Report

Conceptual Design Report Western Ramapo

Wastewater Treatment Plant Rockland County

Sewer District No. 1

May 2002

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT

WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

ROCKLAND COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1

Prepared for

ROCKLAND COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1

Prepared by

STEARNS & WHELER, LLC Environmental Engineers & Scientists

One Remington Park Drive Cazenovia, NY 13035

May 2002

Project No. 1002610

1002610.2 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Scope.............................................................................................. 1-2

CHAPTER 2 - SITE SELECTION PROCESS

2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Prescreening ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Site Ranking....................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Final Selection.................................................................................................... 2-4

CHAPTER 3 - SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOWS AND LOADS 3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Proposed Influent Flows (1.5 mgd) and Loads at the Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Proposed Influent Flows (5.0 mgd) and Loads at the Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................................................... 3-3 CHAPTER 4 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS 4.1 General............................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Conventional Treatment Technology.................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Proposed Site Plan.............................................................................................. 4-5 4.4 Hydraulic Profile ................................................................................................ 4-5 4.5 Mass Balance ..................................................................................................... 4-5 CHAPTER 5 - EFFLUENT DISCHARGE 5.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Effluent Pumping ............................................................................................... 5-1 CHAPTER 6 - CAPITAL AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE SELECTED SITE 6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Capital Costs ...................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs....................................................................... 6-1 CHAPTER 7 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Technical Advisory Committee .......................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Citizen Advisory Committee .............................................................................. 7-2 7.4 Public Information Meetings .............................................................................. 7-2 7.5 Web Site............................................................................................................. 7-3

1002610.2 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page CHAPTER 8 - PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. 2-1 Land Available (All Parcels) 2-2 Available Land Parcels 2-3 Land Available by Land Use 2-4 Floodplains and Wetlands 2-5 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Area 2-6 Rare and Endangered Species 2-7 Topography 2-8 Van Schaik Property 2-9 Thruway Property Along Route 287 2-10 Thruway Property Along Route 17 2-11 Lane Realty Corporation Property 2-12 Abandoned Sand and Gravel Pit 2-13 HTI Site 2-14 Leachate Pump Station Site 2-15 Property Along Route 17 Near Sloatsburg 2-16 Property in the Village of Sloatsburg 2-17 Property Along Route 17 2-18 Property Near the Tandem Truck Area 2-19 Property Near the Athletic Fields 2-20 Thruway Property Along Route 17 2-21 Lane Realty Corporation Property 2-22 Abandoned Sand/Gravel Pit Property 2-23 Thruway Property Along Route 17 2-24 Lane Realty Corporation Property 2-25 Abandoned Sand/Gravel Pit Property 4-1 Site Plan 4-2 Hydraulic Profile 4-3 Mass Balance (1.5 mgd) 4-4 Mass Balance (5.0 mgd) 5-1 Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant

1002610.2 iii

LIST OF GRAPHS Graph No. 2-1 Summary of Voting

LIST OF TABLES Table No. 2-1 Site Ranking Evaluation Summary 2-2 Proposed Effluent Quality 2-3 Relative Comparison of Capital and Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs 2-4 Summary of Site Characteristics, Final Three Selected Sites 3-1 Summary of Current and Build-out Wastewater Flows 3-2 Summary of Flows (1.5 mgd) and Loads, Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-3 Summary of Flows (5.0 mgd) and Loads, Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant 4-1 Preliminary Basis of Design, Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant 6-1 Capital Cost Estimate, Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant 6-2 Estimated Operation and Maintenance Costs, Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Siting Criteria Definitions B Archaeological Report C Soil Boring Report D Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes E Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes F Public Information Meeting Minutes

1002610.2 1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND The western area of Rockland County, along the Ramapo River, includes the Village of Hillburn, the Village of Sloatsburg, the Village of Suffern, and undeveloped land located along Route 17 in the Town of Ramapo. The Village of Suffern is served by a 1.8 mgd wastewater treatment plant. The Villages of Hillburn and Sloatsburg, however, rely primarily on individual on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems. Most of these systems are located above a sole-source aquifer called the Ramapo River Valley aquifer and/or in a recharge area to the Ramapo River. Because of failing subsurface sewage disposal systems and the associated potential public health risks, the Villages of Hillburn and Sloatsburg and the Town of Ramapo petitioned the Rockland County Legislature to extend municipal sewer service from Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 to this area. Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 operates a 28.9 mgd municipal wastewater treatment plant, located in Orangeburg, NY, that has sufficient capacity to treat the additional wastewater flows from these unsewered areas. A conceptual engineering report prepared in June 1997 identified this as a feasible alternative for these unsewered areas. However, based on a draft environmental impact statement, this alternative was later determined to be unacceptable because it would result in out-of-basin transfer of water from the Ramapo River Valley aquifer, which would result in the potential for diminishing flows in the Ramapo River. During the preparation of the conceptual engineering report, one of the alternatives identified -- diversion of wastewater flows to the Suffern wastewater treatment plant -- became an alternative to be further considered. This alternative would allow diversion of wastewater from currently unsewered areas to the Suffern wastewater treatment plant during normal dry weather flows. Under peak flow conditions, when groundwater is at its highest and the flow in the Ramapo River is at its highest, flows beyond the capacity of the Suffern wastewater treatment plant could be diverted to Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 without significantly impacting flows in the river.

1002610.2 1-2

An evaluation of the Village of Suffern wastewater treatment plant and collection system completed in March 2000 identified the need for significant improvements to the existing Village of Suffern wastewater facilities to serve Western Ramapo. Based on recommendations in the Village of Suffern report, Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 extended an offer to purchase the Village of Suffern’s wastewater facilities to continue to serve the Village of Suffern and add Western Ramapo. However, negotiations between the Village of Suffern and Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 were unsuccessful. Therefore, Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 proceeded with siting of a new wastewater treatment plant to serve the Villages of Hillburn and Sloatsburg and the unincorporated Town of Ramapo. The proposed new wastewater treatment plant would protect the public health by eliminating the use of failing septic systems while retaining much needed water within the Ramapo River drainage basin for recharge. 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 is constructing a new municipal wastewater treatment plant to serve the villages of Hillburn and Sloatsburg and unincorporated Town of Ramapo. The Sewer District retained the services of Stearns & Wheler, LLC to perform a siting study and conceptual design for the Western Ramapo wastewater treatment plant. The scope of the services incorporated in this report includes the following:

1. Develop siting criteria for available lands within Western Ramapo. 2. Identify sites which could support a 1.5 mgd advanced wastewater treatment plant with space available for future expansion of treatment capacity to 5 mgd. 3. Develop ranking criteria for the identified sites. 4. Conduct cost-effectiveness analysis on 12 potential wastewater treatment plant sites. 5. Conduct public participation program, including the development of a Citizen Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. 6. Prepare a conceptual engineering design of the Western Ramapo wastewater treatment plant.

1002610.2 2-1

CHAPTER 2

SITE SELECTION PROCESS

2.1 INTRODUCTION Site selection involved review of all existing parcels located within the proposed sewer service area (Western Ramapo). A three-step process was implemented to perform the site selection. The three steps were as follows:

1. Prescreening. Screen all parcels using prescreening criteria (see Appendix A) to identify the top 12 sites. 2. Site Ranking. Rank the 12 sites using site ranking criteria (see Appendix A) to identify the top 3 sites.

3. Final Selection. Select the final site using final selection criteria (see Appendix A).

Utilizing these three steps and input from the public during this process resulted in a final site for the Western Ramapo wastewater treatment plant. 2.2 PRESCREENING Initially, a meeting was held with the Citizen Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee (see Chapter 7) to develop the prescreening criteria. Based on input from the Citizen Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Rockland County Sewer District No. 1, eight criteria were initially selected due to their essential impact on the basic functions of the proposed wastewater treatment plant. For example, the physical size of a conventional wastewater treatment plant will require a minimum lot size, and thus any parcels without the minimum size would be eliminated from any further evaluation. The following eight criteria were considered for all parcels located within the proposed Western Ramapo sewer service area:

1002610.2 2-2

· lot size · lot usage · location of parcels · wetlands · wild, scenic, and recreational area · location of rare and endangered species · 100-year flood zone · topography

Utilizing Rockland County’s Geographic Information System (GIS), Figures 2-1 through 2-6 were developed to prescreen parcels located within the proposed Western Ramapo sewer service area. After screening the available parcels based on lot size; lot usage; location of parcels; wetlands; wild, scenic, and recreational area; location of rare and endangered species; and 100-year flood zone, topography was incorporated as the last criteria. Initially there were few potential areas in Western Ramapo that meet the prescreening criteria (shown in Figure 2-7). The five parcels that met the prescreening criteria were identified as potential sites for a municipal wastewater treatment plant serving Western Ramapo. After several meetings with the Citizen Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Rockland County Sewer District No. 1, it was requested that seven additional sites be evaluated. Though these additional sites did not meet all of the prescreening criteria, it was believed that the sites held merit for supporting a new wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, the following is the list of sites that were selected for further consideration:

· Van Schaik property · Thruway property along Route 287 · Thruway property along Route 17 entrance · Lane Realty Corporation property · abandoned sand and gravel pit property · Hudson Technology Industry (HTI) · Town of Ramapo leachate pump station site · Ramapo Land Corporation property along Route 17 near Sloatsburg · property along Route 17 in the Village of Sloatsburg · Ramapo Land Corporation property along Route 17

1002610.2 2-3

· Ramapo Land Corporation property near the tandem truck area · property in the Village of Sloatsburg near the athletic fields

Figures 2-8 through 2-19 show the location of the prescreened properties and aerial photographs for each property. In addition, for each of these properties, a conceptual wastewater treatment plant site plan was developed and presented at meetings with the Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees. For sites with limited available land, the wastewater treatment plant site plans included small footprint technologies (i.e., biological aerated filters and high-rate settling systems). This information assisted the committee members in visual aspects of the prescreened sites. 2.3 SITE RANKING The parcels identified in Section 2.2 were evaluated based on the following criteria;

· topography · soil types · 500-year flood zones · natural resources · environmental sensitivity · zoning · aesthetic impacts · buffers · odor concerns · permitability · potential for wetland discharge · archaeological/historical review · utilities availability · elevation · Brownfields · life cycle cost

The above criteria were developed by meeting with the Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees and Rockland County Sewer District No. 1. These criteria were utilized to rank the sites because it was determined that these site criteria impacted the wastewater treatment plant but did not limit its basic functions. For example, aesthetic impacts could be addressed by

1002610.2 2-4

landscaping the site or enhancing the architecture of the buildings to minimize the visual impacts. To rank the sites, a two-step weighted evaluation was implemented using the above criteria. The first step of the weighting evaluation was based on voting by the members of the Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees. The summary of the voting, the first step, is shown on Graph 2-1. Based on the number of votes received by each criteria, a weighted score (1 through 5) was applied to each criteria. The second step was based on information collected from the existing sites. Following a visit to each site, a site-specific score of 1 (high level of concern) to 3 (little concern) was applied to each criteria. Each site score criteria (second step) was multiplied by its associated weight (first step). As a result, a final weighted score was developed. The three sites with the highest scores, as summarized in Table 2-1, were initially selected for further consideration. However, as a result of discussions with the New York State Thruway Authority, their property along Route 287 was eliminated from further consideration due to the Authority’s unwillingness to release that surplus property. Therefore, the fourth highest scoring site was included with the sites selected for further consideration. The following are the sites that were included for evaluation:

1. Thruway property along Route 17 entrance. 2. Lane Realty Corporation property. 3. Abandoned sand and gravel property.

2.4 FINAL SELECTION As previously discussed for the prescreening and site ranking, the final selection criteria was developed utilizing input from the Citizen Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Rockland County Sewer District No. 1. The final sites were evaluated based on the following criteria:

· public acceptance · cost impacts · environmental impacts · archaeological impacts · soil borings

1002610.2 2-5

A. Public Acceptance. Based on several meetings with the public, the primary concerns were to address the following:

· the visual impacts of the proposed treatment plant · odor concerns · level of treatment · proximity to the Torne Valley

To address the visual impacts of the proposed treatment plant, Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 agreed to provide architecture similar to the Palisades Park buildings. To address odor concerns, it was decided to cover the wastewater treatment plant’s tankage and treat odors with scrubbers. Architectural renderings and preliminary site plans were developed for the proposed wastewater treatment plant at each site (see Figures 2-20 through 2-25). Furthermore, four levels of treatment were presented to the Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees to address the level of treatment concerns. The four levels ranged from the required New York State level of treatment to near-drinking water standards. It was agreed that the level of treatment that is going to be provided by the proposed advanced wastewater treatment plant is going to be equivalent to or higher than the standards provided in the New York City watershed. A summary of the level of treatment is summarized on Table 2-2. To address the concerns related to Torne Valley, it was agreed by the Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees and Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 that the new wastewater treatment plant would not be located near the Torne Valley. B. Cost Impacts. Table 2-3 is a relative comparison of capital and annual operation and maintenance costs for each site. These costs varied based on site specifics. Cost impacts taken into consideration included the necessity to pump effluent due to the location of the wastewater treatment plant relative to the Ramapo wellfield, site preparation needs, rock removal requirement, etc. This comparison did not include the cost of acquiring the specific property. As shown on Table 2-3, the site that offered the lowest cost impacts is the abandoned sand and gravel pit property.

1002610.2 2-6

TABLE 2-3

RELATIVE COMPARISON OF CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

ITEM RELATIVE

CAPITAL COSTS RELATIVE OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE COSTS

Thruway property along Route 17 entrance High Low

Lane Realty Corporation property High High

Abandoned sand and gravel pit Low Low

C. Environmental Impacts. Environmental impacts were further evaluated for the final three sites. Based on further field investigation, only the abandoned sand and gravel pit property had the potential for extensive environmental impacts. This investigation included a more in-depth review of the site and literature to determine the environmental impacts. The abandoned sand and gravel property had the potential for rare and endangered species (timber rattlesnakes). The potential for rare and endangered species would limit this site for locating a wastewater treatment plant. D. Archaeological Impacts. A Phase 1A review was completed for the three final sites. This review included an archaeologist to review the previous literature and visit the area to determine the potential impacts to the archaeologically significant features. Based on the archaeological reports (attached in Appendix B), the abandoned sand and gravel pit property was identified as having a potential impact to archaeological features because it was visual from a registered historical landmark. Therefore, that site would require mitigation to avoid archaeological impacts. In addition, a subsequent follow-up archaeological report, Phase 1B, was performed for the Thruway property, along the Route 17 entrance, due to the potential for large quantities of rock to be removed. In general, the other sites had no known impacts on archaeological features. E. Soil Borings. Soil borings were performed on two sites (abandoned sand and gravel pit property and Thruway property along Route 17 entrance). The third site (Lane property) boring was not performed due to the lack of approval to access the site. The other site borings are summarized in Appendix C. In summary, the Thruway property along Route 17 entrance has a rock subsurface, thereby potentially requiring rock blasting during construction, whereas the abandoned sand and gravel pit was predominantly sand and gravel.

1002610.2 2-7

As outlined above, each site has potential advantages and disadvantages. These advantages and disadvantages, as summarized in Table 2-4, were reviewed and presented to the public, and based on feedback from all parties, the Thruway property located adjacent to the entrance to Route 17 was selected as the preferred site for the proposed wastewater treatment plant. In general, it was determined that the Thruway property along Route 17 had the least impact on residents and the environment and thus was the best site.

1002610.2

TABLE 2-1

SITE RANKING EVALUATION SUMMARY

WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

Site A

ppro

xim

ate

Usa

ble

Are

a

Top

ogra

phy

Soil

Typ

es

500-

Yea

r Fl

ood

Zon

e

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es

Env

iron

men

tal S

ensi

tivity

Zon

ing

Aes

thet

ic I

mpa

cts

Buf

fers

Odo

r C

once

rns

Per

mit

abili

ty

Pote

ntia

l for

Wet

land

D

isch

arge

A

rcha

eolo

gica

l/

His

tori

cal F

eatu

res

Util

ities

Ava

ilabi

lity

Low

er E

leva

tion

Bro

wnf

ield

s

Life

Cyc

le C

osts

Total

Abandoned sand and gravel pit property 3 10 5 10 15 15 15 15 20 20 10 8 12 5 5 15 20 200 Thruway property along Route 17 entrance 8 10 5 10 25 25 15 9 16 20 10 12 12 5 5 3 16 198 Thruway property along Route 287 5 10 5 10 25 25 15 9 20 25 10 4 12 5 5 3 8 191 Lane Realty Corporation property 6 10 5 10 25 25 15 9 16 15 10 20 12 5 5 3 4 189 Hudson Technology Industry (HTI) 8 2 3 10 20 20 15 15 12 25 10 4 12 5 5 15 8 181 Town of Ramapo leachate pump station site 14 2 5 10 20 20 15 15 15 25 10 8 12 5 5 3 12 179 Property along Route 17 in Village of Sloatsburg 7 10 3 10 15 10 15 15 20 15 7 12 12 5 5 3 20 177 Van Schaik Property 8 10 5 6 12.5 10 15 15 20 25 7 8 12 5 5 15 4 175* Ramapo Land Corporation property near the tandem truck area

5 2 5 10 10 5 15 15 20 25 10 20 12 3 4 3 12 171

Ramapo Land Corporation property along Route 17 5 2 5 6 25 25 15 9 16 25 2 4 6 5 5 3 16 169 Ramapo Land Corporation property along Route 17 near Sloatsburg

7 6 5 10 20 20 9 12 20 25 2 4 6 5 5 3 12 164

Property in the Village of Sloatsburg near the Athletic fields

5 10 5 2 10 25 15 9 16 15 2 8 12 5 5 3 8 150

*Rounded.

1002610.2

TABLE 2-2

PROPOSED EFFLUENT QUALITY

WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

PARAMETER

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) <5 mg/l

Suspended solids <5 mg/l

Ammonia <1 mg/l (as N)

Total nitrogen 8-10 mg/l(1)

Total phosphorus 0.2 mg/l(2)

Chlorine residual 0.005 mg/l(3)

Dissolved oxygen 7 mg/l

Total coliforms 2,400/100 mg/l

Fecal coliforms 200/100 mg/l

pH 6.5-8.5

Giardia cysts 99.9% removal(2)

Enteric viruses 99.99% removal(2)

(1) Based on standards for discharge to a sole source aquifer (Massachusetts). (2) Based on standards to discharge within the New York City watershed. (3) Based on water quality standards for aquatic toxicity.

1002610.2

TABLE 2-4

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS FINAL THREE SELECTED SITES

WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES THRUWAY PROPERTY ALONG ROUTE 17 ENTRANCE

· Previously disturbed site · No wetland or regulated elements · No rare and endangered species · Not within the flood zones · Utilities available · Few local residences · No effluent pumping · Low land acquisition costs · Good soils · Low operation and maintenance costs

· Relocation of utilities · Significant rock removal · High construction costs

LANE REALTY CORPORATION PROPERTY · Previously disturbed site · No wetland or regulated elements · No rare and endangered species · Not within the flood zones · Utilities available · Good soils

· Near many residences · Effluent pumping · High construction costs · High operation and maintenance costs

ABANDONED SAND AND GRAVEL PIT PROPERTY · Previously disturbed site · No regulated wetland · Not within the flood zone · Utilities available · Few local residences · No effluent pumping · Low construction cost · Greater aquifer recharge potential · Least visible · Good soils · Low operation and maintenance cost

· Potential rare and endangered species · Close to local wellheads

1002610.2 3-1

CHAPTER 3

SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOWS AND LOADS

3.1 INTRODUCTION During the siting of the new advanced wastewater treatment plant, it was discussed that the plant should be expandable to 5.0 mgd. The 5.0 mgd plant would be designed to serve areas such as the Town of Tuxedo, Palisades Interstate Park, or wastewater diverted from the Town of Ramapo currently served by Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 by treating the existing wastewater to a higher standard and maximizing the recharge of the sole source aquifer. Therefore, this chapter summarizes the flows and loads for two conditions: 1.5 mgd and 5.0 mgd. The Western Ramapo wastewater treatment plant flow of 1.5 mgd is based on information summarized in the “Conceptual Engineering and Environmental Report,” Alan Garfinkel & Associates, January 1996. The previous report summarized flows for current conditions, as well as flows at the area’s full buildout. The full buildout analysis was based on current zoning in the three communities. The residential flows were increased to 100 gallons per day per capita from the January 1996 report to develop maximum monthly flows based on numbers more widely used to predict flows without measured data as referenced in the 1997 Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. Table 3-1 summarizes the anticipated current and future flows from Western Ramapo.

(continued)

1002610.2 3-2

TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND BUILD-OUT WASTEWATER FLOWS(1) WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

CURRENT MAXIMUM

MONTHLY FLOWS (MGD)

BUILD-OUT MONTHLY FLOWS

(MGD)

Residential(2) 0.46 0.91 Commercial(3) 0.04 0.05 Industrial(4) 0.09 0.21 Wastewater treatment plants to be abandoned:

New York State Thruway Authority Ramapo Landfill Lincoln Park (Sloatsburg) Mt. Fuji

0.13 0.10 0.03 0.02

0.13 0.10 0.03 0.05

TOTAL(5) 0.9 1.5

(1) Information summarized in this table is from the “Conceptual Engineering and Environmental Report,” Alan Garfinkel & Associates, January 1996.

(2) Residential flows are based on 100 gallons per day per person. (3) Commercial flows are based on 45 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet. (4) Industrial flows are based on 50 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet. (5) Rounded.

3.2 PROPOSED INFLUENT FLOWS (1.5 MGD) AND LOADS AT THE WESTERN

RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

Typical concentrations of wastewater were obtained by utilizing existing sampling data from the Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 wastewater treatment plant. These concentrations were utilized in conjunction with the flow to develop the anticipated loading for Western Ramapo wastewater treatment. Table 3-2 summarizes the current flows and loads for the proposed 1.5 mgd Western Ramapo wastewater treatment plant.

1002610.2 3-3

TABLE 3-2

SUMMARY OF FLOWS (1.5 MGD) AND LOADS WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM MONTHLY PEAK HOURLY

Flow, mgd 1.5 4.5 BOD, lbs/day 4,380 - TSS, lbs/day 5,440 - Phosphorus, lbs/day 100 - TKN, lbs/day 625 - Ammonia, lbs/day 310 -

3.3 PROPOSED INFLUENT FLOWS (5.0 MGD) AND LOADS AT THE WESTERN

RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Utilizing the same concentrations as in Section 3.2 for the wastewater, loads were developed for the 5.0 mgd plant. Table 3-3 summarizes the future flows and loads for a 5.0 mgd wastewater treatment plant in Western Ramapo.

TABLE 3-3

SUMMARY OF FLOWS (5.0 MGD) AND LOADS WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM MONTHLY PEAK HOURLY

Flow, mgd 5 15.0 BOD, lbs/day 14,600 - TSS, lbs/day 18,140 - Phosphorus, lbs/day 335 - TKN, lbs/day 2,085 - Ammonia, lbs/day 1,040 -

1002610.2 4-1

CHAPTER 4

WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS 4.1 GENERAL This chapter presents information on preliminary sizing of wastewater treatment system for the new municipal wastewater treatment plant to serve the wastewater treatment capacity needs for the western area of Rockland County along the Ramapo River. The treatment scenario selected to achieve the effluent limits outlined in Chapter 2 was a conventional single-stage, nitrification/denitrification, activated sludge treatment system for achieving biological treatment for BOD5, ammonia, and nitrogen removal. This treatment scenario was developed to provide capacity for treatment of up to 1.5 mgd and 5.0 mgd of wastewater flow on a maximum monthly basis and up to 4.5 mgd and 15.0 mgd on a peak hourly basis. 4.2 CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY Table 4-1 summarizes information comprising the preliminary basis of design for a municipal wastewater treatment system design for a flow of 1.5 and an ultimate flow of 5.0 mgd utilizing conventional single-stage, nitrification/denitrification, activated sludge technology. As shown in this table, wastewater treatment provided consists of the following: A. Raw Sewage Screening and Grit Removal. Mechanical bar screens and aerated grit chambers are included to provide protection for downstream wastewater and sludge treatment systems. Two mechanical bar screens with screenings compactors are included. Each unit is sized to provide capacity for treatment of the design peak hourly sewage flow rate of 4.5 mgd. Two aerated grit chambers will also be provided. Each grit chamber will be sized to provide capacity for treatment of up to 2.5 mgd. Grit will be dewatered with a classifier and cyclone. Dewatered screenings and grit will be removed via separate containers. It is anticipated that screenings and grit containers will be located within the influent building.

1002610.2 4-2

B. Raw Sewage Pumping. Raw wastewater pumps are included to avoid costly construction of below-grade wastewater treatment tanks. Multiple pumps will be provided with variable frequency drives for cost-effective operation over the expected range of wastewater flow conditions. Pumps will be sized to provide a total pumping capacity of 4.5 mgd with one pump out of service. C. Primary Treatment System. Primary settling tanks are included for removal of suspended solids and associated organic matter (i.e., 5-day BOD) prior to biological wastewater treatment. The primary settling tanks will be equipped with provisions for removal of floating solids. Multiple tanks will be provided to allow one tank to be removed from service for maintenance without significantly impacting treatment performance. Primary sludge and scum pumps will be provided to convey settled solids and floatable materials to the solids handling system. D. Single-Stage, Nitrification/Denitrification, Activated Sludge System. A single-stage, nitrification/denitrification, activated sludge treatment system is included. This system consists of aeration tanks configured to provide a series of anoxic and aerobic treatment zones designed to provide for removal of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia, and nitrate. The system will also include secondary settling tanks with associated return and waste activated sludge pumping equipment. Secondary settling tanks will also be furnished with surface skimming equipment to remove floating solids that can adversely impact effluent quality and cause problems in downstream wastewater filtration systems. Waste activated sludge and secondary scum will be pumped to the solids handling system for dewatering. E. Sludge Pumping. Return and waste sludge pumps are included to recycle and remove sludge from the activated sludge system. The return sludge pump will pump settled waste activated sludge from the secondary settling tanks to the aeration tanks at a rate of 50 to 200 percent of the maximum monthly rate. The waste sludge pumps will pump waste sludge to the gravity thickener at a rate equal to 0.5 to 25 percent of the maximum monthly flow.

F. Tertiary Sand Filtration System. A deep-bed, continuous backwash sand filtration system is included to provide tertiary treatment for phosphorus removal. This system will be designed to reduce plant effluent total phosphorus concentrations to less than 0.2 mg/L. Phosphorus removal will be accomplished by chemical precipitation using liquid ferric chloride solution. Facilities will include bulk chemical storage tanks and chemical metering pumps

1002610.2 4-3

located within a spill containment structure designed for conformance with New York State bulk chemical storage regulations. G. Membrane Filtration System. A membrane filtration system has been included in this alternative to provide tertiary treatment capable of achieving greater than 99.9 percent reduction of giardia cysts and greater than 99.99 percent reduction of enteric viruses. For the purpose of this report we have included the cost of a Memcor continuous hollow fiber microfiltration system. The Memcor system is marketed by U.S. Filter and has been selected by USEPA and NYCDEP as an approved treatment technology for this application in connection with the protection of water supplies in the New York City watershed. H. Ultraviolet Disinfection System. A medium pressure ultraviolet disinfection system (i.e., Trojan UV4000) is included for removing fecal coliform bacteria and other disease-causing microorganisms normally present in municipal sewage. The system will be designed to provide two banks of mercury vapor lamps with quartz sleeves. During peak hourly flow conditions, both banks of lamps will be operational. This system will also be designed to include an automatic cleaning system and a PLC-based control system. I. Post-Aeration System. A post-aeration system is included to increase the dissolved oxygen concentration of the plant effluent for compliance with the proposed effluent limit of 7 mg/L (minimum concentration limit). Positive displacement rotary lobe blowers and fine bubble diffusers will be provided to raise the dissolved oxygen concentration of the plant effluent to greater than 7 mg/L. J. Solids Handling System. Sludge from the primary settling tanks and the activated sludge tanks will be pumped directly to the gravity thickeners. During the operation of the 1.5 mgd plant, sludge will be stored in two raw sludge holding tanks prior to dewatering with centrifuges. For the 5.0 mgd plant, a digester complex would be constructed and sludge from the thickeners would be transferred to the digester prior to sludge holding. Raw dewatered sludge will be hauled by truck to the County’s sludge composting facility. In addition, solids handling will include a separate scum system. K. Emergency Power System. An emergency generator will be located within the Administration Building with capacity to power the entire plant during a power outage.

1002610.2 4-4

L. Odor Control System. An odor control system is included for treatment of odorous compounds at the wastewater treatment plant. Each building will include a separate odor control system sized to treat 12 continuous air changes per hour for occupied process areas. Channels and tankage within each building will be covered to treat only the air spaced venting above the liquid levels. The system will include a chemical packed bed scrubber, with separate chemical storage facilities, for areas without excess odors. In areas with a high potential for generation of odors that cannot be removed by packed bed scrubbers, scrubbers will be followed by an activated carbon system. M. Instrumentation/Security System. The wastewater treatment plant will have a System Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA). The system will include, but not be limited to, major system alarms and operational controls as follows:

· influent flow · equipment on/off/alarm (individual signals) · aeration system dissolved oxygen · wastewater effluent dissolved oxygen · wastewater effluent temperature · digester temperature · digester pH

N. Administration/Maintenance Buildings. The wastewater treatment plant will have separate administration and maintenance buildings. The administration building will have the following rooms: (1) laboratory; (2) offices for personnel; (3) locker rooms; (4) lavatories; (5) lunch/break room; and (6) public education center. The maintenance building will have the following: (1) truck bays; (2) lavatories; (3) office space; and (4) storage areas for parts. Both buildings will meet the most recent building codes. In addition, the wastewater treatment plant will have a fire alarm and intrusion alarm system with video surveillance. Both SCADA and security signals will be sent to the existing Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 wastewater treatment plant in Orangeburg, NY.

1002610.2 4-5

4.3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Figure 4-1 shows the proposed site plans for the 1.5 mgd and 5.0 mgd wastewater treatment plants. 4.4 HYDRAULIC PROFILE Figure 4-2 shows the preliminary hydraulic profile for the Western Ramapo wastewater treatment plant. The hydraulic profile is based on peak flows with one tank out of service. 4.5 MASS BALANCE Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show the preliminary mass balance for the Western Ramapo wastewater treatment plant. The mass balance is based on maximum monthly solids production for a 1.5 mgd and 5.0 mgd plant.

1002610.2

TABLE 4-1

PRELIMINARY BASIS OF DESIGN WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

INITIAL FUTURE

Sewage Flow Maximum monthly daily flow Design peak hourly flow

1.5 MGal/day 4.5 MGal/day

5.0 MGal/day 15.0 MGal/day

Raw Sewage Screening and Grit Removal Mechanical Bar Screens Number Flow capacity (each unit) Screenings compactor Aerated Grit Chambers Number Total volume Hydraulic retention time at design peak flow)

2 4.5 MGal/day 1 2 1,400 cubic feet 3.4 minutes

4 5.0 MGal/day 2 6 4,200 cubic feet 3.0 minutes

Raw Sewage Pumping Number of pumps Pump capacity Total pumping capacity (with one unit out of service)

3 (including one standby) 1,740 gpm 4.5 MGal/day

7 (including one standby) 1,740 gpm 15.0 MGal/day

Primary Settling Tanks Number of tanks Tank dimensions Width Length Sidewater depth Total surface area Surface settling rate Maximum monthly flow conditions Design peak hourly flow conditions

4 12 feet 72 feet 10 feet 3,456 square feet 434 gpd/square foot 1,302 gpd/square foot

12 12 feet 72 feet 10 feet 10,368 square feet 482 gpd/square foot 1,446 gpd/square foot

Aeration Tanks Number of tanks Tank dimensions Width Length Sidewater depth Total aeration volume Hydraulic retention time Maximum monthly daily flow conditions Design peak hourly flow conditions

4 26 feet 78 feet 13 feet 101,400 cubic feet 12 hours 4 hours

12 26 feet 78 feet 13 feet 316,400 cubic feet 11.4 hours 3.8 hours

Return Sludge Pumps Number of pumps Pump capacity Total pumping capacity (with one unit out of service)

5 580 gpm 2,320 gpm

13 580 gpm 6,960 gpm

TABLE 4-1 (continued)

1002610.2

INITIAL FUTURE

Waste Sludge Pumps Number of pumps Pump capacity Total pumping capacity (with one unit out of service)

5 80 gpm 320 gpm

13 80 gpm 960 gpm

Final Setting Tanks Number of tanks Tank dimensions Width Length Sidewater depth Total surface area Surface settling rate Maximum monthly daily flow conditions Design peak hourly flow conditions

4 15 feet 90 feet 12 feet 5,400 square feet 277 gpd/square foot 833 gpd/square foot

12 15 feet 90 feet 12 feet 16,200 square feet 308 gpd/square foot 925 gpd/square foot

Sand Filters Type Number of filter cells Number of modules per filter cell Filter area per module Total filter area Filtration rate Maximum monthly daily flow conditions Design peak hourly flow conditions

Deep bed, continuous backwash 7 2 50 square feet 700 square feet 1.5 gpm/square foot 4.5 gpm/square foot

Deep bed, continuous backwash 21 2 50 square feet 2,100 square feet 1.7 gpm/square foot 5.0 gpm/square foot

Membrane Filters Number of microfiltration units Number of membrane modules per microfiltration unit Membrane type Membrane pore size (nominal) Operating pressure

6 96 Polypropylene hollow fiber 0.2 microns 30 to 35 psi

18 96 Polypropylene hollow fiber 0.2 microns 30 to 35 psi

Ultraviolet Disinfection Units Number Type Flow capacity

1 (2 banks of lamps) Medium pressure UV 4.5 mgd

3 (6 banks of lamps) Medium pressure UV 15 mgd

Post-Aeration Tanks Number Aeration system Effluent dissolved oxygen concentration

2 Fine bubble diffused 7 mg/L

6 Fine bubble diffused 7 mg/l

TABLE 4-1 (continued)

1002610.2

INITIAL FUTURE

Raw Sludge Storage Tanks Number Dimensions Width Length Sidewater depth (maximum) Volume Available Storage

2 35 feet 50 feet 14 feet 50,000 cubic feet 18 days

2 35 feet 50 feet 14 feet 50,000 cubic feet 6 days

Thickeners Number Solids loading Dimensions, diameter

2 16 lbs/square foot 30 feet

2 16 lbs/square foot 30 feet

Digester Number Dimensions, diameter Retention time Mixing system

-- -- -- --

2 85 feet 15 days (per tank) Gas

Centrifuges Number Sludge feed rate Solids throughput capacity Minimum solids concentration Sludge dewatering schedule

2 80 gpm 1,200 lb DS/hr 22 percent 6 hours/day, 5 days/week

3 160 gpm 2,400 lb DS/hr 22 percent 6 hours/day, 5 days/week

Material Handling Containers Trucks

3 1

4 1

1002610.2 5-1

CHAPTER 5

EFFLUENT DISCHARGE

5.1 BACKGROUND During the public participation meetings, an issue was discussed concerning the potential recharge of the Ramapo River aquifer. It was the general consensus that the effluent from the new wastewater treatment plant should be utilized to recharge the Ramapo River aquifer. To address this issue, Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 decided to pump the wastewater treatment plant effluent upstream above United Water’s production wells during low flows in the Ramapo River. During wet weather conditions, the effluent would be discharged via gravity to the Ramapo River. The location of the discharges is shown on Figure 5-1. 5.2 EFFLUENT PUMPING The effluent pump station would be sized for the peak hourly flow (4.5 mgd). It is anticipated that it would require four pumps (one standby) designed for 1200 to 1500 gpm at 80 to 85 feet total dynamic head. The effluent force main would either be located within the Route 17 right-of-way through the Village of Hillburn or along the Ramapo River and the Thruway.

1002610.2 6-1

CHAPTER 6

CAPITAL AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE SELECTED SITE

6.1 INTRODUCTION Based on the project requirements (i.e., architectural) received from the involved parties, a preliminary opinion of capital costs was developed. These costs are based on the conventional treatment technology (as outlined in Chapter 4) with effluent pumping (as outlined in Chapter 5); however, they do not include the purchase of property for the wastewater treatment plant or for buffers. 6.2 CAPITAL COSTS Table 6-1 summarizes the preliminary opinion of capital costs for the 1.5 mgd wastewater treatment plant. The costs were based on feedback from suppliers of materials and current knowledge of the specific site (i.e., utility relocation). The capital costs associated with the proposed 1.5 mgd wastewater treatment plant are $48,500,000, and the cost associated for a 5.0 mgd wastewater treatment plant, built as a single phase, is $82,000,000. 6.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Table 6-2 summarizes the annual operation and maintenance costs for the 1.5 mgd wastewater treatment plant. It is anticipated that the annual operation and maintenance costs for the 1.5 mgd wastewater treatment plant will be $910,000, and $1,600,000 for the 5.0 mgd wastewater treatment plant.

1002610.2

TABLE 6-1

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

ITEM COST Influent/solids handling building $3,200,000 Primary settling tanks 1,500,000 Biological nutrient removal 3,500,000 Sand filtration/microfiltration 6,800,000 UV disinfection 1,200,000 Administration building 1,800,000 Effluent pump station 1,500,000 Subtotal $19,500,000 General conditions, mobilization 1,000,000 Piping (process and underground) 2,100,000 Site work 700,000 Subtotal $23,300,000 Electrical/Instrumentation (15%) 3,000,000 HVAC (5%) 1,000,000 Plumbing (3%) 600,000 Subtotal $27,900,000 Contingency (20%) 5,600,000 Subtotal $33,500,000 Fiscal, Legal, Engineering (30%) 10,000,000 Site preparation (rock removal and utilities relocation) 5,000,000 TOTAL (rounded) $48,500,000

1002610.2

TABLE 6-2

ESTIMATED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

DESCRIPTION COST

Personnel $240,000 Utilities 320,000 Biological process 125,000 Filtration 90,000 Chemicals 15,000 Equipment 30,000 Laboratory 15,000 Miscellaneous (i.e., buildings) 15,000 Sludge disposal 40,000 Effluent pumping 20,000 TOTAL $910,000

1002610.2 7-1

CHAPTER 7

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

7.1 INTRODUCTION Rockland County Sewer District utilized four tools of communication to incorporate public input throughout the project. The tools were as follows:

1. Technical Advisory Committee. 2. Citizen Advisory Committee. 3. Public information meetings. 4. Public website (www.westernramaposewers.com)

7.2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Technical Advisory Committee was developed to receive input from regulatory stakeholders. The committee included representatives from the following agencies:

· Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 · New York State Department of Environmental Conservation · U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · United Water Management and Services · New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation · Rockland County Soil and Water Conservation District · Rockland County Health Department · New York State Thruway Authority · New York State Department of Transportation · New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · Palisades Interstate Park Commission · Rockland County Division of Environmental Resources · Stearns & Wheler, LLC · Rockland County Department of Planning

1002610.2 7-2

The Technical Advisory Committee held five meetings. The minutes from each of the meetings are included in Appendix D. 7.3 CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Citizen Advisory Committee was developed to receive input from local citizen groups. The committee included representatives from the following agencies:

· Village of Sloatsburg · Village of Hillburn · Town of Ramapo · Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc. · Torne Valley Preservation Association · Rockland County Environmental Management Council, · Rockland County Conservation Association · Ramapo River Committee · Rockland County Division of Environmental Resources · Village of Suffern · Town of Tuxedo · Suffern Civic Association · Borough of Mahwah

The Citizen Advisory Committee held five meetings. The minutes from each of the meetings are included in Appendix E. 7.4 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 conducted four public information meetings. Each meeting was announced via a mailing to every local resident and published in the local newspapers. The meetings were held at each major step (i.e., prescreening) of the selection process. The meeting minutes for each meeting are included in Appendix F.

1002610.2 7-3

7.5 WEB SITE Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 supported a web site that was utilized to communicate to the public. The web site could be accessed by any individual with internet capabilities. The web site was a source of the project history, which included announcements of upcoming meetings as well as minutes of all past meetings.

1002610.2 8-1

CHAPTER 8

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The environmental review, which includes the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) review of the wastewater treatment plant will require approximately six months to complete. It was anticipated that the wastewater treatment plant design could be completed within 6 months and the bidding/award and construction would require 27 months, with 24 months of active construction work. The project implementation schedule consists of five steps, as follows:

1. Environmental review. 2. Design of the wastewater treatment plant. 3. Bidding of the wastewater treatment plant. 4. Award of construction for the wastewater treatment plant. 5. Construction of the wastewater treatment plant.

1002610.2 A-1

APPENDIX A SITING CRITERIA DEFINITIONS

SITING STUDY WESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

ROCKLAND COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1 ORANGEBURG, NEW YORK

PRESCREENING CRITERIA Lot Size. The physical area for a wastewater treatment plant is determined by the necessary treatment processes to achieve an effluent discharge limit. It is estimated that the minimum parcel size will be a minimum of 8 acres without buffers. Lot Usage. The current use of the parcels should be suitable for construction of a wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, residential occupied parcels will be eliminated during prescreening. Location of Parcels. As part of the conceptual engineering and environmental report prepared in June 1997, it was determined that an out-of-basin transfer of water from the Ramapo River Aquifer had potential for diminishing flows in the Ramapo River. Therefore, parcels outside of the service area or drainage basin will be eliminated during prescreening. Wetlands. To minimize permanent impacts to wetlands, parcels with Federal or State designated wetlands will be eliminated during prescreening. Wild, Scenic and Recreational Area. The northern section of the Ramapo River is designated as a wild, scenic and recreational area. This designation requires land usage within this area to be consistent with recreational purposes. Therefore, parcels within this area will be eliminated during prescreening. Location of Rare and Endangered Species. Western Ramapo is the location of several habitats of rare species. Therefore, parcels containing rare, threatened, and endangered species will be eliminated during prescreening. For example, there are known habitats for Timber Rattlesnakes in the area. 100-Year Flood Zone. Areas adjacent to the Ramapo River and its tributaries are located within the 100-year flood zone. It is recommended, to reduce impacts during floods, to avoid construction within the 100-year flood zone. Therefore, parcels that are within the 100-year flood zone will be eliminated during prescreening. Topography. Western Ramapo is a mountainous area with dramatic landscape changes. The potential for this to limit the use of land is very high; therefore, during prescreening and site ranking, the impacts of topography as related to the treatment plant site will be evaluated.

SITING CRITERIA DEFINITIONS (Continued)

1002610.2

SITE RANKING Topography. Western Ramapo is a mountainous area with dramatic landscape changes. The potential for this to limit the use of land is very high; therefore, during prescreening and site ranking, the impacts of topography as related to the treatment plant site will be evaluated. Soil Types. Rockland County consists of several various types of soil and rock formations. To assess the impact of soils on the treatment plant site, soil maps will be evaluated during the site ranking evaluation. 500-Year Flood Zone. Western Ramapo consists of several areas that are designated 500-year flood areas. To assess the impact of a potential wastewater treatment plant site, the 500-year flood areas will be included in the site ranking evaluation. Natural Resources. The stream and river impacts, such as stream erosion and disturbance, will be evaluated during the site ranking evaluation. Environmental Sensitivity. There are several potential habitats of plants and animals within the Western Ramapo that are sensitive. Therefore, these habitats will be reviewed, and impacts to them due to a treatment plant site will be evaluated during the site ranking evaluation. Zoning. Western Ramapo has several different zoning uses within the area. There will be a preference to locate the new wastewater treatment plant in areas that are currently vacant, with the highest desirable lands being vacant industrial or commercial parcels. During site ranking, we will evaluate the current zoning of all vacant properties. Aesthetic Impacts. To minimize the contrast between a new wastewater treatment plant and the adjacent landscaping, the siting approach will include a design of the wastewater treatment plant to minimize those impacts through the use of existing landscaping, plantings, and building architecture. Therefore, aesthetic impacts will be evaluated during the site ranking evaluation. Buffers. An additional method for reducing the contrast of a new wastewater treatment plant is to create large buffers of open space or landscaping to reduce the impacts to the local landscaping. The ability to use buffers will be evaluated during the site ranking process. Odor Concerns. The wastewater treatment plant will be designed with state-of-the-art odor control facilities. The potential for odors to impact the surrounding area will be analyzed during the site ranking evaluation. Permitability. The potential wastewater treatment plant sites will require permits to construct the facility; therefore, the selection process will include an evaluation of these sites to allow construction to proceed. Permitability will be evaluated during the site ranking process.

SITING CRITERIA DEFINITIONS (Continued)

1002610.2

Potential for Wetland Discharge. The use of constructed wetlands for polishing, or as a buffer, will be evaluated during the site ranking criteria. Archeological/Historical Review. Western Ramapo has several archeological and historical significant sites. Therefore, archeological and historical impacts will be reviewed during the site ranking evaluation. Utilities Availability. To operate a wastewater treatment plant, utilities such as electrical, phone, cable, and gas will be necessary for siting a new treatment plant. Therefore, the availability of these utilities will be evaluated during the site ranking evaluation. Elevation. The elevation of the wastewater treatment plant will impact the need for pumping and resultant energy costs. Therefore, elevation of proposed sites will be evaluated during the site ranking evaluation. Brownfields. Brownfields are contaminated sites that are underutilized by their owners. The Town of Ramapo has several of these industrial sites that exist along the Ramapo River that could be used as a wastewater treatment plant site. Therefore, brownfields will be evaluated during the site ranking evaluation. Life Cycle Cost. Life cycles costs consist of capital, operation, and maintenance costs. The cost to construct and operate a wastewater treatment plant will be evaluated during the site ranking evaluation. FINAL SELECTION Public Acceptance. The public opinion on the location of the wastewater treatment plant will be evaluated during the final selection process. Fiscal Impacts. The operation and maintenance and capital cost of a new treatment plant and its impact on all sewer users will be evaluated during the final selection criteria. Environmental Impacts. The environmental impacts on the final site selection will be evaluated based on costs and the potential for environmental mitigation. Archeological Impacts. Archeological impacts will be evaluated and mitigation measures reviewed during the final selection process. Soil Borings. Soil borings will be performed on three of the potential sites and the impacts to the subsurface soil conditions will be reviewed during the final selection criteria.

2002 2003 2004 2005N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A

Page 1 of 1

ROCKLAND COUNTY, NEW YORKWESTERN RAMAPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Task

Environmental Review

Design of Wastewater Treatment Plant

Bid Wastewater Treatment

Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plant

1/7 6/29

7/31 1/31

2/1 3/3

5/1 5/1

J:\10000\10026\Wordproc\Report\1002610.2\Project Schedule