would have to be determined during a pilot study for this alternative. Once the flow to the AWTP is reduced, it could only be increased slowly, over a period of a week or two, to maintain the bacteria within the process tankage and to address startup of downstream processes. Given the difficulty in making shorter term adjustments in the amount of wastewater treated at the AWTP, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative could be ramped up seasonally so that more water is produced in the summer months than in the winter, for example. However, it could not be adjusted quickly to respond to water levels in Lake DeForest. Therefore, at times of abundant rainfall, or after storm events, the reclaimed water produced by the AWTP could be somewhat reduced over a period of a few days, but would continue to process a similar amount of wastewater and pump the reclaimed water to the head of Lake DeForest. The relative inflexibility of this alternative during storm events would likely result in additional water spilling over the dam, which could result in an increased potential for flooding downstream of the reservoir. 18D.2.4.2. OPERATION OF THE UNITED WATER SYSTEM WITH THE WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE
As described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need (see section 1.3.1.3), United Water currently meets the demand for water in Rockland County with a network of water supplies from Lake DeForest, the Ramapo Valley Well Field, system wells, and the Letchworth Reservoirs. The amount of water provided from each source depends on the availability of water from that source and its permit conditions, which protect the water source, quality of the water produced, and the riparian rights of downstream water users. As discussed, United Waters current operational practice is to meet the demand for water by maximizing the use of Lake DeForest to the extent allowed by its permit and its safe yield, with the remaining water supplied from the other sources. During summer months, when demand is highest, United Water draws larger volumes from Lake DeForest to compensate for the lower volumes that can typically be withdrawn from the Ramapo Valley Well Field during that time. The system wells and Letchworth Reservoirs are used to provide the remaining water needed to meet demand. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description (section 2.5.5), with the introduction of the Proposed Project, United Water would continue to operate Lake DeForest in the same manner as it does today to meet water demand, maximizing use of the reservoir to the extent allowed by its permit and the limitations of its safe yield. The Ramapo Valley Well Field and Letchworth Reservoirs would also continue to be operated as they are today. The addition of the steady supply of Hudson River water would allow United Water to reliably meet summer demand. 18D-11
When demand lessens, the additional water source would allow the company to rest its supply wells, which can become overdrawn through constant use. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would also introduce a new water supply sourcereused wastewater from the RCSD1 WWTPwith the same increase in safe yield as the Proposed Project. This water supply source would be used to supplement the existing supply at Lake DeForest, which would require changes to the operation of Lake DeForest. United Water would continue to maximize withdrawal at Lake DeForest to the extent allowed by its permit and safe yield, but this permitted amount would be increased from existing conditions. As with the Proposed Project, United Water would continue to operate the Ramapo Valley Well Field and Letchworth Reservoirs in the same manner as it does today. When additional capacity is available because of the additional water source, this would allow United Water to rest its supply wells. In contrast to existing conditions or conditions with the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative could potentially result in more water being discharged from Lake DeForest into the Hackensack River. As noted above, the AWTP would not be able to adjust quickly to respond to water levels in Lake DeForest. Thus, during periods of increased rainfall, the AWTP would continue to discharge reclaimed water to the reservoir, and excess water from the reservoir that spills over the dam could result in higher flows in the Hackensack River downstream of Lake DeForest. This could result in greater and/or more frequent flooding events below the Lake DeForest dam. 18D.2.5. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
The safe yield of Lake DeForesti.e., the amount of water that can be continuously withdrawn from the reservoir during a period of drought equivalent to the worst drought of recordhas been determined to be 19.75 mgd. The NYSDEC water supply permit for Lake DeForest (WSA 2189) allows at least 10 mgd of water to be withdrawn from the reservoir for use by Rockland County, and requires the release of at least 9.75 mgd for downstream users. Of that 9.75 mgd, 2 mgd is reserved for the Village of Nyack, which withdraws its water supply from the Hackensack River downstream of the Lake DeForest dam, and 7.75 mgd is for downstream users in New Jersey. WSA 2189 also sets forth conditions under which additional water may be released from Lake DeForest, depending on the amount of water present in the three downstream reservoirs. As noted above, at full build-out, the reservoirs existing water sources would be supplemented by the discharge of 7.8 mgd of reclaimed water that would be transmitted to the head of the reservoir from the AWTP. At full build-out, that same quantity of water7.8 mgdwould be withdrawn from the reservoir for treatment at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. Under these conditions, the average annual reservoir levels would be expected to remain unchanged from existing conditions, and permit conditions regarding downstream discharges would remain unaffected. During periods of lower water demand, it may not be necessary to operate the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant at maximum levels. The AWTP would, however, continue to operateeven if at a reduced level to maintain the effectiveness of the AWTPs biological processes that use bacteria to digest and filter the pollutants. As noted in the previous section, under these operational conditions, this alternative would continue to treat effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP and discharge the reclaimed water into the reservoir. If the demand for water is lower than the discharge to the reservoir, water levels would rise and additional water would eventually be released to the river or would spill over the dam.
18D-12
Both the NYSDEC and NYSDOH permits would have to be modified for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative. The NYSDEC permit would have to be modified so that at least 17.8 mgd of water in the reservoir is reserved for the use of Rockland County, with the release of at least 9.75 mgd for downstream users (the same minimum release as required today). It is assumed that the Rule Curve conditions, which govern when additional releases to the Hackensack River are permitted, could remain unchanged (the Rule Curve is discussed in detail in Chapter 1 of this DEIS, section 1.3.1.1.1). In addition, as noted above, the NYSDOH permit for the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant sets the maximum capacity for that plant. The NYSDOH permit would have to be modified to allow a daily intake of 28.6 mgd of reservoir water to the treatment plant, with a maximum daily production of up to 27.5 mgd, and the running annual average intake of raw water to 17.8 mgd. The permits and approvals required for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would include the following: SPDES permit from NYSDEC for discharge of reclaimed water at the head of the reservoir. Modification of SPDES permit from NYSDEC for discharges to the Hackensack River from the existing lagoon system at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant (which would need to be upgraded with a mechanical sludge dewatering system in this alternative). Approval from NYSDEC and NYSDOH for the use of reclaimed water for potable water. Modification to WSA 2189 (water supply permit for Lake DeForest) to state that at least 17.8 mgd of the water in Lake DeForest is forever reserved for the needs of the inhabitants of Rockland County, rather than 10 mgd as is stated in the existing permit. The other permit conditions, which govern the amount of water that must be released for downstream communities and conditions when additional water may be released, would remain unchanged. Approval from NYSDOH for expansion of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant and the treatment processes to be used at the AWTP. Local site plan approval from the Town of Clarkstown for the AWTP and expansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. Local zoning approval from the Town of Clarkstown for the AWTP and expansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. Building permit from the Town of Clarkstown for the AWTP and expansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. Local site plan approval from the Town of Orangetown for the pump station at the RCSD1 WWTP. Approval from the Board of Commissioners of the RCSD1 WWTP.
As noted earlier, New York State currently does not have any regulations that govern the use of treated wastewater as a source for potable water. To implement this alternative, NYSDEC and NYSDOH would have to determine the appropriate level of treatment for the reclaimed water and may determine that new regulations must be promulgated in order for this alternative to be implemented. In addition, this alternative has the potential to encounter strong public opposition, because of a general resistance to the concept of reuse of treated sewage for drinking water. This has been the case at locations throughout the U.S. where wastewater reuse has been proposed.
18D-13
18D.2.6.
DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would involve four major construction components: construction of a new pumping station and effluent connection at the RCSD1 WWTP; construction of a new AWTP and the expansion of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant at United Waters existing property at the Lake DeForest dam; installation of the force main to carry the treated effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP to the AWTP; and installation of the transmission main to carry the reclaimed water from the AWTP to the head of Lake DeForest reservoir and the headwall into the reservoir. Like the Proposed Project, it is anticipated that the build-out of this alternative would be developed in three phases, to respond to increasing water demands as Rockland Countys population grows. Similar to the approach for the Proposed Project, the new buildings, pump stations, and transmission lines would be constructed during Phase 1. The buildings would be sized to house Phase 2 equipment, while the transmission mains would be sized for full build-out (Phase 3) capacity. Additional treatment trains and plant expansion at the AWTP and the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, and additional pumping capacity at the pump stations would be added for Phases 2 and 3. Like the Proposed Project, the overall construction period for the initial phase of this alternative would be approximately two to three years. The construction schedules, duration, and activities anticipated for this alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Project, as described in Chapter 15, Construction Impacts. Construction of the pumping station and effluent connection at RCSD1 WWTP would not be overly complex with the exception of the tie-in to the existing chlorine contact tank or wastewater effluent outfall. Construction would take up to a year to complete, depending on the soil conditions and the need for piles to support the pumping stations foundation. Connections to the effluent discharge system at the RCSD1 WWTP may require temporary disruptions to the plant operations, and therefore, would be made during nighttime hours when flows through the plant are lowest. The construction of the AWTP and the expansion of the existing Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would be similar in magnitude to the construction required for the Proposed Project, and would occur over a two- to three-year period. However, this construction would be made more complex by the small size of the site at Lake DeForest and by the need to work on the site without adversely affecting operations at the existing Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. Work at the Lake DeForest site would include significant excavation and relocation of existing utilities and water mains, while maintaining continuous utility and water treatment capacity at the site. To minimize disruptions to the existing facility, this relocation activity would have to be performed during low-demand periods such as winter months, as well as offhoursevening and nighttime periodswhen water production demands on the Lake DeForest facilities would be lowest. The force main and water transmission main construction required for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would be significantly longer than the amount of time required for the water main construction under the Proposed Project. A total of 50,400 linear feet (9.5 miles) of transmission mains would be installed in this alternative, in comparison to the approximately 8,000 linear feet (1.5 miles) required for the Proposed Project (under the reasonable worst-case scenario of Raw Water Transmission Main Route Option 1). These transmission mains would be installed in roadways in the Towns of Orangetown and Clarkstown using standard open cut excavation pipe
18D-14
installation techniques (described in Chapter 15, Construction Impacts). Construction would progress at an average of 80 to 100 feet per day (taking into account final restoration requirements), and would occur from April 15 to November 15 each year. As discussed above, where the effluent force main crosses beneath active railroad tracks, it would be installed using a trenchless technology, such as pipe jacking. Where the effluent force main crosses beneath the Hackensack River, it would be installed using either an open cut method or a trenchless technology, such as pipe jacking. With the Proposed Project, water main installation using open cut construction would affect a local road (Beach Road) for a period of approximately seven months. In contrast, the water main installation required for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would occur over a period of two to three years. During that time, at least one lane of the roadway in the work zone would be closed. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) Plan would be in place to minimize traffic disruptions on the affected roadway. On major roadways like Route 303, with multiple lanes in each direction, both directions of traffic could be maintained. On smaller roads like Strawtown Road, flagmen would likely be required so that traffic flow in opposing directions could alternate past the work zone. Although access would be maintained to adjacent residences and businesses, traffic disruptions and inconveniences would occur. 18D.2.7. COST ESTIMATE
Based on preliminary design, this alternative is expected to cost $302.6 to $325.9 million to construct. By comparison, the Proposed Project is expected to cost between $139.2 and $189.3 million to construct. These costs are in 2010 dollars, and do not reflect the costs of escalation because the alternative (or the Project) would be constructed in the future. It is anticipated that the total operating costs, including pumping of secondary effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP, tertiary treatment at the AWTP, pumping to the head of the reservoir, and the expanded capacity and treatment at Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, would be approximately $7.48 million per year, approximately $1.9 million more per year than the Proposed Project. In addition to the anticipated capital and annual operating costs, there may be additional costs associated with making arrangements with the RCSD1 to secure the WWTP effluent, such as obtaining leases or easements to locate the pumping station and other facilities on the RCSD1 WWTP site, or other potential costs related to accessing the countys property and facilities.
18D.3.
WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVES ABILITY TO MEET PURPOSE AND NEED
As stated in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, the public need for, and benefit of, the long-term water supply project is derived from United Waters legal obligation to provide a safe, dependable, and adequate public water supply to most of Rockland Countys residential, commercial, and institutional customers, as well as providing water for fire suppression. The demand for water in Rockland County has been increasing as these populations have grown, and water demands are projected to continue to increase into the future. Further, under United Waters Rate Orders from the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) issued on December 14, 2006 and July 20, 2010 (2006 and 2010 Rate Orders), United Water has a specific obligation to construct and implement a long-term water supply project to meet the needs of the County beyond the year 2015. For more information on the 2006 and 2010 Rate Orders, see
18D-15
Chapter 1, sections 1.2.4 and 1.2.5. The purpose of the long-term water supply project is to provide additional water supply source to increase the safe yield of the United Water Rockland County water supply system by 7.5 mgd, to accommodate future growth with an adequate margin of safety and comply with the 2006 and 2010 PSC Rate Orders. Like the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative is evaluated for its ability to address these obligations by delivering up to 7.5 mgd to the existing United Water distribution system serving the County, for the exclusive use of United Waters Rockland County customers. In addition to its ability to provide sufficient safe yield, a suitable long-term water supply project must also meet public need and benefits standards in several other critical areas, as discussed below. 18D.3.1. RELIABLE SUPPLY
The new long-term water supply project that United Water is required to undertake must improve the reliability of the water supply system while meeting future demands by introducing a supply that is less dependent on localized precipitation conditions. The Northeast experiences short-term droughts, defined as a drought having a duration of one to three months, every one to three years. Longer droughts (i.e., droughts lasting for more than three months) are experienced once every 20 to 30 years. The Hudson Valley, in which United Waters Rockland County service area is situated, has experienced 15 such droughts since 1895, with one occurring approximately every 7.5 years, with an average duration of 4.6 months. 1 There is increasing concern that global climate change may bring greater fluctuations in weather conditions, including more frequent or severe drought conditions or more frequent storm events. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would introduce a new source of water to the United Water systemtreated wastewater effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP. This alternative would divert approximately 10 to 10.7 mgd of treated effluent, which would be further treated so as to produce a total of 7.5 mgd of finished water. The RCSD1 WWTP currently has an average annual effluent discharge of more than 20 mgd, and therefore would be able to reliably supply the required volume of treated effluent. Even during drought events when water restrictions are in place, the amount of flow from the RCSD1 WWTP would be adequate to provide the needed volume for this alternative. In terms of system redundancy, however, this alternative would be less successful than the Proposed Project. Whereas the Proposed Project would add an entirely new water supply source that would operate independently of the other sources in United Waters Rockland County system, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would increase the systems dependence on one existing water supply element, the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. With this alternative, approximately 45 percent of the water produced by United Water for Rockland County would be produced at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. In the event that the plant must be shut down for maintenance or because of an unforeseen emergency, the entire system would be more vulnerable to unreliability. 2
1 2
http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/page_drought.html, accessed August 6, 2010. In the year 2030, assuming an average annual production of 37.9 mgd, and assuming average annual production of 16.8 mgd at Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant.
18D-16
18D.3.2.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
As a public utility, United Water has a responsibility to its customersthe rate-payersto develop a cost-effective project to address the need for new long-term water supply. 18D.3.2.1. CAPITAL COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IN COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As shown on Table 18D-4, below, the completed Wastewater Reuse Alternative would cost an estimated $302.6 to $325.9 million (2010 dollars). In comparison, as discussed in section 2.8.4 of Chapter 2, Project Description, the Proposed Project would cost between approximately $139.2 million and $189.3 million to complete. Based upon these preliminary cost estimates, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative is expected to cost from $137 to $163 million more than the Proposed Project.
Table 18D-4 Comparative Summary of Capital Expenses and Rate Effects

Proposed Project Increased in Water Supply Safe Yield Estimated Incremental Capital Cost (millions) Estimated Annual Operating Cost* Average Daily Cost Increase per Ratepayer Account Average Daily Cost Increase per Single Family Household Notes: 7.5 mgd $139.2 to $189.3 million $5.6 million
Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: $0.72 to $0.99 $0.91 to $1.17 $1.16 to $1.43 $0.51 to $0.70 $0.65 to $0.84 $0.85 to $1.05
Wastewater Reuse Alternative 7.5 mgd $302.6 to $325.9 million $7.5 million
Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: $1.55 to $1.66 $1.80 to $1.91 $2.11 to $2.24 $1.10 to $1.18 $1.28 to $1.36 $1.54 to $1.63
All amounts are shown as 2010 dollars. Estimated annual rates are based on anticipated capital and operating expenses, exclusive of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC). (As property tax expenses associated with the Wastewater Reuse Alternative are not known at this time, the cost estimate assumes the same property tax expenses as anticipated for the Proposed Project.) The PSC has the discretion to use tools to lessen the impact of rate adjustments to customers, or protract them over time. Includes operational costs for the incremental increase in new capacity of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant.
18D.3.2.2.
ANNUALIZED LIFE-CYCLE COSTS OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IN COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As shown in Table 18D-4, the cost to operate the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, excluding depreciation, personnel and property tax expenses, would be the same as the cost to operate the Proposed Project. 18D.3.2.3. EFFECT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ON COST OF WATER AND CONSUMER WATER RATES
This alternatives greater capital and operating costs would in turn result in greater increases to the billed costs for water for each rate-paying account (which include residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal customers), compared to the Proposed Project. Estimated increases to water rates for United Water customers were calculated assuming the future population anticipated when the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would be operational. It is expected that under this alternative, the increased daily costs per single-family household would be 18D-17
approximately $1.54 to $1.63. The actual cost for individual ratepayers would vary based on type of account and water use. Commercial users generally use more water and pay higher rates than residential customers. As shown on Table 18D-4, above, these costs are greater than the corresponding consumer costs of the Proposed Project. Therefore, on balance, due to the greater expense of completing this alternative and its greater impact on individual ratepayers, this alternative would be less able than the Proposed Project to meet the public need and benefit of being cost-effective. 18D.3.3. ABILITY TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN STAGES
Both the Wastewater Reuse Alternative and the Proposed Project would be developed in phases to meet the demand for water as Rockland Countys population increases. 18D.3.4. ABILITY TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As an alternative new long-term water supply project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative must avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable given the other goals and objectives for the Proposed Project and the capabilities of the Project sponsor. These include environmental impacts that would potentially occur as a consequence of both the construction and operation of this alternative. In comparison to the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative does not include construction or raw water intake operations within the significant habitat areas of the Hudson River and therefore avoids the Proposed Projects potential impacts on fisheries, benthic organisms, and significant habitat areas adjacent to the intake structure. (However, as described in Chapter 9A, Aquatic Natural Resources, the Proposed Project would minimize those impacts, and overall the Project was not found to result in significant adverse impacts on aquatic resources.) However, compared to the Proposed Project, this alternative has the potential to be substantially more disruptive during construction. While the Proposed Project would require a maximum of approximately 1.5 miles of water transmission main construction for its raw water mains, as well as some additional construction for finished water main improvements, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would require installation of approximately 9.5 miles of water transmission mains, as well as some additional construction for finished water main improvements. With a two- to three-year construction period associated with the transmission main installation, this alternative would be expected to result in longer-term traffic effects than the Proposed Project and associated disruptions to nearby businesses and residences. In addition, to avoid disruptions to production of water at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, some of the construction activities at the Lake DeForest site would have to occur during off-hours, including weekend, evening and nighttime hours. As a result, in comparison to the Proposed Project, the construction of these facilities would be expected to result in greater noise impacts and disruption to nearby residences. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative also has the potential to result in increased flooding in the Hackensack River downstream of Lake DeForest. Unlike the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would not be as flexible in responding to changes in demand and supply. Since this alternative could not be adjusted quickly to respond to water levels in Lake DeForest, it could contribute to spillage over the dam or flooding downstream during periods when water levels in the reservoir are high.
18D-18
While the Proposed Project would be buffered from the surrounding neighborhoods by its isolated site and grade changes, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would introduce new buildings at a site that is directly across the street from a residential area, potentially resulting in changes in the character of the immediate area. This alternative also has the potential to result in adverse impacts to historic and archaeological resources. Implementation of this alternative would require consultation with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) to assess the potential archaeological sensitivity of the areas that would be disturbed for construction at the Lake DeForest site and installation of the water transmission mains. Consultation with OPRHP would also be required regarding the eligibility of certain structures that could be affected by construction activities for the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
18D.4.
18D.4.1. 18D.4.1.1.
EFFECTS OF THE WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE

LAND USE, ZONING, AND OTHER PROGRAMS MODIFICATIONS TO RCSD1 WWTP
The changes at the RCSD1 WWTP would be located within an existing sewage treatment plant property that is well buffered from surrounding uses, and therefore would not result in conflicts related to land use or public policy programs. The RCSD1 WWTP site is zoned for Light Industrial use by the Town of Orangetown, and it is anticipated that addition of a pumping station to the existing plant would not require zoning approvals. Site plan review would likely be required by the Town of Orangetown. 18D.4.1.2. MODIFICATIONS AT LAKE DEFOREST WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE
At Lake DeForest, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would affect a site that is currently occupied by the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. The existing treatment plant buildings are set back from the road (Old Mill Road) on a landscaped and grassy property. The site is relatively well buffered from surrounding uses on the north and east by the reservoir, the Hackensack River, and a quarry. However, on the south and west, residential neighborhoods are close to the water treatment plant site on Old Mill Road, Jeffrey Court, and Strawtown Road. Construction of the new AWTP and expansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would be disruptive to the nearby residential uses. As noted above, construction activities at this site would occur over a two- to three-year period, involving extensive excavation for relocation of piping and utilities, as well as construction of new buildings. In addition, the off-hour construction required during the evening and nighttime hours to avoid disruptions to water production would cause disruptions related to construction site lighting, noise, and truck traffic. Once operational, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would change the character of the water treatment plant site at Lake DeForest from the existing landscaped site to a site almost completely occupied by water treatment buildings. While this would not result in a conflict with nearby residential uses, it would change the character of the immediate area. The water treatment plant site is located within an R-160 zoning district designated by the Town of Clarkstown. This zoning districtthe Conservation Density Residence Districtwas established to provide protection to the towns scenic resources, including streams, wooded areas, steep slopes, large open spaces and scenic vistas, by controlling and limiting development 18D-19
that would otherwise encroach upon these scenic resources. The district aims to allow for the continuation of a frame of green wooded hills along the towns northern boundary; provide for volume and routing of vehicular and pedestrian traffic with the least practicable impact to and within conservation areas; to minimize development near streams and marshes, rock outcrops, upon high places and steep slopes or near parks; minimize erosion and the likelihood of damage due to flooding or runoff, and to preserve or enhance natural stormwater storage; to protect the watershed of the Hackensack River; and promote the enjoyment of scenic vistas and natural areas by residents and visitors; among other goals. Uses permitted by right in the R-160 zone include residential, certain agricultural, places of worship, golf courses, parks, public day care, and police, fire, and similar public safety buildings. Public utility substations and pumping stations require special permits from the Town of Clarkstowns Board of Standards and Appeals, with advisory review by the Town of Clarkstown Planning Board. Reservoirs on lots of 6 acres or more, water towers, and water tanks owned and operated by a public utility require a special permit from the Town Planning Board. In addition, the site plan would be subject to site plan review and approval by the Planning Board. The review and approval process would cover numerous elements, including the arrangement, layout, and design of the facilities, to ensure the structure harmonizes with the character of the neighborhood; the provision of adequate buffer areas (a minimum 75 is required, although the Board of Appeals or Town Planning Board may reduce this buffer to 50 feet), screening, and landscaping; and adequate fences and other safety devices. Due to the small size of the water treatment plant site, it may not be feasible to accommodate the required buffer areas and other site plan requirements within the site. 18D.4.1.3. TRANSMISSION MAINS
The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would require the installation of 9.5 miles of transmission mains in local roadways. As described earlier and shown in Figure 18D-3, two options were developed for the effluent force main from the RCSD1 WWTP to the Lake DeForest site. As shown in the figure, both options would run for 2 miles beneath Route 303, which is a busy fourlane arterial that is heavily trafficked and lined with commercial uses. Option 1, the Western Highway/Strawtown Road option, would then run beneath Leber Road, Western Highway, West Nyack Road, and Strawtown Road, which are smaller roads that run through residential neighborhoods and through the commercial center of West Nyack (passing a number of businesses and the West Nyack post office, firehouse, and library). Option 2, the Route 303 option, would continue along Route 303 through the major interchange with the New York State Thruway at the Palisades Center mall, and then continue along Snake Hill Road past the CongersHaverstraw Quarry. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would also require installation of 3.9 miles of water mains along the west side of the Lake DeForest reservoir, in Strawtown Road and Ridge Road, which are local roads lined with residences. During the two to three years of water main installation, lanes would be closed on affected roadways. Even with implementation of MTP Plans, traffic delays and inconveniences are likely on busy roads. Construction work would progress at 80 to 100 feet per day (approximately 1/3 mile per month), so while disruption on a particular roadway could last for more than a year, the most intrusive disruptions to nearby residences and businesses would last several months. Along Route 303, the extensive water main construction required could result in notable inconveniences to adjacent businesses, while along residential streets, it would be disruptive to residential neighborhoods. In addition, Option 2 (the Route 303 option) would affect access on
18D-20
Snake Hill Road, which is an access road used by trucks entering and leaving the Congers Haverstraw Quarry. Once completed, the transmission mains would be below the street and would not affect nearby land uses. 18D.4.1.4. PLANS AND POLICIES
The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would be consistent with established land use plans and policies, including the 2009 Town of Clarkstown Comprehensive Plan. Like the Proposed Project, this alternative would also be consistent with the 2011 Rockland County Comprehensive Plan, since that plan states that water system capacity expansions and system upgrades will be needed to accommodate new development and projected growth. 18D.4.2. 18D.4.2.1. VISUAL RESOURCES INVENTORY OF RESOURCES
The new pumping station at the RCSD1 WWTP would be similar in appearance and visibility to the rest of the RCSD1 WWTP, and therefore would not affect the views from or context of visual resources or the surrounding area. The AWTP buildings and expansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would be visible from the immediate area (i.e., the area immediately across Old Mill Road from the site) but because of curves in the road and changes in topography, would not be visible from greater distances. From areas to the north, views of the water treatment buildings from across the reservoir are blocked by the dam. Within the limited area from which the new buildings would be visible, no visual resources as identified by the NYSDEC methodology for performing visual analyses were identified. (The methodology is described in detail in Chapter 4, Visual Resources.) 18D.4.2.2. EFFECT ON RESOURCES AND IMMEDIATE AREA
The pumping station at the RCSD1 WWTP site would blend in with and be compatible with the many buildings already located throughout the grounds of the RCSD1 WWTP. The facility is set back from area roadways and buffered from nearby residential and institutional uses. At the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site, construction activities would be visible fromand potentially visually intrusive toOld Mill Road and the nearby residences. Houses along Strawtown Road just west of the United Water property may also have some visual disruption related to construction activities, but the distance, vegetation, and presence of intervening buildings would limit and minimize the potential for construction-generated impacts. Once completed, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would alter the appearance of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site from a low-density, landscaped site to a more densely developed industrial complex. The new AWTP buildings would occupy most of the remaining undeveloped area at the site and would be close to Old Mill Road. Overall, with the expansion of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant and addition of AWTP buildings, more of the site would be occupied by bulky utility-related buildings that would be different in character from the residential properties immediately across Old Mill Road. Although this would change the character of the immediate area, it would not result in a significant adverse visual impact.
18D-21
The laying of new water transmission main in the rights-of-way of public streets would be visible to residents, workers, and patrons of businesses along these roadways as well as to motorists. As is typical for any street utility work, it would involve lane closures and construction equipment directly in front of nearby buildings. Any visual disruptions to affected neighborhoods and visual resources from water main construction activities would be temporary and would not significantly affect the overall visual character of the community in the long-term. Once completed, the water transmission mains buried in the road right-of-way would not be visible. 18D.4.3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Construction activities at the RCSD1 WWTP and Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant sites would not be anticipated to increase demands for law enforcement or fire protection services. Construction activities associated with installation of the water transmission mains would result in disruption to traffic patterns on affected roadways throughout the construction period. Depending on the route chosen, smaller affected streets may or may not remain open for traffic. With implementation of MPT Plans, this disruption would be minimized. The effluent force main route using Western Highway/Strawtown Road (Option 1) would pass in front of the West Nyack Fire Departments firehouse (Engine Company No. 1). If construction occurred on this route, access would be maintained at all times for firefighters and fire trucks, and emergency vehicles would be given priority over other vehicles through construction zones. Overall, construction-related traffic disruption would not result in significant adverse impacts to provision of emergency services. Once operational, this alternative, like the Proposed Project, would enable United Water to maintain the reliability of fire hydrants by providing a reliable source of water and adequate water pressures for fire fighting and fire suppression purposes, even during drought conditions. Therefore, like the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would not adversely affect fire protection, police protection, or emergency ambulance services. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would not have any effect on recreational resources and therefore, like the Proposed Project, would not result in adverse impacts on parks or recreational resources. 18D.4.4. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Like the Proposed Project, the construction of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would provide an increase in economic activity in Rockland County and New York State reflected in terms of increased demand for employment and fiscal benefits from the fees and taxes related to purchase of goods and services and incomes from workers. The level of economic activity resulting from construction activities is directly affected by construction cost. This alternative would represent an approximately $302.6 to $325.9 million investment in construction costs versus the Proposed Projects lower cost of $139.2 to $189.3 million. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the construction of this alternative would employ a greater number of workers, require larger purchases of goods and services, and generate higher wages and salaries and taxes than the Proposed Project. During water main installation under either effluent force main route option, the disruption to traffic patterns could result in a temporary loss of sales for businesses, particularly along the heavily commercial Route 303. This would not occur to the same extent with the Proposed
18D-22
Project, since the length of roadway affected would be substantially greater under this alternative. Mitigating these impacts would be incorporated into the MPT Plan, and any such impacts would be short-term in duration so that no significant impact would be expected. Upon completion, this alternative, like the Proposed Project, would result in an increase in the property taxes paid to the local and Rockland County taxing jurisdictions. While the Proposed Project would place existing tax-exempt land onto the tax rolls, this alternative would not create new taxable parcels, since the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site is already taxed. Both the Proposed Project and the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would increase the assessed value of the affected site. This alternative would entail a greater construction investment at the Lake DeForest site than the Proposed Projects construction investment at its Project Site, and therefore may generate a greater increase in property tax revenues. Therefore, this alternative may generate more tax revenues for the affected taxing jurisdictions than the Proposed Project on account of the greater increase in infrastructure investment and consequent increases in taxable assessed valuation. The affected jurisdictions would include the Town of Clarkstown, Clarkstown Central School District, Rockland County, and other local taxing entities. Like the Proposed Project, the operational phase of this alternative would introduce some new workers, but this workforce would not be expected to increase demand for or the cost of community services. Overall, therefore, like the Proposed Project, this alternative would have an overall positive fiscal impact with few, if any new costs to offset the new tax revenues. 18D.4.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
With the construction of new buildings and installation of new water transmission mains, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative has the potential to affect buried archaeological resources and historic (architectural) resources. 18D.4.5.1. CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA
For archaeological resources, the study area consists of the areas that would be affected by construction activitiesin other words, the project sites. It is unlikely that any buried archaeological resources are located on the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Site given the extensive disruption that occurred there associated with construction of the reservoir and dam. However, there may be areas of this site that have not been disturbed and do have the potential to contain buried resources. Along the routes of the effluent force main and water transmission main, it is also possible that archaeological resources may be present. If the Wastewater Reuse Alternative is carried forward, additional research will be conducted in coordination with OPRHP to determine whether archaeological resources may be present. To consider the potential effects on historic (architectural) resources from construction and operation of this alternative at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site, a study area consisting of the area within visual range of that site was evaluated. To consider the potential effects on historic resources from construction of water transmission mains, an area within 100 feet of each potential water main route was evaluated, to account for potential physical effects that might occur as a result of construction activities. Since the water transmission mains would not be visible once construction is complete, they would have no potential for adverse contextual or visual effects and no study area for such effects was evaluated. Within the study areas, architectural resources analyzed include properties designated as National Historic Landmarks, properties listed on the New York State or National Registers of
18D-23
Historic Places, and properties determined eligible for such listing. To identify these types of resources, the OPRHP database was consulted. In addition, online sources provided by Rockland County were consulted to identify locally recognized historic resources. In terms of historic resources, no National Historic Landmarks, properties listed on the New York State or National Registers of Historic Places, or properties determined eligible for such listing are located in the study areas. The Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site includes a possible historic resource and the study areas have a number of sites that are considered by the Towns of Clarkstown and Orangetown as locally designated historic sites, districts, and roads in the study areas, as discussed below. These sites are shown in Figure 18D-7 and Figure 18D-8. House on Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant property: The Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant property contains water treatment plant structures built in association with Lake DeForest, which was constructed in the 1950s and completed in 1957. There are no properties on the site that are listed on or eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, nor are there any locally recognized historic structures on the site. However, the Lake DeForest property includes a small brick house that has the potential for recognition as a local historic site. The house is two stories with a gable roof and a chimney on the south faade. It appears to date to the early part of the 20th century, prior to construction of the reservoir, and is designed in the style of an English cottage with its facade ornamented with protruding brick headers. Old Mill Road (Resource 1 on Figure 18D-7): Old Mill Road would be affected by the effluent force main from the RCSD1 WWTP to the Lake DeForest site under either route option, and by the transmission main for reclaimed water to the head of the reservoir. Old Mill Road from Strawtown Road to Kings Highway is designated as a historical road by the Town of Clarkstown. West Nyack Historic District (Resource 2 on Figure 18D-7): The West Nyack Historic District, a local historic district established by the Town of Clarkstown, encompasses portions of Strawtown, Sickletown, and West Nyack Roads. Option 1 of the effluent force main (the Western Highway/Strawtown Road route) and a small portion of the transmission main for reclaimed water would both pass through this historic district. West Nyack was founded in the mid 19th century as Clarksville. The historic district includes a number of notable historical sites: - West Nyack Road, located in the area of the original Nyack Turnpike built in 1825 to connect Nyack and Ramapo. - The intersection of West Nyack Road with Strawtown and Sickletown Roads, which was originally called Oblenis Corners because of an Oblenis Farm in the area. - The Clarksville Inn, located at the northwest corner of West Nyack Road and Strawtown Road, built in 1840 as a stopping place for stagecoaches and travelers and restored in 1957. - The Clarkstown Reformed Church at 107 Strawtown Road (just north of the New York State Thruway), which was built in 1871 to replace an earlier Dutch Reformed Church built circa 1750 on the same site. - The Clarkstown Reformed Churchs original parsonage, across Strawtown Road (in a relocated location). - A ca. 1770 home where the last witchcraft trial in New York State was held.
18D-24
12.1.11
250
150
0 30
15 0
45 0
550
150

0 10
30 0
35 0
350
1
150
100
150
0 40
500
55 0
250
55 0
45 0
0 55
Snake Hill Rd.
30 0
200
100
550
Old Mill Rd.

400
100
0 10
10 0
450
250
300
150
250
0 25
200
100
0 25
OPTION 2
150
0 30
300
250
350
350
Clarkstown
OPTION 1
350
0 35
30 0
300
400
30 0
350
40 0
400
150
200
500
200
50 0
200
450
150
Western Highway
600
600
450
150
Route 303
400
25 0
10 0
100
250
0 30
100
Legend
Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant 2
00
Leber Rd.
10 0
350
0 40
55 0
0 50
550
60 0
600
250
0 20
West Nyack Rd.
250
300
100
250
350
Strawtown Rd.
0 10
15 0
50 0
0 25
0 30
350
300
0 40
350
500
60 0
150
0 20
150 250
200
250
250
100
450
200
Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
150
300
30 0
Force Main Route 1 Force Main Route 2

100
Transmission Main to Discharge Plant 50 ft Elevation Contours Rockland County Towns/Villages

100
150
20 0
Route 303
550
50 0
60 0
600
Historic Resources
250
100
25 0
1 2 3
Old Mill Road West Nyack Historic District Kings Highway

2000 5000 FEET
100
25 0
Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 WWTP

100
3
150
250
200
150
SCALE
NOTE: Historic resources locations are approximate and are based on on line information provided by Rockland County at https://geopower.jws.com/rockland/MapsPage.jsp#
Wastewater Reuse Alternative Historic Resources near Water Main Routes
Figure 18D-7
150
200
650
150
300
100
0 35
0 40
0 35
200 200
0 25
200
350 150
150
500
400
50 0
150
0 10
Orangetown
650
0 15
0 60
0 25 0 25
12.6.11
Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Transmission Main to Discharge Point
Historic Resources
1
1000
2000
3000 FEET
Teaberry Port House, 312 Strawtown Road
SCALE
Wastewater Reuse Alternative Historic Resources along Transmission Main to Discharge Point
Figure 18D-8
The site of George Washingtons encampment in 1780 on a hillside southwest of the intersection of Strawtown Road and the New York State Thruway. The intersection of Old Mill Road with Strawtown and Germonds Roads, where the former DeClarkPolhemus Mill and a number of historic homes are located.
A number of the houses in the historic district have been significantly altered through additions and new cladding, as has the Clarksville Inn, which is clad in vinyl siding. While there are a few remaining historic residential structures along West Nyack Road, much of this road is lined with modern commercial properties. The Clarksville Inn and a number of houses and older commercial buildings are located in close proximity to the Strawtown and West Nyack Road rights-of-way. Kings Highway (Resource 3 on Figure 18D-7): Kings Highway is one of the oldest roads in Rockland County. In some locations, it clearly follows its original, winding route, while in other locations it has been straightened and subsumed into modern roads like Route 303. Two segments of the original Kings Highway have been recognized by the Towns of Orangeburg and Clarkstown: a segment that extends southwest from Route 303 near the RCSD1 WWTP in the Town of Orangeburg (shown as Resource 3 on Figure 18D-7) and a segment that extends north from the intersections of Crusher, Storms, and Snake Hill Roads northeast of the study area in the Town of Clarkstown. The Orangeburg portion of Kings Highway abuts the effluent force main route under either route option. The Teaberry Port (J. Stephens) House (Resource 1 on Figure 18D-8): The Teaberry Port House is a Dutch sandstone house built in the late 18th century and located along the west side of the Lake DeForest Reservoir at 312 Strawtown Road, near Rockford Drive. This building is recognized as a historical site by the Town of Clarkstown. The house is situated on the east side of Strawtown Road, close to the road, and has a gambrel roof with its primary entrance located on the south elevation within an enclosed wood porch. EFFECTS OF THE WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
18D.4.5.2.
As noted earlier, although it is unlikely that any buried archaeological resources are located on the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Site, there may be areas of this site that have not been disturbed and do have the potential to contain buried resources. Along the routes of the effluent force main and water transmission main, it is also possible that archaeological resources may be present. As a result, implementation of this alternative would require consultation with OPRHP to assess the potential archaeological sensitivity of the areas that would be disturbed for construction at the Lake DeForest site and installation of the water transmission mains. If required, a construction monitoring program would be prepared that would describe the measures to be taken to identify archaeological resources during construction and a plan for the treatment and documentation of resources if encountered. New construction at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site for the AWTP would require demolition of the small brick house located on that site. The house may be of local significance, and, if this alternative is implemented, consultation would be undertaken with OPRHP regarding the houses eligibility for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places and the projects potential impacts on the house. Construction at the Lake DeForest site and the resulting change in the visual character of the site would not have adverse effects on nearby historic sites recognized by the Town of Clarkstown.
18D-25
Because of the curve of Old Mill Road, as well as intervening structures and vegetation including woods between the Lake DeForest site and the historic properties at the northeast corner of Old Mill Road and Strawtown Road, the new buildings associated with the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would not be visible from the intersection of Old Mill Road and Strawtown and Germonds Roads in the West Nyack Historic District. In addition, these properties are located at too great a distance to be affected by construction-related activities that would occur at the Lake DeForest site. Construction required for installation of the effluent force main under either route option and of the reclaimed water transmission main would require construction within the roadbed of Old Mill Road, a historic road established by the Town of Clarkstown. This would require the removal of blacktop to install the water mains and the repaving of the road surface. Since the blacktop is not a historic material and the construction would not alter any other characteristics of the roadway, such as orientation and width, the construction would not adversely affect this historic roadway. Construction of the effluent force main under Option 1 (the Western Highway/Strawtown Road route) would require excavation and construction activities through the West Nyack Historic District. If the Wastewater Treatment Alternative proceeds using this route option, consultation would be undertaken with OPRHP regarding the eligibility of structures in this district for the State and National Registers of Historic Places and construction protection measures would be developed, as appropriate, to avoid any inadvertent construction-related impacts to historic structures, including vibration resulting from pavement breaking and operation of heavy machinery. During construction, there would also be temporary and short-term adverse effects to the context and setting of the historic sites in the district. Once the water main installation is complete, however, no adverse impacts would occur. Similar to Old Mill Road, construction within the historic district would require removal of blacktop and repaving of the road surface, but would not alter any other characteristics of the affected roadways. Installation of effluent force mains in the roadbed of Route 303 (required under either route option) would have no adverse effects on Kings Highway. Kings Highway intersects Route 303 but no roadwork is planned in this streetbed. Construction of the reclaimed water transmission main from the AWTP to the head of Lake DeForest within Strawtown Road has the potential to result in accidental construction impacts to the Teaberry Port House, which is recognized by the Town of Clarkstown as a historic site. If the Wastewater Reuse Alternative proceeds, consultation would be made with OPRHP regarding the Teaberry Port Houses potential eligibility for the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Construction protection measures would be developed, as appropriate, to avoid any inadvertent construction-related impacts to this historic structure, including vibration resulting from pavement breaking and operation of heavy machinery. 18D.4.6. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
The new pump station at the RCSD1 WWTP and the new AWTP facility would be constructed at sites already occupied by utilities, in areas previously disturbed by prior grading and infrastructure development. Similarly, the water transmission mains would be installed within existing roadways and the excavation below the roadbeds to place the transmission mains would have no permanent effect on nearby geology or soils. Construction activities would be conducted in accordance with an adopted Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would
18D-26
control erosion and sedimentation during construction, further minimizing any off-site consequences. More information on the SWPPP is provided in section 18D.4.1.10 below. There would be no use of, or potential impact on, groundwater resources associated with the Wastewater Reuse Alternative. Like the Proposed Project, this alternative provides an option for long term water supply that does not rely on an expanded use of groundwater aquifers. Overall, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would not be expected to result in significant impacts on geology, soils, or groundwater resources. 18D.4.7. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
With the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, no water intake structure would be placed in Haverstraw Bay in the Hudson River. Therefore, this alternative would avoid the Proposed Projects effects on water quality during construction and operation of that intake. In addition, this alternative would not discharge brine from the water treatment process to the Hudson River, as would the Proposed Project. As discussed in Chapters 8B (Hudson River Surface Water Resources) and 9A (Aquatic Natural Resources), the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects to Haverstraw Bay from these activities. This alternative would decrease by up to 10.7 mgd the amount of treated sewage effluent that is currently discharged by the RCSD1 WWTP to the Hudson River via an outfall located within the Piermont Marsh SCFHW. The decreased discharge to the Hudson River would not be expected to result in significant impacts to the rivers water resources. During construction of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, the effluent force main would be installed beneath the Hackensack River using either an open cut method or a trenchless technology such as pipe jacking. As discussed above, with the open cut method a temporary dam would be installed to isolate half the river for installation of the transmission main; the procedure would then be repeated for the other side of the river. With the trenchless technology, shafts would be created on either side of the tunnel location, and there would be no disturbance to the river. The reclaimed water transmission main to the head of the reservoir would be installed beneath the inlet to Lake DeForest using trenchless technology. The new outfall for reclaimed water into Lake DeForest would have to be managed carefully, to avoid adverse effects to water quality of this important water supply source. This would involve the use of erosion and sediment protection, stormwater controls, and fencing to prevent debris from entering the water. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would discharge up to 7.8 mgd of reclaimed water to Lake DeForest. The AWTP facility would be designed so that this water would meet or be better than the existing water quality in the lake, and therefore no significant adverse impacts would be expected from this discharge. Since the reclaimed water added to the reservoir would be the same or better quality as the lake water, its addition would also not change the quality of water that flows from the reservoir into the Hackensack River downstream of the Lake DeForest dam. 18D.4.8. NATURAL RESOURCES
With the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, no water intake structure would be placed in Haverstraw Bay in the Hudson River. Therefore, this alternative would avoid the Proposed Projects effects on aquatic natural resources during construction and operation of that intake. In addition, this alternative would not discharge brine from the water treatment process to the Hudson River, as would the Proposed Project. As discussed in Chapters 8B (Hudson River 18D-27
Surface Water Resources) and 9A (Aquatic Natural Resources), the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects to aquatic resources in Haverstraw Bay from these activities. Since construction of this alternative involves facilities located on already developed sites, or under existing streets, there would be no expected change to terrestrial habitat and little or no potential impact on existing natural resources. As noted earlier, transmission mains would be installed beneath the Hackensack River using either an open cut method or a trenchless technology. The open cut method would disturb an area of streambed approximately 20 feet wide at the point where the crossing would occur. During excavation, the open cut method could result in a temporary increase in suspended sediment, including any contaminants within the soil. In-river construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the adopted SWPPP to control erosion and sedimentation, and minimize potential adverse effects from erosion and sedimentation on off-site habitat conditions. Overall, the benthos would be expected to recover quickly, and the disturbance would not result in any permanent loss of benthic habitat. If a trenchless technology, such as pipe jacking, were used, there would be no disturbance of bottom habitat in the Hackensack River. The new AWTP buildings at United Waters Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site would be located close to, but outside of, the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain of the Hackensack River (see Figure 18D-5). The RCSD1 WWTP currently discharges its effluent to the Hudson River via an outfall located within the Piermont Marsh SCFWH area. This alternative would decrease the amount of effluent discharged to the Hudson River by 10.7 mgd at the outfall location. The decrease of the effluent discharge would not be expected to result in significant impacts to the Hudson River or its biota. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative could not be adjusted quickly to respond to water levels in Lake DeForest. Therefore, at times of low water demand, and when there is abundant rainfall or after storm events, the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant may not need to operate at full capacity, yet the AWTP would continue to process a similar amount of wastewater and pump the reclaimed water to the head of Lake DeForest. Should this occur at times when the water levels at Lake DeForest Reservoir are high, this could result in flooding downstream of the reservoir. 18D.4.9. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would eliminate the Proposed Projects benefit of putting an unused brownfield site back into productive use. It would instead create additional water treatment facilities at locations where such facilities already exist. For areas of new construction and excavation for any project, including the areas in the street rights-of-way, there is a potential to encounter subsurface hazardous materials, including those in soil or groundwater during excavation or other construction requiring subsurface disturbance. To minimize risk, an Environmental Health and Safety Plan (HASP) would be developed and followed during all subsurface disturbances to reduce the potential for adverse impacts on workers, the public, and the environment associated with possible hazardous materials in the soil or groundwater. The HASP would reduce the most likely routes of human exposure, such as the breathing of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or dust-containing hazardous materials, or dermal contact with hazardous materials, thus reducing the potential for significant adverse effects. The HASP would be incorporated into this alternatives construction documents, and
18D-28
adherence to the HASP would be mandatory for all contractors/subcontractors. The HASP would include provisions for the identification and management of known and/or unexpected contaminated soil, historic fill, or other contaminated materials that might be encountered, including protocols for agency reporting. The HASP would also establish procedures for air quality monitoring as appropriate. With this protocol, the construction of this alternative, like the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in significant impacts based on the presence of contaminated materials. Operation of this alternative, including the AWTP and the expanded capacity at Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, would be similar to the Proposed Project, in that it would require the storage and use of a variety of chemicals that would be used in the treatment processes, and would generate a variety of wastes as byproducts of the water treatment process. The storage, transportation, use, and disposal of these are subject to strict regulation and, like the Proposed Project, would not result in significant adverse impacts during operation. 18D.4.10. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY Any necessary upgrades in infrastructure systems needed to serve this alternative would be integrated into the overall construction sequence and phasing and would not be expected to create additional potential construction-generated impacts. Like all construction projects, no excavation in public streets or at the new facility locations would be started until a mapping of existing underground infrastructure was completed and integrated into the construction drawings. This minimizes the risk of inadvertent disruption to the provision of key infrastructure services during construction. However, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would require construction activity that would directly affect an existing water supply facility, the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. Construction activities would have to be carefully staged and managed to avoid disrupting the ongoing operations at the plant. Upon completion, this alternative would increase the capacity of United Waters Rockland County water supply system to meet increases in water demand projected to occur in the County in the future. As with the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would generate small demands on infrastructure from operation of the pumping station at the RCSD1 WWTP, the new AWTP, and the expanded treatment capacity at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. The employees working at the AWTP and at the expanded Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would use some potable water each day for on-site sanitary and other employee facilities (e.g., life/safety facilities). In addition, some potable water would be used for backwashing and cleaning of certain treatment train elements both in the AWTP and the expanded Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. As with the Proposed Project, this alternatives operational demand for potable water would be small and would not adversely affect the ability of the water system to supply adequate water, particularly given the increase in finished water that either this alternative or the Proposed Project would create. Wastewater generated at the AWTP and expanded Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would include sanitary sewage and wastewater from rinsing and cleaning steps in the water treatment process that is not recycled back to the beginning of the treatment process. This wastewater would be sent to the sanitary sewer system that serves Lake DeForest, similar to what occurs today. The site is served by the RCSD1 WWTP. Assuming the same generation rate as the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative could be expected to add approximately
18D-29
1,000 gpd to the RCSD1 WWTP, which is a negligible increase to the current 20 mgd treated at the facility. However, the wastewater generated by the treatment processes at the AWTP and at the expanded Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would be of a different quality than that which the RCSD1 WWTP currently processes. Therefore, a modification to the RCSD1 WWTPs industrial discharge permit may be required under this alternative. With the Proposed Project, the wastewater generated would instead be sent to the JRSTP, which serves the Project Sites and similar industrial discharge permit modifications may be required. Like the Proposed Projectand the existing Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plantwith the Wastewater Reuse Alternative the water treatment processes at the AWTP would produce some solid byproducts, in the form of a liquid sludge. In addition, the expansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would increase the amount of sludge produced there. The liquid sludge produced by the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would be transmitted to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, and the combined liquid sludge there would be processed in an on-site dewatering facility and then the resulting sludge cake would be removed by a licensed hauler and disposed of off-site, as it is today. One of the required upgrades to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant to accommodate this alternative would be to replace the existing lagoon system at the plant with a mechanical sludge dewatering system. As shown in Figure 18D-5, the sludge dewatering system would be to the north and west of the existing buildings at the plant, along the west side of Lake DeForest. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would result in an average annual energy demand of 29,850 megawatt hours (MWh) per year. In comparison, the Proposed Projects average annual energy demand is estimated at 17,400 to 18,300 MWh per year. Energy infrastructure at the RCSD1 WWTP and at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would have to be upgraded to support the demands of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative. At the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site, this would include the extension of the substation electrical distribution network and installation of new utility poles and overhead conductors. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would be expected to have minimal effects on stormwater runoff. At the Lake DeForest facility, the new buildings included in this alternative would increase the impervious surfaces, but the new facilities would be tied into existing stormwater management systems at Lake DeForest. Similarly, it is assumed that the new pumping station at the RCSD1 WWTP would be tied into stormwater management systems that serve that facility. Any changes to stormwater flow would be managed by a new or modified comprehensive SWPPP designed to comply with the latest requirements of NYSDECs Stormwater Management Design Manual, as well as Rockland County and Town of Clarkstown guidelines. The goal of the SWPPP would be to prevent erosion and flooding and to remove stormwater pollutants, thus preventing water quality impacts on water bodies and wetlands. 18D.4.11. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION The overall level of construction activity required for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site would be similar to what would be required for the Proposed Projects water treatment plant, and therefore the volumes of truck traffic and worker traffic would also be similar. However, as noted earlier, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would involve weekend, evening and nighttime construction activity at Lake DeForest, so as to minimize impacts to ongoing operations at the water treatment plant. The Proposed Projects construction activities are anticipated to occur during daytime hours, unless special circumstances warrant nighttime work.
18D-30
The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would require the installation of substantially more water transmission mains than the Proposed Project, and the installation of the mains would be the most potentially disruptive construction-related impact of this alternative. This alternative would require installation of approximately 9.5 miles of transmission mains, compared to 1.5 miles with the Proposed Project. In addition, both this alternative and the Proposed Project would require improvements to existing water mains to deliver finished water to the existing United Water system. The water main construction for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would take two to three years to complete, in comparison to approximately seven months with the Proposed Project. As described earlier, two routing options are evaluated for the force main that would transmit treated effluent from RCSD1 WWTP to the AWTP at Lake DeForest. Both options would require installation of a transmission main in Route 303 from the RCSD1 WWTP northward to the intersection with Leber Road, a distance of 10,500 feet (about two miles). Route 303 is a four-lane arterial highway lined with commercial and industrial uses. It is assumed that during the construction period, one lane of the road would be closed to traffic as the pipe alignment is first excavated, laid with new pipe, covered and repaved. An MTP would be established to minimize disruptions to traffic flow which could include lane channelization to preserve two lanes in each direction. As shown in Figure 18D-3, force main route Option 1 (the Western Highway/Strawtown Road Option) would then follow smaller roads (Leber Road (County Route 36), Western Highway (County Route 15), West Nyack Road, Strawtown Road and Old Mill Road. These roads are all two-lane paved roads, with varying right-of-way widths, and lined with residences and businesses. It is assumed that during construction, these roads would be reduced to one lane alongside the construction zone. An MPT Plan would be in place to manage traffic past the construction zone, which would involve the use of flagmen so that traffic could alternate directions. Option 2 for the force main route (the Route 303 option) would involve water main construction predominantly in Route 303. As shown in Figure 18D-3, the construction would also affect Snake Hill Road and Old Mill Road. Route 303 is a busy, four-lane arterial roadway throughout this length, and its intersections with Route 59 and the New York State Thruway (at the Palisades Center mall) could be extensively disrupted by construction activities. While the MPT would minimize the effects construction in these areas, compared with the Proposed Project, the potential traffic disruptions of this alternative would occur over a longer duration and would likely be more severe and would also necessitate close coordination with the New York State Thruway Authority, New York State Department of Transportation, and county and local agencies. In addition, this alternative would also require water main installation in Strawtown Road and Ridge Road along the west side of Lake DeForest. These are two-lane roads lined with residential uses. It is assumed that during construction, the roads would be reduced to one lane alongside the construction zone, with the use of flagmen so that traffic could alternate directions. Once operational, this alternative and the Proposed Project are expected to have similar effects as the Proposed Project on traffic and transportation. Both would generate minimal levels of traffic, with an estimated 10 or fewer employees each 24-hour day and occasional visitor and delivery trips, as well as deliveries of pre-treatment and post-treatment chemicals and trucks for removal of dewatered sludge. This low level of traffic generation associated with plant
18D-31
operations would not adversely affect traffic operating conditions at any of the intersections and roadways within the vicinity. 18D.4.12. NOISE The construction-period noise effects of this alternative are anticipated to be similar to those of the Proposed Project. Chapter 15, Construction Impacts, provides an extensive description of the sources of construction period noise, as well as modeling and assessment of construction noise and the potential for significant adverse impacts during the construction period for the Proposed Project. As discussed in Chapter 15, construction activities for the water treatment plant and intake pumping station buildings of the Proposed Project would result in significant increases to noise levels at some nearby residences. These increases would be short-term, in that they would last for only some construction periods. For the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, the same type of noise increases can be expected during the two-year construction period at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, resulting in significant increases in noise levels for the residential area across Old Mill Road from the plant. However, in contrast to the Proposed Project, the necessity to maintain uninterrupted operations at the existing Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would require portions of this alternatives construction at the Lake DeForest site to occur during offhours when water demands are lowest. Thus, it is anticipated that evening or nighttime construction would be necessary. The Town of Clarkstown noise ordinance prohibits construction and machinery noise Monday through Friday prior to 7:00 AM and after 8:00 PM, on Saturday prior to 8:00 AM and after 6:00 PM, and on Sunday prior to 11:00 AM and after 5:00 PM. 1 The construction that is necessary to occur during these prohibited periods may be permissible under special permit provisions of the code, however it is unclear whether the construction of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would qualify under the code, as written. 2 Nonetheless, construction activities and construction traffic during off-hours would be expected to be disruptive to adjacent residential areas. As also discussed in Chapter 15, the raw water transmission mains required for the Proposed Project would also result in substantial noise increases at residential properties along the route. This disruption would be short-term in nature, since water main construction would progress at approximately 75 feet per day for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Projects water main construction would pass few properties of a sensitive nature, and therefore this increase in noise levels would not disrupt a large number of residents or others. In contrast, the installation of water mains for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would pass numerous residences and businesses (with a length of 9.5 miles, compared to the Proposed Projects 1.5 miles of water main installation), and would overall be much longer in duration. Therefore, the construction required for installation of water mains with this alternative would have a substantially more disruptive effect in terms of noise than would the construction required for the Proposed Projects water mains. The new pumping station at the RCSD1 WWTP would be situated among other structures on an industrially developed site and set back from the already busy traffic arterials of New York State
1 2
Chapter 205 of the Town of Clarkstown code. See: http://ecode360.com/?custId=CL0028 Chapter 205-6 of the Town of Clarkstown code.
18D-32
Route 303. It is not expected that the operations of this facility would result in any significant adverse noise impacts. The new AWTP and the expanded Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would result in some increases to noise levels at the Lake DeForest site and at the nearest residential area, across Old Mill Road from the site. However, given the presence of the existing water treatment plant at the site, the increases are not likely to result in significant adverse noise impacts at nearby properties. Therefore, like the Proposed Project, this alternative would not be expected to result in significant noise impacts as a result of its operations. 18D.4.13. AIR QUALITY Like the Proposed Project, and as discussed in Chapter 15, Construction Impacts, this alternative would generate air pollutants emitted from on-site non-road construction equipment and trucks (primarily diesel-powered and gasoline-powered equipment exhaust). Non-road engines to be used during construction would include equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, generators, and concrete pumps. In addition to emissions originating from trucks as they arrive and depart, concrete trucks would be required to run their engines continuously during concrete pours to keep the concrete mix in motion. Minor increases in air emissions would also occur on roadways where construction is occurring because of the increase in construction worker vehicles and truck trips. On roads where water transmission mains are installed, the temporary disruption to traffic could also result in a minor increase in air emissions due to idling engines of vehicles in stopped construction traffic. Dust control would be implemented as part of any SWPPP to ensure that dust emissions from construction activity are limited to the extent practicable. Typical means of doing so involve, for example, truck washing, and stabilization and covering of loose materials. Overall, like with the Proposed Project, it is possible that this alternatives construction activities could exceed certain thresholds used for assessing the potential for significant adverse air quality impacts, but any exceedance would be temporary, and limited in extent and severity. Like the Proposed Project, once operational the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would not have any emissions sources other than emergency generators, which would be tested and used only occasionally. Also like the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would result in only a small number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, neither this alternative nor the Project would result in significant adverse air quality impacts associated with operations. 18D.4.14. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction; embedded emissions associated with the extraction, production, and transport of materials (especially cement and steel); and emissions associated with building heat and electricity consumption for water treatment processes and other energy needs. The estimated emissions, in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions, are presented in Table 18D-5. The main contributor to GHG emissions under this alternative would be electricity consumption. In terms of embodied buildings and materials, this alternatives components (the AWTP, improvements to Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, and pumping stations) would have a smaller total building footprint than the Proposed Project. However, the water transmission mains would require substantially more raw materials and associated construction activity than 18D-33
the Proposed Project. Overall, the resulting GHG emissions from the Wastewater Reuse Alternatives construction and materials would be approximately 42 percent higher than the emissions of the Proposed Project.
Table 18D-5 Comparison of GHG Emissions and Energy Efficiency Wastewater Reuse Alternative vs. Proposed Project
Component Wastewater Reuse Alternative Proposed Project
Average Annual GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2e) On-site Fuel Use for Heating Process Electricity1 Embodied Buildings2 Embodied Materials and Systems2 Construction Trips3 Total 135 10,460 49 189 198 11,030 165 6,397 58 109 92 6,821
Energy Efficiency (kWh/Mgal) Process electricity demand per unit water produced 11,718 7,166
Notes: 1. Based on Phase 3 electricity use. 2. Embodied emissions would occur over a period prior to and during construction and are annualized over the 50 years. 3. The emissions presented are annualized over 50 years. Construction and embodied emissions would occur during the construction period only. Total construction and embodied emissions would be 21,733 metric tons CO2e.
Plant operationsincluding operations at the AWTP, increases in operations at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, and required pumpingwould also have an associated direct and ongoing energy demand. Upon completion, this alternative would create an energy demand of approximately 29,850 MWh/year, averaging approximately 11,718 kWh per million gallons of potable water produced. At this rate, the operational energy consumption and resulting GHG emissions would be equivalent to 64 percent higher than those generated by the Proposed Project, and would result in the emission of approximately 10,460 metric tons of CO2e per year (assuming no use of on-site renewable energy or other offsets). Overall, the annualized emissions (50-year average, including construction) are estimated at approximately 11,030 metric ton CO2e per yearapproximately 62 percent more than the emissions expected for the Proposed Project. 18D.4.15. COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY All components comprising the Wastewater Reuse Alternative are located outside of the designated New York State Coastal Zone, and would have no potential to result in reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal resources. The alternative would result in a reduction of the amount of treated wastewater effluent discharged to the Hudson River by the RCSD1 WWTP, by up to 10.7 mgd at full build-out. The effluent is currently discharged into the Hudson River within the Piermont Marsh SCFWH area. Unlike the Proposed Project, this alternative would not
18D-34
involve construction of a new water intake in Haverstraw Bay in the Hudson River, which is a SCFWH. Unlike the Proposed Project, this alternative would also not require the discharge of brine from the RO process to the Hudson River. 18D.4.16. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE This alternative is expected to have a larger capital cost (approximately $302.6 to $325.9 million compared with $139.2 to $189.2 million for the Proposed Project), thus with respect to impacts of potential rate increases compared to the Proposed Project on low-income and minority customers within United Waters service area, it could be considered as a more significant impact on these users. However, as with the detailed analyses presented in Chapter 23, Environmental Justice, any potential rate increases would affect all portions of the Rockland County service area on an equal basis, including the potential environmental justice communities as well as non-environmental justice communities. Therefore, the potential environmental justice communities would not be disproportionately affected by such rate increases. Moreover, United Water provides relief to people facing temporary financial crises through its United Water Cares program, and any rate increases related to the Proposed Project will be the subject of a separate review process by the PSC. Compared with the Proposed Project, this alternative would not directly draw or discharge waters from or to the Hudson River so there is no potential effect on subsistence fishing (although it is noted that the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts on aquatic biota in the Hudson River nor adversely affect any individuals who choose to use the Hudson River for subsistence fishing). 18D.4.17. INDIRECT AND SECONDARY EFFECTS In contrast to existing conditions or conditions with the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative could potentially result in more water being discharged from Lake DeForest into the Hackensack River. As described earlier, the AWTP would not be able to adjust quickly to respond to water levels in Lake DeForest and would have to remain in operation, even if at a reduced level. Thus, during periods of increased rainfall, the AWTP would continue to discharge reclaimed water to the reservoir, and excess water from the reservoir that spills over the dam could result in higher flows in the Hackensack River downstream of Lake DeForest. This could result in greater and/or more frequent flooding events below the Lake DeForest dam. 18D.4.18. GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS United Water is obligated to maintain a water supply system, including drinking water, serving a wide service area that encompasses nearly 94 percent of the residents of Rockland County. In addition to residential consumers, United Water must supply potable water to the businesses, institutions, and parks in its service area in Rockland County, including the Palisades Interstate Park system. United Water also provides water for fire suppression via fire hydrants and fire system connections throughout its service area. Excluded from United Waters extensive service area are users in the Villages of Suffern, Nyack, and South Nyack. As part of its mandate to provide safe and adequate water supply service to its Rockland County customers, United Water, like all water purveyors, must plan to provide an adequate supply of water for the future. As discussed in Chapter 20, Growth Inducing Aspects, the comprehensive plans adopted by local municipalities in Rockland County and the County Comprehensive Plan reflect the assumption that growth will occur in Rockland County over the next decades. The plans 18D-35
recognize the importance of providing adequate infrastructure to support economic growth and the Countys quality of life, and the existing water supply capacity is identified as a defining limitation to growth in the County. The County Comprehensive Plan and the plans adopted by local municipalities all assume that water infrastructure will expand to support growth. The 2006 and 2010 Rate Orders issued by the PSC require United Water to proceed with preparation of materials for a long-term major water supply project that United Water will build and operate. The PSC and the parties to the 2006 and 2010 Rate Orders found that it is in the customers best interest and in the public interest for United Water to develop new sources of long-term water supply. The Proposed Project, the Haverstraw Water Supply Project, is United Waters proposal to meet the obligation of the 2006 and 2010 Rate Orders to develop a long-term water supply that will meet the anticipated growth in water demand in Rockland County. If the Proposed Project is not implemented, another alternative must instead be developed that meets that need. As discussed throughout this chapter, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would also meet the purpose and need for the Project. Neither the Proposed Project nor the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would cause significant local population increases to occur, nor would either trigger further development by encouraging people to move into Rockland County. Rather, both would support the growth that is expected to occur in the County as a result of natural population growth and as a result of planned major transportation infrastructure improvements that are specifically designed to improve Rockland County as a place to live and work and to increase Rockland Countys connectivity to the economic and employment centers in New York City, Westchester County, and Connecticut. 18D.4.19. EFFECTS OF THE WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE IN COMPARISON TO THOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The analysis concludes that, like the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would create a new long-term water supply source capable of providing 7.5 mgd of potable water as a supplement to United Waters existing water supply sources. Table 18D-6, below, summarizes the effects of this alternative in comparison to those of the Proposed Project. The analysis ultimately concludes that, in comparison to the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative has the potential to result in a number of adverse impacts. This alternative would be substantially more disruptive during its longer-term construction period, with greater noise impacts and disruption to nearby residences. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative also has the potential to result in increased occurrences of flooding in the Hackensack River downstream of Lake DeForest, and could potentially result in adverse impacts to historic and archaeological resources. Finally, this alternative would have higher capital costs than the Proposed Project and would therefore be less able to meet the public need and benefit of being cost-effective.
18D-36
Table 18D-6 Effects of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative in Comparison to the Proposed Project
Impact Area Safe Yield (Supply Source) Potable Water Production Capacity Capital Cost Wastewater Reuse Alternative Wastewater effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP Phase 1: 2.5 mgd Phase 2: 5 mgd Phase 3: 7.5 mgd Phase 1: $243.3 - 262.0 million Phase 2: $23.0 - 24.8 million Phase 3: $36.3 - 39.0 million Total: $302.6 - $325.9 million Phase 1: $2.9 million Phase 2: $5.3 million Phase 3: $7.5 million Phase 1: $1.55 to $1.66 Phase 2: $1.80 to $1.91 Phase 3: $2.11 to $2.24 Phase 1: $1.10 to $1.18 Phase 2: $1.28 to $1.36 Phase 3: $1.54 to $1.63 Construction of new AWTP and expansion of Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant adjacent to residential uses. Construction of new water main route along busy roads and adjacent to residential and business uses. Character of water treatment plant site would change from existing landscaped site to site almost completely occupied by water treatment buildings. Proposed Project: Haverstraw Water Supply Project Hudson River Phase 1: 2.5 mgd Phase 2: 5 mgd Phase 3: 7.5 mgd Phase 1: $97.2 to $144.8 million Phase 2: $16.7 to $16.9 million Phase 3: $25.2 to $27.8 million Total: $139.2 to $189.3 million Phase 1: $2.2 million Phase 2: $4.0 million Phase 3: $5.6 million Phase 1: $0.72 to $0.99 Phase 2: $0.91 to $1.17 Phase 3: $1.16 to $1.43 Phase 1: $0.51 to $0.70 Phase 2: $0.65 to $0.84 Phase 3: $0.85 to $1.05 Construction of treatment plant adjacent to Haverstraw Landfill, wastewater treatment plant, industrial uses, and freight railroad right-of-way. Construction of intake pumping station on former industrial Hudson River waterfront site (Intake Site) adjacent to U.S. Gypsum Company plant and conveyor, and adjacent to residential and commercial marina uses. Potential alienation of parkland due to possible underground placement of raw water transmission main routes under Town of Haverstraw parkland areas (marina and boat yard). Some visibility of newly constructed buildings. Intake pumping station would be visible from Hudson River vantages.
Estimated Annual Operating Cost Average Daily Cost per Account (Ratepayer) Average Daily Cost per Single Family Household Land Use
Visual Resources
Community Facilities
Views of the water treatment plant facilities at the Lake DeForest site would change as a result of the construction of a new treatment facility and the enlargement of the existing treatment plant. No new demand for community services. Construction activities associated with the water transmission mains would disrupt traffic patterns on local roadways; however, emergency vehicle access would be provided.
No new demand for community services.
18D-37
Table 18D-6 (contd) Effects of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative in Comparison to the Proposed Project
Impact Area Socioeconomics Wastewater Reuse Alternative Implementation of alternative would not create new taxable parcels. Construction of alternative may employ more workers, require larger purchases of goods and services, and generate higher wages, salaries, and taxes than Proposed Project. With greater construction investment, potential to generate more tax revenues than Proposed Project. Water main installation would disrupt businesses along 9.5-mile route to greater degree than Proposed Project. Implementation of this alternative would require consultation with OPRHP to assess potential archaeological sensitivity at Lake DeForest site and along water transmission main routes. Consultation with OPRHP would also be required regarding the eligibility of certain structures that could be affected by construction activities for the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Proposed Project: Haverstraw Water Supply Project Implementation of Proposed Project would place existing tax-exempt land onto tax rolls. Water main installation would cause shortterm disruption to businesses along 1.5mile route.
Cultural Resources
Potential to affect archaeological resources on small segments of raw water transmission main and potable water main, depending on the route selected.
Geology, Soils, and Groundwater Natural Resources
No impacts, since the RCSD1 WWTP site and the AWTP site have been affected and disturbed by past uses. Increased potential for flooding of Hackensack River downstream of Lake DeForest. No effects on aquatic natural resources in Hudson River. Disturbance to bottom habitat in Hackensack River associated with open cut method. No expected change to terrestrial habitat and little-to-no potential impact on existing natural resources on Lake DeForest plant site.
No impacts, since Project Sites have been affected and disturbed by past uses. No significant adverse impacts on terrestrial plant communities or wildlife, or on threatened or endangered species, floodplains, wetlands, water quality, or aquatic biota in the Hudson River and Minisceongo Creek. Minimal potential impacts on aquatic resources of the Hudson River during construction due to cofferdam. Removal of habitat areas associated with landfill stormwater drainage features on Water Treatment Plant Site, if not removed sooner by the Town of Haverstraw, which would not result in significant adverse impacts on terrestrial plant communities or wildlife resources.
18D-38
Table 18D-6 (contd) Effects of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative in Comparison to the Proposed Project
Impact Area Natural Resources, contd Wastewater Reuse Alternative Proposed Project: Haverstraw Water Supply Project Discharge of diluted reverse osmosis concentrate to the Hudson River would not result in adverse impacts on water quality or aquatic biota. Potential impacts on fisheries and macroinvertebrates resulting from withdrawal of 10 mgd of Hudson River water have been minimized through use of best technology available, such as wedge-wire screen intake structure and low approach velocity intake design. Operations would not result in significant adverse impacts on birds and other wildlife using the existing habitats adjacent to the Project Sites. Potential disturbance to known subsurface hazardous materials. Use and storage of petroleum and chemicals necessary for treatment processes at Water Treatment Plant Site. Increased average energy demand of 17,400 to 18,300 MWh to operate pumps and treatment facilities Minimal increases in traffic from Intake Site and Water Treatment Plant Site from operation of the Proposed Project. Short-term traffic impacts during construction of raw water transmission main (open cut). Noise impacts during construction on nearby residential areas. Installation of water mains would impact residential properties along 1.5-mile route. No significant noise impacts during operations.
Hazardous Materials
Use and storage of petroleum and chemicals necessary for treatment processes at Lake DeForest plant site.
Infrastructure and Energy
Traffic
Noise
Air Quality
Global Climate Change
Indirect and Secondary Effects Note:
Increased average energy demand of 11,400 MWh to operate pumps and treatment facilities. Minimal increases in traffic from treatment plant operations. Substantial short-term traffic impacts along approximately 9.5 miles of public roadways during construction of water transmission lines (open cut). Off-hours (i.e., evening and nighttime) construction noise would occur at the existing Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site and would likely impact adjacent residential areas. Installation of water mains would impact residences and businesses along 9.5mile route for an extended period of time. No significant noise impacts during operations. Minor increases in air emissions would occur during construction on roadways near the project sites due to increase in worker vehicles and truck trips. Annualized emissions are estimated at approximately 11,718 metric tons CO2e per year. Increased potential for flooding in Hackensack River downstream of Lake DeForest dam.
Minor increases in air emissions would occur during construction on roadways near the project sites due to increase in worker vehicles and truck trips. Annualized emissions are estimated at approximately 6,821 metric tons CO2e per year. No change from existing conditions.
Costs are in 2010 dollars.
18D-39
18D.5.
18D.5.1.
DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE RIVER DISCHARGE OPTION

DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE
The River Discharge Option of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would use treated sewage effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP in Orangeburg, provide further treatment at an AWTP, and release the reclaimed water produced by the AWTP into the Hackensack River at the base of the Lake DeForest dam rather than into the reservoir itself. Like the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, the River Discharge Option would increase the safe yield of the Lake DeForest reservoir for United Waters Rockland County customers by 7.8 mgd to produce 7.5 mgd of potable water, which would meet the purpose and need for the Project. Figure 18D-9 provides a schematic flow diagram for this alternative. 18D.5.1.1. COMPONENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE
The Wastewater Reuse Alternative, River Discharge Option would have the same components as the Wastewater Reuse Alternative described above, including the following: Wastewater Treatment Plant: Use of 10.7 mgd of treated sewage effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP. Pumping and Transmission to Lake DeForest: Treated wastewater effluent would be transmitted via a new buried force main to United Waters Lake DeForest property. One of the same two potential routes described earlier and shown in Figure 18D-3 could be used for the transmission main. AWTP for Tertiary Treatment: This option would also have a new AWTP to provide tertiary treatment to the treated wastewater effluent. The AWTP would be located on United Waters Lake DeForest property, adjacent to the existing Lake DeForest water treatment plant. The AWTP would be sized to treat 10.7 mgd of sewage effluent, producing 7.8 mgd of reclaimed water. It is assumed that the same level of treatment would be required as for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative that discharges to the head of the reservoir. Discharge of Reclaimed Water: In this option, the reclaimed water produced by the AWTP would not be transmitted to the head of Lake DeForest, and therefore no buried transmission main would be constructed along the west side of the reservoir beneath Strawtown Road and Ridge Road. Instead, the water would be discharged into the Hackensack River at the base of the Lake DeForest dam, adjacent to the AWTP. Improvements to Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant: Like the Wastewater Reuse Alternative discussed above, this option would require an increase in capacity at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant by 7.8 mgd. Diversion of Village of Nyack Intake: The Village of Nyack currently withdraws water (up to 2 mgd) for its public water system from the Hackensack River about a mile downstream of the Lake DeForest dam. This option would discharge reclaimed water a mile upstream of the intake location, which would not provide the required detention time for the reclaimed water before it reaches the current location of the intake. Therefore, in this option the Village of Nyacks water intake would be relocated so that water for the Village would be withdrawn directly from Lake DeForest instead.
18D-40
12.6.11
Hackensack River 10 MGD Water from Reservoir Lake DeForest 7.8 MGD Additional Water from Reservoir 9.8 MGD treated water for use by Rockland County 7.5 MGD additional treated water for use by Rockland County
Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant
10.7 MGD Treated Effluent
Advanced Water Treatment Plant
capacity for 7.8 MGD additional raw water)
Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant (increase
7.8 MGD Treated Wastewater for Downstream Users
Water spills over Lake DeForest Dam when reservoir is full (i.e., rain events)
Per revised Lake DeForest permit: No mandatory releases 2 MGD for Nyack for downstream users. Optional releases possible.
Village of Nyack water system withdrawal directly from Lake DeForest (2 MGD)
Hackensack River
At least 7.8 MGD
Downstream reservoirs in NJ Existing conditions New conditions with alternative in place
Flow Chart for Wastewater Reuse Alternative River Discharge Option
Figure 18D-9
Two potential route options were identified for the Village of Nyack Intake Diversion, as shown in Figure 18D-10. In both options, a new intake would be created at Lake DeForest. In one option, a buried water main would be constructed from Lake DeForest running west beneath Old Mill Road and then south beneath Strawtown Road to Route 59, where it would turn eastward to meet West Nyack Road and then terminate at the existing intake location, which is also the location of the Village of Nyacks water treatment plant (see Figure 18D-10). The total length of this water main would be approximately 10,000 feet (1.89 miles). In the other option, a shorter water main (approximately 4,000 feet, or 0.76 miles) would be constructed from the reservoir southward to the Villages water treatment plant and intake location. This water main would run below undeveloped land alongside the Hackensack River. Detention and Assimilation of Reclaimed Water: The reclaimed water produced by the AWTP would be discharged to the Hackensack River, and would typically constitute the majority of the water in the river downstream of the Lake DeForest dam. The water would flow downstream to Lake Tappan, which is the northern of the downstream New Jersey reservoirs that are fed by the Hackensack River. The water would then travel from the head of that reservoir to the southern end, providing detention time prior to its withdrawal and further treatment at the Lake Tappan water treatment plant. PHASING
18D.5.1.2.
As described above, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would be implemented in three phases, like the Proposed Project. However, under the River Discharge Option, this alternative would not be phased. The AWTP would be built to its full capacity (to produce 7.8 mgd of treated wastewater). This would avoid the operational difficulties that would otherwise occur because of a need to combine discharge from the AWTP with a release from the reservoir in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the alternative. For example, if this option were phased, the AWTP would release 2.6 mgd of reclaimed water to the river in Phase 1, to allow withdrawal of 2.6 mgd of raw water from the reservoir for use by Rockland County (which would result in 2.5 mgd of potable water after treatment). To provide the required flow in the Hackensack River of 7.75 mgd, 5.15 mgd of water would have to be released from the reservoir. In Phase 2, the AWTP would release 5.26 mgd of reclaimed water to the river (to allow withdrawal of 5.26 mgd of raw water from the reservoir for use by Rockland County to create 5 mgd of potable water). The remaining 2.49 mgd would have to be released from the reservoir to provide the required river flow. However, the valve at Lake DeForest that is used to release water to the river is sized for a flow of 9.75 mgd. Under a phased approach, to accurately control the reduced releases from the reservoir to the Hackensack River, the valve would have to be replaced with a smaller valve as well as associated piping. This would require several different construction episodes corresponding to the phases of the project. To avoid these complications, the River Discharge Option would have only one phase. 18D.5.1.3. OPERATION
With this variation of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, United Water would no longer release a minimum of 9.75 mgd from Lake DeForest to the Hackensack River for downstream users, as it does today (of which 2 mgd is for the Village of Nyack and 7.75 mgd is for downstream reservoirs in New Jersey). The Village of Nyack would draw its 2 mgd directly from the reservoir, and therefore the 2 mgd that is currently released for use by the Village of Nyack
18D-41
12.6.11
Lake DeForest
Straw town Rd
Rd Mill Old
iver ck R ensa Hack
87
87
W Nyack Rd
59
59
Nyack Intake Existing Location Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Nyack Diversion Main Option 1 Nyack Diversion Main Option 2
400
1000 FEET
SCALE
Wastewater Reuse Alternative River Discharge Option Possible Village of Nyack Intake Diversion Routes
Figure 18D-10
would no longer need to be released to the river. The AWTP would discharge 7.8 mgd of reclaimed water to the Hackensack River, which would provide the required flow in the river for the downstream reservoirs in New Jersey instead of a release from Lake DeForest. The 7.75 mgd that is no longer released for the New Jersey reservoirs would instead be available in Lake DeForest for use by Rockland County. As discussed earlier in this chapter (see section 18D.2.5), the water supply permit for Lake DeForest currently allows additional release of water, beyond the required minimum, for downstream users in certain conditions. These conditions depend on the volume of water in Lake DeForest and the volume of water in the downstream reservoirs. The amount of additional water that may be released from the reservoir to the Hackensack River for downstream users could remain unchanged in this option. In addition, water would continue to spill over the Lake DeForest dam when the reservoir reaches capacity. Refer to Figure 18D-9 for an illustration of how this option would change operations at Lake DeForest. With this option, United Water would continue to maximize withdrawal at Lake DeForest to the extent allowed by its permit and safe yield, but this permitted amount would be increased from existing conditions. As with the Proposed Project, United Water would continue to operate the Ramapo Valley Well Field and Letchworth Reservoirs in the same manner as it does today. When additional capacity is available because of the additional water source, this would allow United Water to rest its supply wells. Similar to the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, this alternative with the River Discharge Option could potentially result in more water being discharged from Lake DeForest into the Hackensack River than occurs today or would occur with the Proposed Project. As noted above, the AWTP would not be able to adjust quickly to respond to water levels in Lake DeForest or in the Hackensack River. With the River Discharge Option, the potential for flooding may be greater than in the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, for two reasons: Unlike the Wastewater Reuse Alternative option that discharges to the head of the reservoir, the River Discharge Option would not be able to take advantage of any available storage capacity in the reservoir for holding additional water before the water flows to the Hackensack River. With the Wastewater Reuse Alternative that discharges to the head of the reservoir, releases to the river would continue to be made as they are today. United Water currently closes the release valve at the dam when water is spilling, so that the water that spills over the dam is used to satisfy the minimum flow requirements in the Hackensack River. This reduces the overall amount discharged to the river in times of heavy flows. In contrast, in the River Discharge Option, the AWTP would discharge reclaimed water to the river even when the reservoir is spilling, resulting in higher total flows in the river.
In addition, during the earliest years of operation for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, River Discharge Option, the potential for flooding would be exacerbated by the fact that the amount of reclaimed water produced by the AWTP in this option, 7.8 mgd, would be far higher than the additional amount of water that would be withdrawn from the reservoir for use by Rockland County (approximately 2.6 mgd, to produce 2.5 mgd of potable water). The excess water would be stored in the reservoir, reducing its capacity to hold water during storm events. Additional water would either have to be released or would spill over the dam more frequently than with the Wastewater Reuse Alternative.
18D-42
18D.5.1.4.
PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
Like the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, the River Discharge Option would require a number of permits or permit modifications. These would generally be the same as those required for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, with two notable following differences: SPDES permit from NYSDEC for discharge of treated wastewater into the Hackensack River (rather than for discharge to the reservoir). Modification to WSA 2189 (water supply permit for Lake DeForest) to state that at least 17.8 mgd of the water in Lake DeForest is forever reserved for the needs of the inhabitants of Rockland County, rather than 10 mgd as is stated in the existing permit; and that 2 mgd is reserved for use by the Village of Nyack. The permit would also be revised to remove the requirement that at least 9.75 mgd of water be released from the reservoir for downstream users. The other permit conditions that govern the amount of water that may be released for downstream communities could remain unchanged. DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
18D.5.1.5.
Construction of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, River Discharge Option would be the same as described for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative in section 18D.2.6 of this chapter, with two differences: No water main would be constructed beneath Strawtown Road and Ridge Road to the head of the reservoir; and A water main would be constructed to provide a connection from the reservoir to the Village of Nyacks water treatment plant. COST ESTIMATE
18D.5.1.6.
Based on preliminary design, this alternative would have a slightly lower cost than the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, because of its shorter water main length (the 20,800-foot-long Strawtown Road main to the head of the reservoir would be replaced by a main 4,000 to 10,000 feet long for the Nyack Intake Diversion, depending on the route selected). In addition, this alternative would no longer require a pumping station to pump reclaimed water to the head of the reservoir. These changes would reduce the cost of the alternative by approximately 1 to 4 percent lower. Overall, however, the cost of the alternative in this option would be similar to that of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative and the effects on water rates would also be similar. 18D.5.2. WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE RIVER DISCHARGE OPTIONS ABILITY TO MEET PURPOSE AND NEED
The Wastewater Reuse Alternative, River Discharge Option, would meet the purpose and need for the project in the same way as the Wastewater Reuse Alternative discussed above, with one exception. This alternative, unlike the Wastewater Reuse Alternative and the Proposed Project, would not be developed in phases to meet the demand for water as Rockland Countys population increases. Thus, this alternative would not meet one of the goals for the long-term water supply project, the goal that the project should have the ability to be implemented in stages.
18D-43
18D.5.3.
EFFECTS OF THE WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE WITH RIVER DISCHARGE OPTION
Overall, the social, economic, and environmental effects of this option would be the same as those described for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative in section 18D.4 above. The differences would relate to the elimination of the water main under Strawtown Road and Ridge Road along the west side of the reservoir and the addition of a water main providing water from the reservoir to the Village of Nyacks water treatment plant. Those differences would be as follows: Construction Disruption: With approximately two fewer miles of water mains (because of the removal of the reclaimed water transmission main to the head of the reservoir and the addition of a new Village of Nyack Intake Diversion main), the construction of this alternative would be slightly less disruptive than the Wastewater Reuse Alternative described above. The residential neighborhoods along the west side of the reservoir would not be subject to construction activities. Instead, using the road routing for the Nyack Intake Diversion, this option would require disruption to approximately one mile of Route 59, which is a major artery through Clarkstown, as well as to Strawtown Road and Old Mill Road south of the reservoir. Depending on the route selected for the force main used to transmit effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP, Strawtown Road and Old Mill Road may also be disrupted for construction of the force main. Historic Resources: The road routing for the Nyack Intake Diversion would pass through the West Nyack Historic District, a local historic district established by the Town of Clarkstown (see Figure 18D-11). As noted earlier in this chapter, Option 1 of the effluent force main from the RCSD1 WWTP would also pass through this district. At the same time, without a transmission main to the head of the reservoir, this option would not pass in close proximity to the Teaberry Port House, an 18th century house that is a local historic resource, located on Strawtown Road on the west side of Lake DeForest. Archaeological Resources: If the Nyack Intake Diversion follows the route along the Hackensack River, the potential for buried archaeological resources to be located along the pipe route would have to be investigated. This would require consultation with OPRHP to assess the potential archaeological sensitivity of this area, and development of appropriate mitigation measures if sensitivity is identified. Water Resources: The reclaimed water discharged to the Hackensack River would be subject to a SPDES permit and would have to meet appropriate water quality standards. Therefore, the replacement of water released from the reservoir with reclaimed water would not adversely affect the water quality and aquatic habitat of the river or of the downstream reservoirs. The Hackensack River is classified by the NYSDEC as a Class A waterbody. The best usages of Class A waters are: drinking water supply, primary and secondary contact recreation, and fishing. The water quality shall be suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival. This segment of the Hackensack River is not listed as impaired on the 2010 303(d) list of impaired waters. A SWPPP would be implemented to minimize erosion that could adversely affect water quality in the Hackensack River during construction. Natural Resources: If the diversion to the Village of Nyacks water treatment plant follows the route beneath vacant land along the Hackensack River, adverse impacts could occur to water quality and natural resources during its installation. This route would require clearing of approximately 4.6 acres of wooded land, assuming a 50-foot-wide right-of-way for water main construction. The wooded area is relatively narrow, with developed areas on either 18D-44
12.6.11
Lake DeForest
1
Rd Mill Old
iver ck R ensa Hack
W Nyack Rd
Nyack Intake Existing Location Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Nyack Diversion Main Option 1 Nyack Diversion Main Option 2
Historic Resources
1 2
400
2000 FEET
Old Mill Road West Nyack Historic District
SCALE
Wastewater Reuse Alternative River Discharge Option Historic Resources near Diversion Routes
Figure 18D-11
side, and is likely too small to serve as a forest interior habitat, which would minimize the natural resources impacts of this construction to some extent. However, the wooded area through which the diversion pipe would pass in this routing is mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory as forested wetland and by the NYSDEC as freshwater wetlands. In addition, based on NYSDECs Environmental Resource Mapper, the area has the potential to contain threatened, rare, or endangered species. If this route is selected, additional investigation would have to be conducted to identify the presence of any wetlands and to further investigate the potential for protected species to be present. Any construction through wetlands would be constructed in accordance with the conditions set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Line Activities), which calls for backfilling the top 6 to 12 inches of the pipeline trench with topsoil from the trench, avoiding drainage of the wetland, and stabilizing exposed slopes and stream banks. Energy and Global Climate Change: The Wastewater Reuse Alternative, River Discharge Option would require less energy than the Wastewater Reuse Alternative that pumps reclaimed water to the head of the reservoir, because of the elimination of that pumping. This option would have an average annual energy demand of 28,490 MWh per year, compared to 29,850 MWh per year for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative. In comparison, the Proposed Projects average annual energy demand is estimated at 17,400 to 18,300 MWh per year. Therefore, this option would result in slightly lower annual GHG emissions than the Wastewater Reuse Alternative (10,567 metric tons CO2e compared to 11,030 with the alternative) but the GHG emissions would remain well above those predicted for the Proposed Project (estimated at 6,821 metric tons CO2e; see Table 18D-5 above). Indirect and Secondary Effects: The Wastewater Reuse Alternative, River Discharge Option, like the Wastewater Reuse Alternative that transmits reclaimed water to the head of the reservoir, would result in an increased potential for flooding downstream of the reservoir in comparison to existing conditions or conditions that would occur with the Proposed Project. With the River Discharge Option, this potential would be greater than with the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, because this option would not be able to take advantage of the buffering effects of storage capacity in the reservoir, and because of the combined effect of water spilling over the dam during rain events and discharges of reclaimed water from the AWTP to the river. The increased flooding potential would be greatest during early phases of the project, when the AWTP would be releasing 7.8 mgd of reclaimed water to the Hackensack River, but smaller volumes of water would be withdrawn from the reservoir for use by Rockland County.
18D-45

Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Chapter 18D:

Wastewater Reuse Alternative

6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v). Ibid.

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE

Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant

Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant

2 MGD At least 7.75 MGD

Village of Nyack water system intake

Downstream reservoirs in NJ Existing conditions New conditions with alternative in place

Flow Chart for Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

Village of Nyack Water Supply Intake

Rockland County Sewer District No 1 WWTP

UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

Location of Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Lake DeForest WTP and AWTP

Snake Hill Rd.

Old Mill Rd.

Rockland County Sewer District No 1 WWTP

Rockland County Towns/Villages

UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

Table 18D-1 Potential Applicable Treatment Standards

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l SU

15 23 0.1 500 6.5-8.5

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

10.0 1.0 7.6 0.2 7.0 4.0

Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative

RCSD1 WWTP SPDES discharge monitoring reports, 12/2009 7/2010.

BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE FILTERS

10.7 MGD by Force Main 13 MGD

Main from Force Wastewater Treatment Plant

7.8 MGD Treated Wastewater

RO Pretreat Bacteria Suspended Solids

Nitrates Organics Bacteria/Virus

UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

Reclaimed Water Treatment Process

Expansion to Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant

UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

Wastewater Reuse Alternative Site Plan at Lake DeForest

Cong ers L ake

UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

Wastewater Reuse Alternative Transmission Main to Discharge Point in Lake DeForest

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Table 18D-3 Estimated Detention Time in Reservoir

IMPROVEMENTS TO LAKE DEFOREST WATER TREATMENT PLANT

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative

WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVES ABILITY TO MEET PURPOSE AND NEED

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Table 18D-4 Comparative Summary of Capital Expenses and Rate Effects