Opposition — Town of Orangetown v. Ruckelshaus

I 4

“Oitice - Supreme Court, U.S.

ie

pec 20 1965

No. ¥ 2-55 /

; ; ALEXANDER & STEVAS.

CLERXN

I

LED

N THE a

Supreme Court of the United States

OFroper TERM, 1983

—_———> >

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN,

Petitioner,

|

Anne Gorsucn, Individually and as Administrator of the

United States Environmental Protection Agency;

Richarp Dew tine, Individually and as

Regional Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency; RockKLAND CouNTy SEWER

District No. 1; County of RocKLAND; TOWN OF RAMAPO;

Town or CLarKstowN; New York State DEPARTMENT OF

CLarksTOWN; New York State DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION; and RosBert FLACKE,

as Commissioner of the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

Perer A. A. BERLE

(Counsel of Record)

Caro. A. BUCKLER

Bere, Butzer, Kass & CASE

Attorneys for Respondents

Rockland County Sewer

District No. 1, County of

Rockland, and Town of Ramapo

45 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, New York 10111

December 19, 1983 (212) 765-1800

(i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Factual Background

Prior Proceedings

The Opinion Below

POINT I: THE COURT SHOULD NOT

REVIEW THE DECISION

THAT EPA MADE THE

REQUIRED FINDINGS

A. The Court of Appeals Applied

The Appropriate Standard of

Review

1. Informal Agency Action

Is Judged By The "Arbitrary

And Capricious” Standard

2. Formal Findings Were Not

Required

3. Discovery And Testimony Of

Agency Personnel Is Not

Necessary For Judicial Re-

view of This Agency Action

B. EPA Made The Necessary

Determinations

POINT II: THE COURT OF APPEALS

WAS CORRECT IN NOT

REQUIRING WRITTEN

FINDINGS

21

21

25

30

35

36

(ii)

POINT III: THE COURT OF APPEALS

APPLIED THE CORRECT

STANDARD FOR ASSESS-

ING THE LEVEL OF

CONTROVERSY

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX

Finding of No Significant

Impact and Environmental

Assessment

Page

41

47

(iii)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S.

138, 93 S.Ct. 1241 (1973)

Citizens to Preserve

Overton Park, Inc., v.

Volpe, 401 U.S. 402

1971)

F.C.C. v. National Citizens

Committee for Broadcasting,

436 U.S. 775 (1978)

Fund For Animals v. Frizzell,

530 F.2d 982 (D.C. Cir. 1975)

Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471

F. 823 (2d Cir. 1972),

cert. denied 412 U.S.

908 (1972)

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers

Association v. State Farm

Mutual Automobile Insurance

Companies, et al., U.S.

__, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (1983)

Rucker v. Willis, 484

F.2q 158 (4th Cir. 1973)

24

46

43,

28,

30,

39,

46

46

(iv)

Page

Scenic Hudson Preservation

Conference v. Federal Power

Commission, 453 F.2d 463

(2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied

407 U.S. 926 (1972) 24

Town of Orangetown v.

Gorsuch et al., Slip Op.

(2d Cir. 1983) Bie aes

28, 34,

36, 37

43, 45

46

Federal Statutes:

Administrative Procedure Act

5 U.S.C. §552 et seq. 21

5 0.8.C. $553 24

5 U.S.C. §554 24

5 U.8.C. $556 24

5 vU.8.C. $557 24

5 U.S.C. §706(2) (A) 22

Clean Water Act

33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq. 4

33 U.S.C. §1283 20

33 U.S.C. §1284 20

(v)

National Bank Act

12 GomeGe

National Environmental Policy

Act

42 U.S.C.

§26

§§4321 et seq.

Federal Regulations:

40 C.F.R.

40 C.F.R.

40 C.F.R.

40 C.F.R.

40 C.F.R.

270:107

§§35.925 et seq.

§35.925-7

§35.925-8

35.925-13

§1508.27

3,

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1983

NO. 83-

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN,

Petitioner,

- against -

ANNE GORSUCH, Individually

and as Administrator of

the United States Environ-

mental Protection Agency;

RICHARD DEWLING, Individual-

ly and as Regional Admini-

strator of the United States

Environmental Protection

Agency; ROCKLAND COUNTY SEWER

DISTRICT NO. 1; COUNTY OF |

ROCKLAND; TOWN OF RAMAPO;

TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN; NEW YORK

STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON-

MENTAL CONSERVATION; and

ROBERT FLACKE, as Commission-

er of the New York State De-

partment of Environmental

Conservation,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Factual Background

The Rockland County Sewer District

No. 1 ("RCSD") is comprised of a number

of municipalities in Rockland County,

New York. It operates a sewage treat-

ment plant which is located in a corner

of Orangetown, New York. The Town of

Orangetown, which is included in Rock=-

land County, refused to be a part of the

sewer district when the district was

formed, but it does have a vote on the

district's governing board of commis-

sioners. Orangetown operates its own

sewage treatment plant, which is located

1,800 feet away from the RCSD plant.

The RCSD plant was built in the

1960's. In the course of time, it has

become outmoded and overloaded. When

flows of untreated effluent to the plant

exceed the plant's treatment capacity,

untreated or partially treated sewage is

discharged to the Hudson River through

the outfall pipe leading from the plant.

In the mid-1970's, in order to address

the need to increase sewage treatment

Capacity within the district and to cope

with a growing threat to groundwater

quality caused by failing septic systems

and antiquated sewers, RCSD sought the

help of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency ("EPA") and the New

York State Department of Environmental

Conservation ("DEC"), pursuant to a

construction grants program for waste-

water treatment plants under the Clean

Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.

RCSD, together with the federal and

state agencies, began an extensive fa-

cilities planning process. That pro-

cess involved analysis of present and

future needs for sewage treatment in the

area, analysis of alternative treatment

methods and collection routes and exten-

sive environmental analysis, and extend-

ed over a four-year period. In keeping

EPA finances the construction of

wastewater treatment facilities in three

steps. Step 1 grants finance the devel-

opment of feasibility studies and other

preliminary planning, which results in a

facilities plan which is submitted to

EPA for approval. Step 2 grants finance

the preparation of detailed plans and

design specifications for construction

based on the facilities plan. Step 3

grants finance actual construction,

with the National Environmental Policy

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seg. ("NEPA"),

(which requires environmental review of

certain federal actions,) NEPA's imple-

menting regulations, and the Clean Water

Act, extensive public participation also

took place. At practically every public

hearing, Orangetown, the petitioner in

this action, appeared and submitted ex-

tensive criticism of proposals that were

the subject of the facilities planning

process. Ultimately, a facilities plan

was completed. That plan called for the

expansion of the RCSD plant, the upgrad-

ing of certain sewers and collection

systems which transport effluent to the

plant, the installation of extensive

odor control mechanisms and the con-

Struction of facilities to process

sludge -- the by-product of sewage

treatment processing. At the conclusion

of the facilities planning process and

in accordance with the procedures set

forth in the Clean Water Act and its

implementing regulations, RCSD applied

to EPA for a Step 2 grant for develop-

ment of plans and design specifications.

Prior to offering the Step 2 grant

to RCSD in September, 1980, EPA reviewed

the facilities plan, which included

analysis of and response to comments re-

ceived at public hearings, and prepared

a written environmental assessment

("EA"). On the basis of the environmen-

tal review and assessment, EPA issued a

Finding of No Significant Impact

("FONSI"). (The FONSI and EA are re-

produced in the appendix atcached to

this brief.) Upon finding that the pro-

ject would not have a significant impact

on the environment, EPA was not required

to prepare a more detailed environmental

impact statement in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act, 42

U.S.C. §4321 et seq, ("NEPA").

Prior Proceedings

After RCSD accepted the Step 2

grant from EPA, Orangetown, having pre-

viously opposed every aspect of the pro-

ject at every opportunity, began this

lawsuit in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New

York. It sought to enjoin the release

of funds by EPA to RCSD, claiming that

EPA did not comply with certain of its

own regulations relating to the process-

ing and issuance of construction grants.

It also charged that EPA had violated

NEPA because it had not prepared an en-

vironmental impact statement. The

complaint also alleged that DEC had not

met certain requirements of state law.

Finally, Orangetown sought monetary dam-

ages and injunctive relief on the ground

that the operation of the RCSD plant

constituted a nuisance. RCSD asserted a

counterclaim, charging that the opera-

tion of the nearby Orangetown sewage

treatment plant constituted a nuisance.

The District Court dismissed the

Orangetown state law claims on motion.

¢ After

Trial began in October, 1982.

eleven days of trial, the Court dismis-

sed both nuisance claims from the bench

after summation by counsel. After re-

ceiving briefs on the remaining issues,

zat the commencement of trial,

Orangetown amended its complaint to in-

clude the first phase of construction,

Step 3 Phase l.

the Court then dismissed all of Orange-

town's claims, holding that EPA's find-

ing that the project would have no sig-

nificant environmental impact was pro-

per, and that EPA's procedures in issu-

ing the grant complied with applicable

statutory and regulatory law, including

the technical determinations challenged

by Orangetown in its pleadings.

In its complaint, Orangetown

charged that EPA had not made certain

determinations relating to environmental

review, waste treatment technology,

cost-effectiveness and plant capacity,

as required by its regulations. 40

C.F.R. §§35.925-7, 35.925-8 and 35.925=

13. The EPA regulations also specify

that 17 other findings are to be made,

although Orangetown never stated in its

pleadings or during the course of trial,

-10-

that it was challenging findings other

than those required by the three subsec-

tions enumerated in its complaint.

Several weeks after trial, and be-

fore the Court rendered its opinion,

Orangetown moved to amend its complaint

to include a challenge with respect to

the additional 17 findings. The Dis-

trict Court denied the motion in that

the defendants -- both RCSD and EPA --

demonstrated there had been no implied

consent to try these additional ques-

tions, so they had not been contested at

trial; thus it was inappropriate for

Orangetown to attempt to inject a host

of new issues after the close of trial.

Orangetown filed a Notice of Ap-

peal, and the Second Circuit granted

RCSD's motion to have the appeal heard

on an expedited basis. EPA regulations

“l1i-

require that work be commenced within a

specified period after a grant is

awarded. Because of bonding difficul-

ties, RCSD faced the risk of losing the

grant necessary to upgrade its inade-

quate sewage treatment facilities simply

as the result of the pendency of litiga-

tion, even though Orangetown had never

established that a single one of its

claims was meritorious.

In an extensive opinion, the Court

of Appeals affirmed the District Court's

decision to dismiss Orangetown's claims

in all respects. The Court had before

it the aabise administrative record,

which consisted of the nine-volume fa-

cilities plan as well as several addi-

tional boxes of correspondence, analysis

and other written material, all of which

EPA had put in evidence in the proceed-

=12-

ings below. While the Second Circuit

was considering this case, a clerk of

the court apparently contacted the U.S.

Attorney's office seeking information

about the administrative record relating

to the 17 findings which the District

Court had ruled were not in issue when

it denied Orangetown's motion to amend

its pleadings. The U.S. Attorney's of-

fice provided the requested information

in an extensive letter. The Court of

Appeals, however, apparently did not re-

ly on the information submitted. It af-

firmed the denial of Orangetown's post-

trial motion to amend the pleadings to

include a challenge to the remaining 17

EPA determinations. The appellate court

concurred with the District Court's rul-

ing that the only determinations were

-13-

appropriately at issue were those enum-

erated in the pleadings.

Throughout the proceedings, bond

counsel had instructed RCSD that the

pendency of the litigation prevented him

from providing the prerequisite opinions

for the issuance of bonds necessary to

begin the project. In an apparent ef-

fort to continue litigation endlessly,

Orangetown has filed the Petition for a

Writ of Certiorari, which is the subject

of this brief. Orangetown has also

started two new proceedings, one in the

state court and another in the United

States District Court, in which it seeks

to block the issuance of the next phase

of the Step 3 grant, which RCSD has ac-

cepted. That phase will provide for re-

building of the processing facilities

within the RCSD plant. While Orangetown

-14-

pursues every opportunity to litigate

against RCSD and the governmental agen-

cies responsible for administering the

water pollution control program, and

thus delay or prevent the modernization

of the RCSD plant, improperly treated

sewage continues to flow into the Hudson

River and failing septic systems within

the sewer district jeopardize ground-

water supplies within the region.

The Opinion Below

The Court of Appeals, in a unani-

mous, 26-page opinion written by Hon.

Lawrence W. Pierce, affirmed the Dis-

trict Court's dismissal of the action in

every respect. It observed that an en-

vironmental impact statement is not re-

quired for federal actions not "signif-

icant" within the meaning of NEPA, It

found that the EPA's determination of

-15-

"no significant impact” is neither a

rulemaking nor adjudicatory function,

but a factual finding made by the agency

with particular expertise in environmen-

tal matters. Thus, it found that review

was limited to a determination whether

the agency had been arbitrary or capri-

cious.

The Court then proceeded to analyze

every issue that Orangetown asserted

that EPA had given inadequate considera-

tion when it issued the FONSI. In exam-

ining Orangetown's claims with respect

to wetlands,. the Court reviewed the

analysis of wetlands considerations

contained in the administrative record,

EPA's comments to RCSD and DEC about

wetlands during the facilities planning

process, and changes in the project at

EPA's insistence that wetlands impact be

reduced. On the basis of this extensive

-16-

review of the record, the Second Circuit

determined that EPA's decision with re-

gard to wetlands effects was neither

arbitrary or capricious. Similarly, the

Court analyzed the administrative record

with respect to its treatment of flood-

plains impacts, land use impacts, and

sewage treatment plant design. The Sec-

ond Circuit opinion contains several

pages of analysis with respect to each

of the issues that Orangetown raised; in

each instance the Court found that EPA

did not abuse its discretion or act ar-

bitrarily in concluding that the project

would not significantly affect the en-

vironment.

In a separate subsection, the Court

analyzed Orangetown's contention that

this project required an environmental

impact statement on the basis of the

-i17-

claim it was “highly controversial" un-

der the guidelines issued by the Council

on Environmental Quality. See 40 C.F.R.

§1508.27. The Court noted that expan-

Sion of an unpopular sewage treatment

plant can be expected to generate oppo-

sition. It observed that under existing

precedent, a project is "highly contro-

versial" when "a substantial dispute

exists as to the size or effect of the

major federal action rather than to the

existence of opposition to a use.” Town

of Orangetown v. Gorsuch et al., Slip

Op. at 6638 (2d Cir. 1983), Petition at

A-22. The Court found that in light of

the evidence supporting the FONSI, more

than mere speculation that the plant ex-

pansion would increase odor problems

would be necessary before the project

-18<

could be called "highly controversial."

In sum, the Court found that EPA's

finding of no significant impact and its

conclusions with respect to all of the

elements of that finding were supported

by substantial evidence, were not arbi-

trary and capricious, and did not re-

present an abuse of discretion. It

therefore determined that it was not

within the competence of the Court to

overrule the agency's determination.

In considering Orangetown's claims

relating to alleged violations of EPA's

procedural regulations for grant-making,

the Court undertook its own review of

the administrative record. It upheld

the District Court's ruling that the

record revealed that in making certain

technical determinations, EPA complied

-19<

with the terms of the applicable regu-

lations and that the objectives of those

regulations were accomplished.

The Court also reviewed the evi-

dence presented at trial with respect to

the nuisance claims. It found no basis

for overturning the District Court's

ruling that Orangetown's evidence failed

to prove that the County plant operation

resulted in a public nuisance. Finally,

the Court upheld the District Court's

determination in dismissing Orangetown's

Claim that DEC did not comply with New

York State's environmental quality re-

view act.

POINT I

THE COURT SHOULD NOT

REVIEW THE DECISION THAT

EPA MADE THE REQUIRED

FINDINGS

The first question that petitioner

=20-

raises for review by this Court is whe-

ther or not EPA failed to make certain

determinations required under the Clean

Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1283 and 1284,

and its implementing regulations, 40

C.F.R. §35.925 et seq. and if 50, whe-

ther such failure rendered the grant at

issue unlawful. The District Court and

the Court of Appeals both conducted re-

views of the extensive record of admin-

istrative action in this case, after

which they both found that the agencies

had complied with that set of regula-

tions, and that the grants were lawful.

Petitioner claims that in spite of the

careful factual review given these is-

sues by the lower courts, they merit re-

view by the Supreme Court because of the

importance of the issue of the enforce-

ability of the statutory and regulatory

requirements. Petitioner suggests that

-2l<-

it is an open question whether or not

the standard to be applied to such an

action, which is neither rulemaking nor

adjudication, should be as rigorous as

that applied by the Administrative Pro-

cedure Act ("APA"), 5 USC §§552 et seg.,

to actions which are either rulemaking

or adjudicatory. There is, however, no

need for the Supreme Court to address

this question anew. It is well settled

by the Supreme Court in prior opinions,

and the decision of the Court of Appeals

fits well within the guidelines thus set

forth. This case presents no issues

which would call into question the es-

tablished law.

A. The Court of Appeals Applied The

Appropriate Standard of Review

1. Informal Agency Action Is

Judged By The “Arbitrary

And Capricious" Standard

In assessing the administrative ac-

-22-

tion here, the Court of Appeals applied

the standard of review set forth in the

Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"),

which provides that agency action may be

overruled by a court only if the action

was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, or otherwise not in accor-

dance with law." 5 U.S.C. §706 (2) (A)

(1976); Town of Orangetown v. Gorsuch et

al., Slip Op. at 6628-29, Petition at

A-13.

There is no reason, based on the

facts of this case, for this Court to

reconsider the standard of review as ap-

plied. Administering and issuing grants

under the construction grants program of

the Clean Water Act is neither a rule-

making nor an adjudicatory function. In

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc.

-23-

v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) ("Overton

Park"), at issue was the approval by the

Secretary of Transportation of the con-

struction of an interstate highway

through a public park in Memphis. Such

a construction project, and the neces-

Sary approvals for it, involved neither

rulemaking nor an adjudication. The

Supreme Court had no difficulty in de-

term¥ning that the action was therefore

governed by the arbitrary and capricious

standard of the APA, rather than the

more rigorous requirements applied to

formal, on-the-record actions like for-

mal rulemaking and adjudication. 401

U.S. at 414-15. In the APA, Congress

chose to set higher standards for agen-

cies with regard to record-keeping, pub-

lic statements and due process when they

-24-

were acting in a quasi-judicial or

quasi-legislative function. 5 U.S.C.

§§553, 554, 556, 557. See F.C.C. v.

National Citizens Committee for Broad-

casting, 436 U.S. 775, 802-803 (1978);

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v.

Federal Power Commission, 453 F.2d 463,

468 (2€ Cir. 1971), cert. Gen. 487 U.s.

926 (1972). Technical findings made by

agencies in the course of sewage treat-

ment construction grants, as in highway

construction projects, are internal and

preliminary in nature, and result from

the exercise of an expert function,

which is neither legislative nor judi-

cial. The agencies in such actions are

making decisions based on administrative

and technical expertise and are neither

assessing penalties or punishments

-25-

against individuals before them, nor

setting forth prospective regulations to

be followed in the future. This case

presents no reasonable opportunity to

depart from the well-established under-

standing of the Congressional mandate

that a higher standard of review should

be applied to rulemaking and adjudica-

tion than to grant issuance.

2. Formal Findings Were

Not Required

The Court of Appeals was correct in

not requiring formal findings when it

analyzed the agency's record of its ac-

tion in this case. In Overton Park, the

relevant statutes prohibited the Secre-

tary of Transportation from authorizing

the use of federal funds to finance

=26-

construction of a highway routed through

a public park if a feasible”alternative

existed, and further required the Secre-

tary to minimize any harm to the park if

there was no alternative route avail-

able. The Secretary's approvals of the

route and design of the highway were

unaccompanied by a statement of the

Secretary's factual findings on those

points. In reviewing the agency action

in that case, the District Court had re-

lied solely on affidavits prepared for

litigation by both agency representa-

tives and representatives of the chal-

lengers to the action.

The Supreme Court found that al-

though the Secretary did not make formal

findings as to alternatives and the min-

imization of harm, the statutes did not

require formal findings, and therefore

-27<

that failure alone did not mandate re-

mand to the agency. 401 U.S. at 417.

In that case, because the entire admin-

istrative record was not before the

Court, it was unable to determine whe-

ther or not informal findings or other

evidence of the determinations were in-

cluded in the record. The Court there-

fore remanded the case to the District

Court, with instructions that the lower

court review the entire administrative

record to determine the appropriateness

of the Secretary's decision.

The reasoning in Overton Park is

therefore perfectly consistent with the

reasoning of the Court of Appeals in the

case at bar. The difference between the

two cases is that, here, the entire ad-

ministrative record was before the Dis-

trict Court and the Court of Appeals.

-28-

Both courts had the opportunity to re-

view the entire record, and both courts

found evidence to support a finding that

the EPA had complied with the statute

and regulations. The Court of Appeals

stated, "all that is necessary is that a

reviewing court be able to trace from

the written record the path followed by

the agency in deciding to take a partic-

ular action ..." when the statute does

not require formal findings. Town of

Orangetown v. Gorsuch et al., Slip Op.

at 6641, (2d Cir. 1983); Petition at

A25.

This standard is consistent not on-

ly with Overton Park, but with the most

recent Supreme Court decision reviewing

informal agency action, Motor Vehicle

Manufacturers Association v. State Farm

Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies,

et al., U.S. , 103 S.Ct. 2856

-29-

(1983) ("Motor Vehicles"). In that

case, this Court overturned the action

by the Department of Transportation re-

scinding a rule requiring that new motor

vehicles be equipped with passive re-

straints to protect the safety of vehi-

cle occupants in the event of a colli-

sion. The Supreme Court found that the

agency action was arbitrary and capri-

cious because the administrative record

demonstrated that the agency had not

given sufficient consideration to a rel-

evant alternative, and because the re-

cord did not provide the basis for con-

cluding that the rescission was the re-

sult of reasoned decisionmaking. The

Court therefore examined the administra-

tive record compiled by the agency in

the course of taking its action, and

found that record insufficient to jus-

-30-

tify the action. That approach is pre-

cisely the same approach that the Court

of Appeals took in analyzing agency ac-

tion in the case at bar. In this case,

however, unlike Motor Vehicles, the

Court found that the administrative re-

cord did substantiate agency action.

3. Discovery And Testimony Of

Agency Personnel Is Not

Necessary For Judicial

Review Of This Agency Action

The limitations placed by the dis-

trict court on petitioner's delving into

the mental processes of agency person-

nel, either during discovery or trial,

do not strengthen petitioner's argument

that a stricter standard of judicial re-

view should have been applied in this

case. Petitioner seems to argue that

because it asserted during trial that it

failed to understand the administrative

-3l-

record, it therefore was entitled to ob-

tain individual testimony from agency

personnel to explain that record. How-

ever, the cases cited by petitioner do

not support it in that argument. In

Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973), an

applicant brought suit to compel the

Comptroller of the Treasury to issue a

bank charter to it. The Comptroller had

twice denied the application. The Court

there found that the statute did not re-

guire the Comptroller to make formal

findings on the record when passing on

applications for new banking authori-

ties. The court cited language from the

National Bank Act, which in fact used

Similar language to that of the Clean

Water Act in referring to the agency

decisionmaking. The National Bank Act

-32-

stated that the Comptroller was to "“as-

certain” certain specific facts with re-

gard to the qualifications of the appli-

cant, in considering the application.

12 U.S.C. $26. Similarly, the Clean

Water Act and regulations state that the

Administrator shall “determine” certain

facts exist. Without more, neither sta-

tute mandates formal findings.

In Camp, the Court went on to find

that the Court of Appeals had been in

error in ordering a de novo hearing. It

stated that the only deficiency suggest-

ed in the agency action was that the

agency inadequately explained its deci-

sion. The Court stated that “such a de-

ficiency was not enough to warrant a de

novo hearing. A trial court should ap-

ply the arbitrary and capricious stan-

dard set forth in the APA and "in apply-

=33-

ing that standard, the focal point for

judicial review should be the adminis-

trative record already in existence, not

some new record made initially in the

reviewing court.” Camp v. Pitts, 411

U.8. at 141.

The Court further held that if

there had been a complete absence of ex-

planation for the administrative action

in the record, then perhaps the court

could obtain from the agency "either

through affidavits or testimony, such

additional explanation of the reasons

for the agency decision as made prove

necessary." Id. at 143. However, the

Comptroller's record provided some ex-

planation of its action. "The explana-

tion may have been curt, but it surely

indicated the determinative reason for

the final action taken ... The validity

=34-

of the controller's final action must,

therefore, stand or fall on the pro-

priety of that finding, judged, of

course, by the appropriate standard of

review.” Id. The agency action in the

case at bar presents the same situation.

While "a clear and concise document out-

lining seriatim”" the required findings

might have been desirable for ease of

review by the Court, the existing form

of the record does not provide peti-

tioner with the opportunity to examine

witnesses from the agency. Town of

Orangetown v. Gorsuch et al., Slip Op.

at 6640 (2d Cir. 1983); Petition at

A-24. The agency action must stand or

fall on the administrative record. Both

lower courts determined that the action

should stand.

-35-

B. EPA Made The Necessary Determinations

The determinations at issue in this

case are those included in 40 C.F.R.

§35.925-7, §35.925-8, and §35.925-13,

which refer to the waste treatment tech-

nology, capacity and cost-effectiveness

of the planned plant and collection sys-

tems, and the environmental review

performed by the agency. The Court of

Appeals found that the administrative

3as discussed above, the Court of

Appeals upheld the District Court's de-

.termination that since the remaining

determinations in 40 C.F.R. §35.925 et

seq were not placed in issue in the

pieadings or during trial, they were not

subject to review in this action. Pe-

titioner's continued post-trial insis-

tence that the other determinations

should receive judicial review cannot

change the fact that petitioner failed

to make known its challenge to those

determinations prior to or during trial.

Further review of the District Court's

ruling on that motion is unwarranted.

-36-

record provided sufficient documentation

of the agency's decision on these is-

sues, and that therefore the agency com-

plied with applicable law in issuing the

grants. Town of Orangetown v. Gorsuch

et al., Slip Op. at 6641 (2d Cir. 1983),

Petition at A-25. The Environmental

Assessment prepared by EPA, which was

promulgated along with the Finding of No

Significant Impact, evidences agency

determinations on all the issues raised

by the relevant regulations. In addi-

tion, the administrative record includes

documents submitted by the grantees

which provide extensively detailed stu-

Gies of those issues.

POINT II

THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS CORRECT

IN NOT REQUIRING WRITTEN FINDINGS

The second reason that petitioner

@37<

sets forth for granting the petition is

related to its first point, and must be

rejected on the same basis. The Court

of Appeals found that the EPA regula-

tions "do not require that the agency's

actions be set down in any particular

order or form, or even that its deter-

mMinations be made in writing." Town of

Orangetown v. Gorsuch et al., Slip Op.

at 6640, (2d Cir. 1983), Petition at A-

24. Petitioner apparently contends that

this Court did not mean what it said in

cases like Overton Park, Camp v. Pitts,

and Motor Vehicle, when it required that

the Court review the administrative re-

cord as a whole when a statute does not

require formal findings. Petitioner

constructs a dichotomy in the petition,

reasoning that if written findings are

not required then the findings must be

either oral or implied. It then states

-38-

that oral findings would require oral

testimony, and that implied findings are

no findings at all. This reasoning, ac-

cording to petitioner, leads neatly back

to the conclusion that discovery of and

testimony by agency personnel should

have been permitted.

The fatal flaw in this reasoning is

that the Supreme Court and lower courts

have consistently permitted examination

of the administrative record for evi-

dence of informal or implied findings.

In Overton Park, the Supreme Court in-

structed the District Court to peruse

the administrative record for such find-

ings on remand. It did not direct the

lower court to take oral testimony, but

allowed the district court some flex-

ibility in determining the necessity for

such testimony after its examination of

-39-

the record. 401 U.S. at 419-20. The

same result prevailed in Camp v. Pitts.

411 U.S. at 143. In both cases, the

Court found that the statute did not re-

quire formal findings, and in neither

case did the Court order that oral tes-

timony must be taken. If the Court did

not believe that implied findings were

acceptable, then it would have ordered

the District Court to take oral testi-

mony, or would have remanded to the

agency for express, formal findings.

Finally, in Motor Vehicle, the Court did

not strike down the agency's rescission

on the basis of a procedural deficiency

in the form of failure to state formal

findings. It found that upon review,

the agency's record proved to be sub-

-40-

Stantively insufficient to justify the

action. 4

As in the cases discussed above,

the Court of Appeals here found that

formal findings were not required; it

examined the administrative record for

evidence of the basis for the adminis-

trative action. On that basis, it up-

held the agency action. Contrary to pe-

titioner's characterization, the Court

did not relieve EPA from its obligation

to comply with the regulations, but

41t is important to note that in

Motor Vehicle, the Supreme Court con-

Sideread it “relevant that Congress re-

quired a record of the rulemaking pro-

ceedings to be compiled and submitted to

a reviewing court, 15 U.S.C. §1394 [mo-

tor vehicle safety standards promulga-

tion], and that agency findings under

the Motor Vehicle Safety Act would be

Supported by 'substantial evidence on

the record considered as a whole.'"

(Citations omitted). 103 S.Ct. at 2856.

-41-

rather found that the agency had com-

plied with the regulations. There is

nothing illogical or inconsistent about

this approach, and thus there is no need

for this Court to review the lower

courts' decisions.

POINT III

THE COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED

THE CORRECT STANDARD FOR

ASSESSING THE LEVEL OF CONTROVERSY

Petitioner asserts a final, un-

founded claim that this Court should

review the ruling by the Court of Ap-

peals that the amount of controversy

surrounding this project did not mandate

an Environmental Impact Statement

("EIS") pursuant to NEPA. The decision

in the Second Circuit is entirely con-

sistent with the prevailing decisions in

-42-

prior cases, and leaves no questions

open for settlement by this Court.

The guidelines of the Council on

Environmental Quality ("CEQ") state that

consideration of environmental impacts

for purposes of deciding whether to re-

quire an EIS, should include an evalua-

tion of "(t]he degree to which the ef-

fects on the quality of the human en-

vironment are likely to be highly con-

troversial.” 40 C.F.R. §1508.27. As

discussed above, after reviewing the

administrative record of this action,

both the District Court and the Court of

Appeals found that EPA had not been ar-

bitrary Or capricious in issuing the

Finding of No Significant Impact, with

respect to every issue raised by peti-

tioner, including that of public con-

troversy. The Court of Appeals found

-43-

that "the record lacks a sufficient

basis to indicate that the opposition to

this project was of such an extraordin-

ary nature as to require an EIS." Town

of Orangetown v. Gorsuch et al., Slip

Op. at 6638 (2d Cir. 1983), Petition at

A22.

Petitioner exaggerates the choice

of of the word "extraordinary" by the

Court of Appeals, contending that with

that one word, the Court intended to set

a new standard for the level of contro-

versy requiring an EIS. To the con-

trary, however, the decision by the

Court of Appeals on this issue is com-

pletely in line with the cases cited by

petitioner. In Hanly v. Kleindienst,

471 F.2d 823, 830 (2d Cir. 1972), cert.

denied 412 U.S. 908 (1972), the Court

Stated that "... the term '‘'controver-

-44-

sial' apparently refers to cases where a

Substantial dispute exists as to the

size, nature or effect of the major fed-

eral action rather than to the existence

of a use ...” In the case at bar, it is

precisely the use of the site as a sew-

age treatment plant, improved or unim-

proved, which is the source of some con-

troversy in the neighborhood, rather

than the environmental effects of the

project. The Petition for Writ of Cer-

tiorari makes this abundantly clear when

it states:

"The [Sewer] District was born

in the controversy inherent in

one community's sending its sew-

age to another. The controversy

deepened through the years as

the County plant emitted massive

odors, reshaping life in the

areas of Orangetown around it.”

Petition at 54-55. Petitioner goes on

to say that the existence of the im-

provement project “deepened and broad-

-45-

ened" the controversy that surrounded

the plant itself. As the Court of Ap-

peals found, in this case the record re-

vealed that the local opposition to the

project's effects grow out of "mere

speculation that the plant expansion

will increase odor problems, rather than

alleviate such problems,” which does not

amount to the sort of controversy with

respect to environmental. impacts that

would mandate an EIS. Town of Orange-

town v. Gorsuch et al., Slip Op. at 6638

(2d Cir. 1983); Petition at A-22.

To rule that any such vocal opposi-~

tion makes the effects of the project

"highly controversial" according to the

terms of the CEQ guidelines, "would re-

quire an impact statement whenever a

threshold determination dispensing with

one is likely to face a court challenge

-46-

fand would] surrender the determination

to opponents of a federal action, no

matter whether [the project is] major or

not, nor how insignificant its environ-

mental effects might be." Rucker v.

Willis, 484 F.2d 158, 162 (4th Cir.

1973). See also Town of Orangetown v.

Gorsuch et al., Slip Op. at 6638 (2d

Cir. 1983); Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471

F.2d at 830 n.9A; Fund for Animals v.

Frizzell, 530 F.2d 982, 988-89 n.15

(D.C. Cir. 1975). The ruling on this

issue by the Court of Appeals is there-

fore grounded in, rather than inconsis-

tent with, relevant case law. The Court

did not establish a new standard for

decision; it simply analyzed the facts

of this case in light of established

standards, and supported the EPA deci-

sion not to require an EIS.

-47-

No issue remains which would demand

the consideration of this Court.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the foregoing,

the Court should deny the petition for

writ of certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER A. A. BERLE

Counsel of Record

Carol A. Buckler

Berle, Butzel, Kass & Case

Attorneys for Respondents

Rockland County Sewer

District No. 1; County

of Rockland and Town

of Ramapo

45 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, New York 10111

(212) 765-1800

270:101

_* emt «-<

’ APPENDIX

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, New York 10278

August 29, 1980

To All Interested Govern-

ment Agencies and Public

Groups:

In accordance with the procedures for

the preparation of environmental impact

statements, an environmental review has

been performed on the proposed agency

action below:

Project Rockland County Sewer

Name: District No. 1 (RCSD No.

1) sewage treatment plant

expansion, sludge hand-

ling facilities and in-

terceptor sewers.

Project C-36-744-03 (Step 2

Grant)

Numbers: RCSD No. 1

C-36-1253-01 (Step 2

Grant)

Town of Ramapo

Purpose of The purpose of this pro-

Project: ject is four fold: to re-

place failing individual

septic systems in Ramapo

with collection sewers;

to provide interceptor

sewers to convey sewage

Project

Location:

Project

Description:

Proposed

Eligible

Project

Costs:

EPA Grant

(75%):

from the Towns of Ramapo

and Clarkstown to the

RCSD No. 1 STP; to expand

the overloaded RCSD No. 1

STP to treat existing and

future flows from the

proposed service area; to

provide facilities to

process sludge from the

RCSD No. 1 STP.

Towns of Ramapo, Clarks-

town and Orangetown, New

York

Preparation of plans and

specifications for con-

struction of collection

sewers, interceptor sew-

ers, pump stations, STP

expansion and sludge

handling facilities as

described in detail in

Section IV of the at-

tached environmental as-

sessment.

$3,758,380 -

RCSD No. 1

$ 674,000 -

Town of Ramapo

RCSD No. 1

$ 506,000 -

Town of Ramapo

Our environmental review of this project

indicates that no significant environ-

mental impacts will result from the pro-

posec action. Consequently, we have

made a preliminary decision not to pre-

pare an environmental impact statement

(EIS) on the project.

This decision is based on a careful re-

view of the engineering report, the en-

vironmental information document, and

other supporting data. All of these

documents, along with the environmental

assessment, are on file at the EPA re-

gional office, where they are available

for public scrutiny upon request. rN

copy of the environmental assessment is

enclosed for your review.

Both the State of New York and the EPA

recognize that this project is located

in an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR).

This fact has been accounted for in our

review.

Comments supporting or disagreeing with

this decision may be submitted to the

EPA for consideration. All comments

must be received within thirty (30) cal-

endar days of the date of this finding

of no significant impacts (FNSI).

Please address your comments to the

Chief, New York and Virgin Islands Sec-

tion, Environmental Impacts Branch, Room

400. After evaluating any comments re-

ceived on the project, the EPA will make

a final decision. However, no adminis-

trative action will be taken on the

project for at least thirty (30) calen-

dar days after the date of this FNSI.

Sincerely yours,

Charles S. Warren

Regional Administrator

Enclosure

Environmental Assessment

rT. Project Identification

Project Name:

Name and

Address of

Applicants:

Project

Numbers:

Project

Location:

II. Description

Rockland County Sew-

er District No. 1

sewage treatment

plant, sludge hand-

ling facilities, and

interceptor sewers

Town of Ramapo col-

lection sewers

Mr. Charles S.

Stewart, Jr., P.E.

Executive Director

Rockland County Sew-

er District No. 1

4 Route 340

Orangeburg, New York

10962

C-36-744-03 (Step 2

Grant), Rockland

County, New York

C-36-1253-01 (Step 2

Grant), Town of

Ramapo, New York

Towns of Ramapo,

Clarkstown and

Orangetown, New York

of Facility Planning

Area

The facility planning area is located in

the Towns of Clarkstown and Ramapo, ap-

proximately 50 kilometers (30 miles)

from New York City (see Figure 1). It

encompasses approximately 190° square

kilometers (75 square miles), represent-

ing the unincorporated parts of the

towns. Although the Rockland County

Sewer District No. 1 sewage treatment

plant (RCSD NO. 1 STP), which receives

flows from Ramapo and Clarkstown, is lo-

cated in Orangetown, Orangetown does not

contribute flows to the RCSD STP and

thus is not included as part of the

planning area.

The facility planning area is character-

ized by gently rolling hills and val-

leys. There are five natural drainage

basins within the area defined by the

names of the respective bodies of water

as follows: Mahwah River, Minisceongo

Creek, Saddle River, Pascack Brook and

Hackensack River. The planning area has

a rich diversity of inland wetlands,

many of which are associated with its

creeks, streams and rivers. As discus-

sed in Section VII-B of this environmen-

tal assessment, grant conditions are be-

ing used to prohibit hook-ups to the

proposed sewer system from future devel-

opment located in wetland and floodplain

areas.

Land use in the planning area is predom-

inantly residential, with industrial and

commercial development along the major

roadways, railroads and waterways. The

population of the planning area is pro-

jected to increase from approximately

160,000 to 201,000 over the 20 year de-

sign period of the proposed sewerage fa-

cilities. The population projections

are based on recent development plans,

zoning, and a constraints analysis which

excluded environmentally sensitive areas

(such as wetlands, floodplains, agricul-

tural lands and steep slopes) from de-

velopment. These projections are lower

than the population projections, pre-

pared by the New York State 208 Water

Quality Management Plan.

Large portions of the planning area are

currently served by collection and

interceptor sewers and pump stations and

forcemains. Unsewered portions of the

planning ares are served by individual

on-site disposal systems. Existing (and

proposed) sewers are tributary to the

existing RCSD No. 1 STP which discharges

treated effluent to the Hudson River.

Some existing sewers also convey waste-

water to the Town of Ramapo, privately

operated treatment plants and to the

Haverstraw Joint Regional Sewerage Board

facilities. Sludge resulting from

wastewater treatment at the STP is cur-

rently disposed of at the Clarkstown

Sanitary landfill.

III. Purpose and Need for Project

The purpose of this project is four

fold: to replace failing individual sep-

tic systems in Ramapo with collection

sewers; to provide interceptor sewers to

convey sewage from the Towns of Ramapo

and Clarkstown to the RCSD No. 1 STP; to

expand the overloaded RCSD No. 1 STP; to

provide facilities to process. sludge

from the RCSD No. 1 STP.

Collection sewers

Existing on-site subsurface disposal

systems in Ramapo are failing because of

impermeable soils, shallow depth to bed-

rock, small lot sizes or seasonal high

water tables. Surface discharges of raw

sewage as a result of these conditions

are causing odor problems, represent a

public health hazard and are degrading

the quality of surface waters in the ar-

ea. Collection sewers are proposed to

replace these failing on-site systems

(see Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6).

Interceptors

Interceptor sewers are required to con-

vey sewage from the proposed collection

areas as well as from eight small public

and private STPs in Ramapo to the RCSD

No. 1 STP (see Figures 7, 8, and 9). In

addition, some of the interceptors will

also facilitate gravity conveyance of

wastewater thereby eliminating existing

pumping stations. Cost-effective analy-

ses found it less expensive to abandon

the eight STPs and treat their flows at

an expanded RCSD No. 1 STP than to up-

grade and expand the small STPs.

RCSD No. 1 STP Expansion

The RCSD No. 1 STP has a design capacity

to treat 3,800 cubic meters (10 million

gallons per day) but present wastewater

flows substantially exceed this quanti-

ty. A large part of the excessive flows

at the plant is due to the infiltration

of groundwater and inflow of stormwater

(I/I) into the interceptor and collec-

tion system. On May 30, 1980, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

issued a finding of no significant im-

pact/environmental assessment (FNSI/EA)

for the design and rehabilitation of a

portion of the sewer system where it is

cost-effective to remove I/I rather than

treat it at the STP. As part of th pro-

ject presently being proposed, the RCSD

No. 1 STP will be expanded to 8,500 cu m

(25 mgd) to handle existing and future

sewage flows from the proposed service

area as well as I/I that is cost-effec-

tive to treat rather than remove from

the sewer system (see Figure 11).

Sludge Handling Facilities

The existing sludge handling facilities

at the RCSD No. 1 ST are inadequate to

process the increased sewage flows at

the plant. Under the proposed project,

Sludge will be composted at the Clarks-

town sanitary landfill site and land ap-

plied as a soil conditioner within Rock-

land County (see Figure 12).

IV. Detailed Description of Selected

Plans

Interceptors

The proposed project consists of the

Mahwah River Basin, Minisceongo Creek

Basin, and Phillips Hill Road-Conklin

Road interceptor systems and the Upper

A-10

Main Interceptor. The Mahwah River Ba-

sin is located in the western portion of

the sewer district and encompasses about

one third of the Town of Ramapo. The

Mahwah interceptor system will serve

eleven schools and an existing residen-

tial population of approximately 10,000

people. It will eliminate two existing

pump stations and three existing STPs.

As can be seen in Figure 7, it will con-

sist of seven interceptors: the Mahwah,

Pomona Heights, Wilder Road, Willow Tree

Road, Grandview Avenue, Viola Road and

Montebello Road interceptors. The in-

terceptor system will require seven pump

Stations and consist of 2.5 km (7.5 mi)

of gravity sewer ranging from 20 cmt (8

in) to 75 cm (30 in) in diameter and 0.9

km (2.8 mi) of forcemain.

The Minisceongo Creek Basin is located

in the northeastern portion of the Town

of Ramapo and encompasses two thirds of

the Village of Pomona. The Minisceongo

interceptors will serve eight hospitals

and schools and an existing population

of 2,200. It will provide for a portion

of the village which currently connects

to the Haverstraw STP to tie into the

RCSD No. 1 STP. This system will con-

sist of the Pomona, Mount Ivy North and

Summit Park interceptors (see Figure 8).

It will require three pump stations and

consist of about 9 km (3 mi) of gravity

line ranging from 20 cm (8 in) to 45 cm

(18 in) in diameter and 0.6 km (2 mi) of

force main.

The Phillips Hill Road interceptor will

provide service to a portion of the Town

A-11

of Ramapo and Clarkstown located east of

Palisades Interstate Parkway (see Figure

9). This interceptor will provide capa-

city for an existing population of

1,140. It consists of 1.5 km (0.9 mi)

of gravity sewers and. does not require

any pump stations.

The Conklin interceptor will provide

service to an existing population of 233

in the northeast corner of the Town of

Ramapo and the northwest corner of

Clarkstown (see Figure 9). This inter-

ceptor will require one pump station and

consist of 2.2 km (1.4 mi) of gravity

sewer and 0.6 km (.4 mi) of forcemain,

The Upper Main Interceptor will convey

flows from the western portion of the

sewer district to the RCSD No. 1 STP.

The interceptor is required to augment

the existing upper main interceptor

which, because of groundwater I/I and

future flows from western portions of

the district, will exceed its design ca-

pacity by 1,100 cu m p/d (3 mgd). The

proposed pressure main consists of ap-

proximately 3,050 m (9,350 ft) of 40 cm

(16 in) diameter pressure interceptor.

Collectors

The recommended lateral collection sewer

system projected by the Town of Ramapo

consists of approximately 186,600 ft

(55,890 m) of 20 cm (8 in) gravity sew-

er, three pump stations, 600 m (5,300

ft) of forcemain, 23 grinder pump units

and 960 m (3,200 ft) of lower pressure

main. Of the above 16,500 m (55,060 ft)

A-12

of gravity sewer and 170 m (440 ft) of

forcemain and one pump station have been

found to be ineligible for federal fund-

ing.

RCSD No. 1 STP Expansion

Following is a list of the principal

units which will be added or modified to

expand the capacity of the RCSD No. 1

STP to 8,500 cu m (25 mgd). These units

will be added directly adjacent to the

existing facilities.

1. Main pumping station modified by an

additional larger pump

y Aerated grit chamber

3. Six primary settling tanks

4. Air driven rotating biological con-

tactors (RBC) to provide secondary

treatment. In addition, existing

aeration tanks will be modified to

accept RBCs.

Sludge Handling Facilities

On-site sludge handling at the RCSD

plant will be accomplished by the addi-

tion of the following principle units.

l. Two gravity thickeners to thicken

Sludge from RBCs. The thickeners

will be enclosed to provide odor

control.

2. Conversion of existing secondary

digester to a primary digester.

A-13

30 m (90 ft) diameter unheated di-

gested sludge storage tank.

Containerized methane gas storage

450 kw generator for electricity

generation from methane gas utili-

zation.

Three belt presses for dewatering

sludge and two grit cyclone classi-

fier units for screening and sepa-

ration.

Dewatered sludge will be hauled in water

tight trucks to the Clarkstown landfill

sludge composting facility. The com-

posting site, which will use static-pile

composting, will be designed as follows.

he

Composting operations will occur on

concrete and asphalt pad covering

1.5 ha (3.5 a) of the site.

Landfilled material will be removed

prior to construction of pad.

Pad will be contoured so that

leachate will drain to retention

ponds.

The ponds will be sized to accommo-

date runoff resulting from a ten

year, 24 hour storm.

The ponds will discharge leachate

(via pumping) to 210 m (700 ft)

sewer connecting to RCSD No. 1 STP

for treatment.

A-14

6. Composting operation will be con-

ducted within enclosure with three

walls and roof. Covered compost

facility will have capacity to pro-

vide up to six months storage of

compost.

7 Grayel access road approximately

450 m (1,500 ft) will be construct-

ed.

Composted sludge will be applied as a

soil conditioner to designated lands in

the county. Potential outlets for com-

posted sludge include landscaping and

nursery operations.

Vv. Project Costs

The following are the approximate costs

associated with the design of sewage

collection, conveyance, treatment and

disposal facilities for RCSD No. 1 and

the Town of Ramapo.

Town of Ramapo Collectors:

Total Cost - $1,045,500

Eligible Cost - $689,000

EPA Grant (75%) - $858,630

RCSD No. 1 Interceptors, Pump

Stations, Forcemains, STP

Expansion and Sludge Handling

Facilities:

Total Cost - $4,577,380

Eligible Cost - $3,758,380

EPA Grant (75%) =- $2,858,630

A-15

The following are the estimated total

project costs for contruction of the

proposed facilities including the above

design costs.

Total Eligible

Cost Cost

Collectors $20,600,000 $13,185,000

Interceptors,

Pump Stations,

and Forcemains 31,000,000 30,310,000

STP Expansion

and Sludge

Handling

Facilities 68,389,000 67,101,000

TOTAL: $119,989,000 $110,596,000

The total annual user charges to resi-

dents within the Town of Ramapo is esti-

mated to be $308.00. The total annual

user charge to a resident within the

RCSD No. 1 service area will be approxi-

mately $100.00.

VI. Evaluation of Alternatives

No Action

The "no-action”" alternative consists of

the continued use of individual on-site

treatment systems in Ramapo as well as

the overloaded RCSD No. 1 STP and its

Sludge handling facilities. This alter-

native was rejected due to the existing

need for improvement of water quality

A-16

and alleviation of health hazards in the

service areas.

Collection System

Upgrading of on-site systems was not

considered feasible because of soil con-

ditions, high groundwater and shallow

depth to bedrock. A sewage collection

system is the most cost-effective alter-

native except in three small areas where

adverse topography makes grinder pumps

cost-effective.

Interceptors

Mahwah =- All of the six alternative

routings considered for the Mahwah in-

terceptor consist of a major interceptor

generally paralleling the Mahwah River

with secondary interceptors discharging

into the main interceptor (Mahwah). The

proposed routing was selected because it

minimizes secondary growth impacts by

limiting the service area of the inter-

ceptor as much as possible to those ar-

eas which are in need of sewers and to

which future growth is expected and

planned for. In addition, this alterna-

tive is set back from the Mahwah River

and thus avoids the construction impacts

associated with the other alternatives

that closely parallel the river. It is

also the least expensive of the six al-

ternatives.

Minisceongo - Of the two alternatives

considered to serve this area, the pro-

posed route (alternative 2) was found to

be most cost-effective and environmen-

A-17

tally sound. This alternative will

avoid much of the wetland and flood-

plain, and easements that would be re-

quired with alternative 1.

Phillips Hill Road - The original propo-

sal called for the placement of the in-

terceptor in the cul-de-sac between

Kingsland Drive and Buena Vista Road and

then following Kingsland Drive east.

Under this proposal the interceptor

would cut across a wetland at the end of

Kingsland Drive and connect into. and

follow Phillips Hill Road until Rolling-

wood Drive. The present proposal will

utilize existing laterals in Buena Vista

Road and Kingsland Drive that connect to

the Balter Road pump station. A gravity

interceptor will connect the pump sta-

tion to the Rollingwood Road cul-de-sac.

This route was selected because it

avoids wetlands, eliminates the Balter

Road pump station and was approximately

$60,000 less expensive than the next

least expensive alternative.

Conklin Road - Six alternative routings

were considered to serve the Conklin

Road area in the Town of Ramapo. Four

of the alternatives included placing

sewage lines in or adjacent to Buena

Vista Road in the Town of Clarkstown.

As discussed in Section VIII, residents

of Clarkstown opposed the presence of an

interceptor sewer in Buena Vista Road or

Saw Mill Road because of the potential

secondary impact to the undeveloped land

along these routings. A fifth alterna-

tive consisted of pumping sewage from

the Conklin Road area under the Pali-

A-18

“a

ew

sades Park interceptor. This alterna-

tive was rejected because it required

three additional pump stations and the

residents of Dogwood Lane objected to

the routing. The proposed alternative

which follows a route primarily through

the Town of Ramapo was found to be the

most cost-effective alternative.

Lake DeForest - An interceptor was pro-

posed to serve the Lake DeForest area,

The interceptor was rejected because of

primary and secondary impacts to wet-

lands, streams, active orchards and ag-

ricultural land, water supply, steep

slopes and secondary growth woodland and

because it did not meet EPA requirements

for eligibility. The proposed intercep-

tor is still planned for construction

with local funding.

Upper Pressure Main Interceptor - This

interceptor will parallel the entire

3,050 m (9,350 ft) length of existing

pressure interceptor which is located

adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. As

the right-of-way has been previously

disturbed, there will only be minor im-

pacts from the construction of his in-

terceptor.

RCSD No. 1 STP Expansion

A number of alternative sites were eval-

uated for the expansion of the RCSD No.

1 STP. These alternatives consisted of

the following: locating the expansion

facilities away from the immediate lo-

cation of the STP; building a second STP

at another location; and rearranging the

A-19

expansion facilities at the existing STP

site to minimize impact to wetlands ad-

jacent to the STP. The first two alter-

natives were rejected because of the ex-

tremely high cost, the greater manpower

and unit operations, and the additional

interceptors that would be necessary for

sewage conveyance to a new facility with

the alternatives.

Several alternative arrangements of the

STP expansion at the existing site were

evaluated to minimize impact to the wet-

lands that are located directly north

and south of the STP. Locating the new

secondary treatment unit to the east of

the STP in mixed hardwood area was re-

jected because of the large additional

cost (3.5 million present worth) of

pumping to this upland area. As the

west side of the STP is close to Route

303, expansion in this direction was not

possible. The original proposal of

placing the administrative building and

equipment garage to the north in a

flooded shrub wetland along with an ad-

ditional access road cutting through

steep slopes was rejected in favor of

the present proposal. This involves

placing the administration building, and

equipment garage in the hardwood area to

the east of the STP and eliminating the

additional access road. As with the

original proposals, the new treatment

units are located north of the existing

facilities (see Figures 10 and 1l).

Sludge Handling Facilities

Joint sludge facility with Orangetown

4 A-20

STP.

A detailed cost analysis determined that

cost savings for a RCSD No. 1 =- Town of

Orangetown sludge handling facilities

would not be significant when implemen-

tation schedules for joint and individu-

al alternatives were considered. It was

estimated that a joint facility would

require one additional year for imple-

mentation compared with individual al-

ternatives. Consequently both RCSD No.

1 and Orangetown decided it was in their

best interest to pursue individual

sludge handling alternatives.

Land Application

Land application of digested dewatered

sludge without composting was not conp-

sidered environmentally acceptable as

large quantities of filter cake would

have to be stored during portions of the

year when, for climatic reasons, land

application is not possible. Composting

in conjunction with land application was

selected because the composting opera-

tion can be carried out year round and

because compost can be stored for long

periods without adverse environmental

effects.

Composting Sites

Six composting sites were evaluated (see

Figure 12). The Route 303 industrial

site was rejected because of its proxim-

ity to office buildings, limited amount

of land, high land acquisition cost and

A-21

traffic problems. The site on Route 303

in Orangetown was eliminated because it

would require the loss of a large area

of wooded wetlands. In addition, the

small parcel of land that is not envi-

ronmentally sensitive on the site is

planned for future construction. The

Ramapo incinerator site was rejected be-

cause of the long travel distance to the

site and the proximity to residences.

Although three remaining sites were con-

sidered feasible for composting, the

Clarkstown landfill site was selected

because it represents the site with

least potential adverse impacts. The

Congers Lake site offers ample area to

locate, and is close to RCSD sewer

lines. However, extensive clearing and

a long access road over the Hackensack

River would be required. Under this al-

ternative, the Route 9W site was reject-

ed because it would require clearing a

heavily wooded area and is relatively

near homes and business.

VII. Environmental Consequences of the

Selected Plan

Collection Sewers

Approximately 90 percent of the collec-

tion system will be located in existing

roadways right-of-ways. Limited use of

rights-of-way will be necessary where

topographical constraints preclude road-

way routings and where land will be used

for pump station sites.

A-22

The use of rights-of-ways will avoid

long term impacts and minimize secondary

impacts. Temporary disruption of traf-

fic and noise related to construction

activity will be a short-term nuisance.

All routings through or adjacent to wet-

lands have been eliminated from the pro-

posed project. Where stream crossings

are necessary, the contractor will be

required to comply with New York State

Stream work standards. In addition, the

contractor will be required to follow

environmental specifications concerning

protection and replacement of trees and

erosion and sedimentation control.

Interceptors

Mahwah River Basin

Although a number, of modifications have

been made to the proposed routing, the

Mahwah interceptors will border and

cross wetlands, floodplain and steep

Slopes at various points. Between Bay-

ard Lane and Victory Road, the alignment

of the Mahwah interceptor has been

shifted to the east side of the Mahwah

River to avoid the very steep slopes on

the east side of the river. However,

between Victory Road and Hemion Road,

the interceptor will cross the river

twice and cross and border the wetland

along Route 202.

The Grandview Avenue interceptor will

also border and cross wetlands and

floodplains along Spook Rock Road and

A-23

Grandview Avenue between Carrol Drive

and Wesley Chapel Road.

The Viola Road interceptor will border a

small wetland and cross and floodplain

between Mile Road and Route 202. This

interceptor will cross an area of unde-

veloped land, potentially inducing de-

velopment in this area. No alternative

was available that would avoid these

secondary impacts.

The Montebello Road interceptor travers-

es a wetland between Robin Hood Road and

Nottingham Road. The routing has been

modified to move the alignment away from

the creek, steep slopes and wooded areas

as much as topographical constraints al-

low.

As discussed in Section VII-B, the con-

tractor will be required to follow a

number of special environmental con-

straints to protect wetlands along the

proposed route. As with the collectors,

the contractor will be required to use

construction measures to reduce erosion

and sedimentation, protect and replace

trees, and restore disturbed areas to

their original condition.

In addition, grant conditions are being

used to prohibit hook-ups to the pro-

posed sewer system from future develop-

ment in wetlands and floodplains.

Minisceongo Interceptors - Sewer cross-

ings of the south Minisceongo River will

be required north of the Pomona pumping

station and along M@ute 202 (east of

A-24

Camp Hill Road). The contractor will be

required to follow stream crossing stan-

dards to protect the stream and wetlands

located downstream.

The Pomona interceptor will parallel the

creek along Adele Boulevard between New

Hempstead Road and Scotford Lane. The

routing has been moved to the west side

of the creek to avoid steep slopes and

mixed hardwood on the east side. This

routing will traverse a flat brush area

before cutting to the east side of the

creek at Scotford Lane.

Phillips Hill Area - As discussed under

the alternatives section, the proposed

Phillips Hill interceptor alignment was

selected because it avoids impacts to

wetlands. Although this routing will be

designed to minimize impact to a small

woodland which it traverses, some trees

may have to be removed. The contractor

will be required to follow tree replace-

ment specifications.

Conklin Road Area - The primary impact

associated with the proposed routing is

the secondary impact of crossing a mixed

hardwood forest between the southern end

of Carteret Drive and Buena Vista Road.

Although the interceptor is sized at the

minimum possible diameter 20 cm (8 in),

it will contain sufficient excess capac-

ity to allow development of the wooded

area to hook up to it. Development of

this area is likely with or without sew-

ers as new residential development is

currently making large inroads into the

wooded area. Alternatives to the pro-

A-25

posed alignment which would avoid tra-

versing the wooded area by pdralleling

Buena Vista Road were opposed by the

Town of Clarkstown because of the secon-

dary impacts that such an alignment

would pose to the Buena Vista Road area.

RCSD No. 1 STP Expansion

The expansion of the STP will require

the following loss of wetland to the

north of the STP and mixed hardwood to

the east of the STP (see Figure 10).

Gross Area Area Taken By

(Within Existing STP Construction

Property Boundary)

(hectares) (acres) (hectares) (acres)

Reeds Sean - ae | 1.50 3.60

Flooded

Shrubs 0.58 1.30 0.18 0.43

Flooded

Deciduous

Tree -01 26 0.003 - 43

Wret

Meadow Lean 2.46 --- ---

Mixed

Hardwood 1.83 4.40 ota Leave

Approximately half of the reedgrass wet-

land to be taken by construction has been

disturbed by present construction activ-

ities at the plant site.

The expansion will also require that the

natural wetland drainage channel to the

east of the STP be replaced with a cul-

A-26

vert. As compared to the disturbance of

wetlands by the underground intercep-

tors, the proposed expansion will repre-

sent a permanent loss of wetland habitat

for wildlife in this area. As discussed

in the previous section of this report,

the cost of alternatives that would

avoid impact to wetlands (i.e., con-

structing new STP) were found to be pro-

hibitive. Of the alternative expansion

layouts considered, the proposed ar-

rangement was selected because it mini-

mizes the loss of wetlands.

Construction on the northern side of the

STP will pose potentially severe short-

term impacts to the Sparkill Creek which

traverses the northern edge of the site.

Clearing and grubbing could cause heavy

siltation of rivers and dewatering oper-

ation could seriously reduce the stream-

flow of the creek especially during per-

iods of low flow. As part of the spe-

cial environmental specifications, the

contractor will be required to restrict

clearing and grubbing to the minimum

easement, stay back from creek banks and

recharge the creek with filtered water

from the construction area.

Sludge Handling Facilities

Clarkstown Landfill Site - Composting

The site is located in the Hackensack

River Drainage Basin. The nearest major

tributary is Greenbush Brook, a Class

"C" waterway (suitable for fishing) that

runs north to south along the western

border of the landfill. A connecting

A-27

tributary to the north drains the com-

posting site. This tributary is several

hundred feet from the site and is des-

ignated a Class "D" waterway (suitable

for industrial or cooling uses). The

water assimilates and collects runoff

from the landfill and the urbanized ar-

eas along Route 303.

All effluent from composting operations,

including leachate from composting piles

and washdown water, will be collected in

a water retention pond and discharged to

a sanitary sewer on Greenbush Road. The

retention ponds will be sized to accom-

modate runoff resulting from the once in

10 year, 24 hour storm. Neither water

quality nor uses of adjacent waterways

will be adversely affected by composting

at the site.

The location of the composting facility

at the site will be compatible with the

adjacent use of the site for a sanitary

landfill. Since the area is presently

used as a waste processing area, a com-

posting facility will not alter the ac-

tual or perceived use of the site.

Potential Compost Application Sites

The compost market survey identified a

number of potential compost users in

Rockland County, such as landscapers and

nurseries. In addition, potential com-

post use as a cover material for the

Clarkstown landfill has been proposed.

Currently, no agricultural land is plan-

ned to be used for application of com-

A-28

posted sludge. Should agricultural land

be considered at a later time, sludge

applications would be limited to lands

used to grow field crops and application

rates would be subject to U.S. Depart-

ment of Agriculture guidelines for

Sludge application’ rates. Periodic

groundwater monitoring will be required

to assure that leachate is not contam-

inating the groundwater.

Water Supply

Almost 90 percent of the population of

Rockland County is served by the Spring

Valley Water Company which gets its sup-

ply primarily from Lake DeForest on the

Hackensack River, and a reservoir in

Stony Point and from an extensive

groundwater system. Because of a de-

crease in population projections over

the next 40 years, the water supply

which presently exists in the county

will be ade te into “the foreseeable

future. However, there are alternative

sites that are available for developing

new sources of water supply should the

need arise.

Under the proposed project, water that

has its origin in one of the river ba-

Sins in the sewer district will be

transferred to another basin when it is

treated and discharged. In addition to

household water, groundwater I/I enters

the sewers from all the basins. The ex-

isting and proposed sewer system

discharges the water from these basins

to the Hudson River.

A-29

The present interbasin transfers within

the sewer district have not been shown

to have a negative impact on the envi-

ronment through reductions of flow

streams. The proposed elimination of as

much I/I as is cost-effective will re-

duce such transfers to a minimum, pos-

sibly resulting in an overall reduction

in interbasin transfer even with the

proposed sewer system. Thus, the pro-

posed project will have no adverse im-

pact on water flows in the different

river basins.

Air Quality

The study area is within the New York

State designated Southern Tier East Air

Quality Control Region (AQCR).

At present, only, the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for photo-

chemical oxidants are being contravened

within the AQCR. A State Implementation

Plan has been prepared by New York State

which provides for the attainment of the

NAAQS within the AQCR. An analysis has

shown that the proposed project will not

by itself result in contravention of

NAAQS.

There will be localized dust and exhaust

emissions from construction equipment.

These will be mitigated by the proper

construction specifications. Operation

of the facilities should not result in

odors beyond the STP site.

Noise Levels

Noise levels will be high for short-term

A-30

periods (during construction), but will

be localized around construction sites.

The contractors will be respcrsible for

not exceeding the Occupational Safety

and Health Act (OSHA) standards for

noise exposure on a daily basis.

In conformance with the Advisory Council

of Historic Preservation Procedures, the

EPA must investigate the cultural re-

sources located within the project area

that would be affected by construction

of the proposed facilities. A cultural

resource investigation has shown that

there are no resources within the proj-

ect area which are on or eligible for

inclusion on the National Register of

Historic Places which will be affected

by the proposed construction.

Population and STP Design

The population of the planning area is

projected to increase from approximately

160,000 to 201,000 over the 20 year de-

sign period of the proposed sewerage fa-

cilities. The population projections

are based on recent development plans,

zoning, and a constraints analysis which

excluded environmentally sensitive areas

(such as wetlands, floodplains, agricul-

tural lands and steep slopes) from de-

velopment. These projections are

slightly lower than the population pro-

jections, prepared by the New York State

208 Water Quality Management Plan. The

increased capacity of the proposed STP

expansion is based on these population

projections for the service area.

Secondary Impacts

The proposed project may cause an in-

crease in the rate of development. How-

ever, except for the Viola Road inter-

ceptor, which conveys from the northern

portion of the district, the proposed

facilities provide sewers only in those

areas which are either developed or

where there is a strong potential for

development. As discussed under "Popu-

lation" the capacity of the STP is de-

signed only to handle flows from land

that is not environmentally sensitive.

In addition, grant conditions are being

used to prohibit the connections of fu-

ture development in wetlands and flood-

plains to the proposed facilities.

B. Steps to Minimize Adverse Effects

on the Environment

A NYSDEC permit will be require for con-

struction of collection and interceptor

system alignments crossing or parallel

to streams. Where permits are required,

all work in the vicinity of water bodies

must meet the New York State stream work

standards including specifications that

will insure no reduction or disruption

of stream flow which can endanger the

aquatic life or obstruct passage of

fish. Machinery must be operated from

the stream bank, not in the stream. Ex-

cept for stream crossings, all work must

be far enough from the bank that it is

not disturbed.

When the top of excavation is within ten

(10) feet of the top of any stream bank,

A-32

the Contractor shall provide protection

for the stream bank as approved by the

Engineer.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control

The Contractor shall, at the direction

of the engineer, use necessary methods

to minimize erosion from easements and

access roads, especially in stream or

watercourse areas. Right-of-way at sur-

face water crossings or. drainage ways

shall be protected by sandbagging, hay-

baling, mulch, or the use of jute or ex-

celsior blankets, as conditions require.

Methods of preventing erosion shall also

include berms, dikes, and other tempo-

Yary and permanent structures. Erosion

control methods shall be employed during

site clearing, construction of pipe-

lines, and at the time of final restora-

tion.

Air Quality

The major construction impacts will be

dust and exhaust emissions. Dust will

be controlled by water sprinkling and

sweeping of paved areas, and mulching on

unpaved areas. Natural materials, such

as chippings from on-site vegetation,

should be used for mulching whenever

possible. The use of calcium chloride

or petroleum products for dust control

will be prohibited.

Wetland Construction

Where construction must take place in or

A-33

adjacent to wetlands, the contractor

must adhere to the following environmen-

tal specifications.

Re

Prior to the start of construction,

fences and hay bales will be placed

around the edge of the construction

site that borders the wetland.

Metal cyclone fence must be used at

the STP site. All construction ac-

tivity will be limited to the area

behind the fence.

The original grading must be re-

stored in order to maintain the

original vegetation found there.

Manholes, where necessary in the

wetland, should be located as close

as possible to either end of the

wetland to reduce the length and

impact of the permanent access

road.

Impervious barriers should be

placed regularly across the trench

to prevent water flowing down the

slope of the line and draining ar-

ea.

NYSDEC and EPA must be notified at

least 48 hours in advance of con-

struction activity.

The culvert being used to replace

the swale must be of the same ele-

vation as swale to allow continued

wetland drainage pattern.

A-34

Tree and Shrub protection and

Replacement

No trees shall be cut without the per-

mission of the engineer or other des-

ignated authority. Trees not scheduled

for removal shall be carefully protected

from damage to bark by "boxing" with

snow fence of boardings. Where trees

are to be replaced, the replacement size

schedules shall be in accordance with

EPA-NYSDEC specifications.

Whenever excavation is to be performed

within the root zone of trees (normally

about the spread of the limbs), the con-

tractor shall prune damaged roots or

limbs over one inch diameter and prune

the tree to match the undamaged root

system. When the excavation is within

10 feet of trees over 38 cm (15 in) in

diameter, the contractor shall tunnel

under the tree.

The contractor will be responsible up to

and including a one year maintenance pe-

riod for the vegetation that has been

damaged or replaced during construction.

Special Grant Conditions \

To protect environmentally sensitive

areas from development the Federal con-

struction grants for this project will

include the condition prohibiting hook-

ups to the system from new development

located in floodplains and wetlands.

The following grant conditions will be

used:

A-35

The grantee shall submit to EPA and

the NYSDEC an approvable facilities

plan amendment including maps that

clearly delineate all specific va-

cant parcels of land within the 100

year floodplain as defined by the

U.S. Department of Housing and Ur-

ban Development (HUD), or within

wetlands as defined by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service no later

than 45 days after grant accep-

tance. These maps must also show

which parcels had been developed

prior to date of issuance of find-

ing of no significant impact/envi-

ronmental assessment (FNSI/EA).

The grantee agrees that for a peri-

od of 50 years from the date of the

FNSI/EA no sewer hook-up or other

connections to the sewage collec-

tion system included in the scope

of this grant will be allowed or

permitted so as to allow the dis-

charge of wastewater from = any

building, facility or other con-

struction on any parcel of land

within any wetlands or within the

100 year floodplain, which land

parcel as of the date of the

FNSI/EA was undeveloped (i.e., upon

which no building, facility or

other construction had been erected

or placed) unless approved in writ-

ing by the Regional Administrator.

This condition is intended to bene-

fit any persons or private organi-

zation or governmental entity which

may have an interest in the

VIII.

A-36

avoidance of any future development

in the designated areas. Any such

beneficiary (who may otherwise have

standing to seek enforcement and

the right to begin such action in a

court of competent jurisdiction)

may seek to enforce compliance with

this condition in the courts of the

State of New York against the gran-

tees or any non-Federal person, or-

ganization, or entity subject to

this condition if notice of intent

to seek such enforcement is first

given to the EPA Regional Adminis-

trator, New York State Department

of Environmental Conservation, the

grantee and affected governmental

entities and if none of those so

noticed fails to initiate correc-

tive action within ninety days of

such notice.

If the facilities plan amendment

required under a. above delineates

any vacant parcels which will be

affected by this special condition,

the grantee will conduct a public

hearing within 60 days of submis-

sion of the facilities plan amend-

ment. The public hearing must be

preceded by a notice of 45 days,

during which time the facilities

plan amendment will be made avail-

able to the public. The public

hearing record will remain open for

30 days after the hearing to allow

for additional public input.

Coordination of Environmental

Review and Reference Documents

Consulted

A-37

Public Participation Program

Four public information meetings

were held in three locations in the

RCSD No. 1 relative to _ location,

alignment and service area for the

interceptors. One was held in

Orangetown concerning the STP ex-

pansion. As a result of these

meetings, major changes were made

in the alignments or service pro-

vided by the Mahwah River inter-

ceptor and the Conklin Road inter-

ceptor. In response to comments

from the residents of Orangetown

concerning odor control, new treat-

ment processes were reviewed with

respect to elimination of odors.

Review of the proposed plan result-

ed in the requirement that the com-

post facility be completely enclos-

ed for operational and odor control

reasons.

On January 28, 1980, a public hear-

ing was held at 8:00 PM in the

Clarkstown Town Hall Auditorium

concerning proposed RCSD No. 1 fa-

cilities. A number of questions

and objections were raised concern-

ing the proposed project.

The most discussed issue at the

hearing concerned existing and po-

tential odors at the RCSD No. 1

STP. The following is a partial

list of the measures that have been

A-38

and will be taken to deal with odor

control’‘at the STP:

he

2.

10.

Discontinuing use of Zimpro

oxidation unit.

Improved process and sludge

handling equipment and proce-

dures which will minimize sol-

ids recycled in the plant.

Covers over the existing and

proposed primary settling

tanks.

Covered air driven rotating

biological contactors which

will replace the present open

aeration tanks.

Odor control ventilation in

solids handling areas and im-

proved process control and in-

formation systems.

Aerated grit removal.

Covered and ventilated sludce

thickeners,

Prechlorination of influent

sewage.

Covered digestor feedbox and

overflow boxes.

Equipment redundancy will pro-

vide additional safeguards

against process component

failure.

A-39

The Hackensack Water company objec-

ted to the location of the compost-

ing site at the Clarkstown landfill

because of possible contamination

of groundwater or surface water.

As discussed in Section VII, the

composting facilities will be en-

closed on an impervious pad. It

will be contoured to collect runoff

in a water retention pond which

will discharge the runoff back to

the STP for treatment.

The water retention pond will be

sized to collect the runoff from

the entire compost site that would

be produced from a 10 year, 24 hour

storm. In addition, the covered

compost facility provides up to six

months compost storage.

A number of residents asked about

the possible relocation of the STP

and alternatives to expansion. Al-

though portions of the infiltra-

tion/inflow to the RCSD No. 1 STP

are planned to be removed, flows to

the STP due to I/I which it is not

cost-effective to remove and due to

the increased population, still

make expansion of the STP neces-

sary. The use of an alternate

treatment site was precluded by the

enormous cost that a new site (in-

cluding new conveyance facilities

and new outfall to river) would re-

quire.

Two residents questioned the inter-

basin transfer of water that will

A-40

occur with the proposed project.

As discussed in the environmental

assessment, the district is com-

prised primarily of the drainage

basins of three river systems: the

Hackensack River which drains to

the tidal Meadowlands, the Mahwah

which drains toward the southwest

to the Ramapo River and the Minis-

ceongo which drains north and then

east to the Hudson River. Water

that is discharged to the existing

and proposed system has its origin

in more than one river basin and is

used in others. In addition to

household wastewater, I/I enters

the sewers from all three basins.

The existing and proposed system

discharges water from these river

basins to the Hudson River. The

present interbasin transfers within

the sewer district have not been

shown to have a negative impact

through reduction of stream flow.

The proposed elimination of I/I

will reduce such transfers to a

minimum,

Several of the residents complained

that the opportunity to speak at

the public hearing did not occur

until such a late hour that they

had to leave before they had the

opportunity to be heard. In re-

sponse, the sewer district sent a

copy of the responsiveness summary

of the public hearing to all those

who signed up to speak but did not

do so. The sewer district invited

these residents to submit written

A-41

comments or raise questions con-

cerning the issues.

On July 30, 1980 at 8:00 PM a pub-

lic hearing was held in the town of

Ramapo Town Hall concerning the

proposed Ramapo collection sewers.

Several residents requested infor-

mation concerning the proposed sew-

ers that would serve them. No ob-

jections were raised to the proj-

ect.

Federal State and Local Agencies

Consulted

il. Agencies Consulted:

- U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

- New York State Department

of Environmental Conser-

vation

- U.S. Environmental Pro-

tection Agency

y Documents Consulted:

- New York State Water

Quality Management Plan

for Rockland County

- Wastewater Facilities

Plans -

a. Rockland County Sew-

er District No. 1

Interceptors, Force

Main and Pump

269:101

A-42

Station, Volumes 1

and 2

Rockland County Sew-

er District No. 1

Sewage Treatment

Plant

Rockland County Sew-

er District No. 1

Sludge Management

Report

Ramapo Extension to

Collection System

A- 43

;

‘

WESTCHESTER COuectt’

LOCATION PLAN

Figure I

A- 44

a

* MOUNT S.-M y :

* > ve mate ~~ ' 3

t - — i tee “hae te eo ! ' *\

b ast vs = { ers 18s -4

’ - . Par ae” €- > FY"

I ens: . ae Agtt | A

i, Cr en Cees

poem -' he ST. Oe j 4 ¢:

4 a8 ae

er

i NAS 7 hae its Mr ivy SOUT. oe lee

aro “ a {|g FORCE mann P

? j ‘

fo, VILLAGE os} Pt

wT wy s6uTa % :

POWONA

eo) TAC oA

4

:

' md

: POMONA... HEIGHTS §

I. 2

pied

iP rc ee , Satay |

b Fb eaerecutt = 35 *\

vf fc rng j ~~ a ' \?- eid hoe 3 Tatar cS? 5.

By Uses “tee Ue \ IS$CCN°

EY Ree ee "4 tet PHOMONA

< jf = % a a h® ne “7! eoeee a7} .¢

Preset Name Mg Sa I ee tg font

<*> 4 “. . wt =

s! , . : '¢ reant rt = 7° -\

ey een : ;

. manne ‘aommnaommnnnanaite mt OS Oe | A .

Fig ye ay EY é

it é! \ i ‘6 t

wens \ any ~ Sovran? @s

= =—- ERS EO

“| | |! _powona -.. :

gunetasou; ~ Son MTERCEFIOR SUNiNZI-

* : Powein af 8

“ 3 FORCE mans! PA

fou = - Pv t

oH og) ott

; hy) :

¢ A o~ ct

. te Ol we L

= Onn. 0ge* t

c _ "facet -/ L

t . be) 4 tc

LEGEND 3A: whe. | é ¢

: py 4 t

Proposed late: cote, - - %

— sewers aT ” see *

_-—-——— Proposed lateral gt ote , i .

sewers ineligible ‘ss '.

===" for federal funding “4:

Tuwts Of Remapo Proposed Collection Sewers

Figure ¢

A- 45

LEGeENd

Proposed latera!

sewers

Proposed lateral

sewers ineligible

for federa) fund)

Town ut Remayo Proposed Collection Sewers

Fi jure 3

A- 46

cs 8, , 7

ee a ; ra 3%

LEGENO

Proposed latera!

a sewers

---——— Proposed lateral

Sewers ineligible

——— = for federal funding |

Tow of Ramapo lrovused SeweqeCol lection System

s

A- 47

reer gat

f f ?

} ( i;

TR eg Jae na oo” LEGEAw

oy, . 7

eee Nf

Proposed laterg)

-ewers

Proposed lateral

Sewers tneligiole

for federal fundi:

m Hlection Sewer

-a% ys Town of Ruma Pr pong Co

— # bigure

A- 48

Y :

wae ¥

“ete aij) rs ls

‘yer rele

q Gip §Onate-.

rel t starcacy

ar}

7 fas Mr hawe (eee the

4 :

“fi

: :

’ )

4 uC

~~ ?

J SMCK LLY OM 1

|

f

u p

7

Towm GAP COUN ‘ Py wea

“ SPOOK ROCK PU ‘ Ors . pt .

U3 SOUTH PUMHING STATION? Panag —P i iy \] 9 x

cj i a I %

te <—e il ¢f

ipiolals alot tT Sag) thee’

“4:

{| ge

Nemes.

AAs?

P

LEGEND

— Proposed later

Sewers

we mmm PPOSed Letor.

SQwers Ineligus

tor fevere) fur

Town of Remepo Propused Cuollention Sewers

r 'gure 5

A- 49

-

}

* - ~~

~ ee

, ~ v "

ye

,

4

a ae |

? voor

/ ] go O19 ht

(yh - sis Ba

, wiv ae To 2 ao Sanp

Se ea >

Weer ey ate teen pion eo :

% “ela tom!

‘ ‘ ~ s ‘ ’

’ ‘ 3 Soe eh t0.400, }

/ bd er

'.. S a 9 ) cantanahd

be “J Ness ‘scer

r feat 2, * 7

) ~ 0Aharg, “ows, ~.

Te ee ee ee oe al - “)-

Ce ee ne ee ee Le AAS A

~~ gr Nee ty Se ty.

” . 1 qsee e

eo? ; < e. Pe ~ ec

gf ' » ‘ px a

%, > ae ease

CAS te EN A as wae i oy

jt t TAS is mel — .

4 ‘Ja

ry

7 4

“4 ’

, 4

< 7

ween te Mee mee Sa am

/ A

“~ P i .

reer . ie *

an) wes ber mre +) ae

fim. +

Vere meer

io

fewmrinn at

sn

mite iE ms

mee

a

\

e

oe ret

woth ae i oie

, 6 et Swe:

Matwalr Basin Interceptor Sewer System

RCSD No. |

Fieure /

A- 50

Bie ESEPIRR wien TREAPIE IS AIT

(TO 3€ Ure TEO)

7 5 00% &

ear wwe MRT .. we

mite «le a aig

_——

—- 20. taiaiasonlal —_- mart) | -

WD ka (C® Bi SA\\ ——

- $8 ue? wreut aff Vie east asece ee ragit

— * S (TC GE SScgt eS EO)

aaa Ah.

l - j ie by oe " tat wy, ‘VE \ Y w bs i

PY Wee —- : LN ory a \ >.

72) row rf -' ee i “Nl tie Ae

rw ii \ NN \"} } ad

‘ ist

| if : = ie" als . ria w/w

: q 2 ‘ie a ee a S = STA —_ , WA

‘ est HAPPY “AL

CF

TREATMENT RANT "19s Pyeee

5 5 tif ae O1SSTANALIES! Le suit

-* —— ee \

;

Siae

(MtERCEP TCA Ae

NN

| sl ebes tev

“5 ExG% SLOTFe aC as 2 85 4 4

{* 4 . re

‘A ee <§ra — rig NE fu q _ aa R 2

wT) = ta d B abe — “at z . { -. =“ ee

err eta as

i

U . s Sud |

Fy 3 Ae are ae Pe

{/> LxisT ‘ve: ts 0 Wid, \l, =

=:: tae = Pi : - oa: ©

ey i wéconnee ES) =f : ee :

4 X : bind “ »> on :-

Rtas a i al :

" ei i . ~~

. ra ae a re a= we

~ i! me me *%. +:

‘ Se ' \ ‘ ;

ae Sais roposed RCSO fo. I Int

mm 8 -— S| Sewers

a ate es ’ Minisceongo Basin Sy

es

a . \

1 eee ‘ . Figure 8

9 ¢ 2

——_——_—

A- 51

CONCKLIN RO.

FORCE MAIN

i"

PrULLIPS Hick

“3 INTERCEPTOR -

6's EXISTING TO

PUMPING ST.

Lae TO BE ABA

Sycamore 8 eB

E TION INTERCEPT.

BUENA VISTA PUMPING \

STATION INTIKCEFTOR —————= #! . E .

BUENA VISTA PS. (FxIST ovate Boy ar srcauone PS

LEGEND MAF (Exist. - orstericr)

——>— EXISTING FACILITES

oome{peeee PROPOSED INTERCLPTORS, STAGE 3 HOCKL AND COUNTY SEWER DIY

— p—— PROPOSED FORCE MAINS , STAGE 3 at eee ee

o PROPOSED PUMPING STATIONS, PHILLIPS HILL RO.-CONCKLIN

STAGE 3 INTERCEPTOR SCWER:

iiiemtehes TOWN PACILINICS Ta ue AcuRES Figure 9

ev Toes Ger len?

ME. 7s oO’

-

——-—

weeTee ~\ a | eererr yy e +4 oastte } 3 a

\ Re acca cok md P ‘

tote F _ "oe » salle « © wal a ‘Ma ii

ln hte be as ob ; . -

4 “S Chae aA, \ Ther a

wn setae H " iethiele: § “te

efits tyne! Meat . — ‘

Ben tese

Mined

Hardwoods

=-

Existing RCSD No. 1 STP and Adjacent Environment

Figure 10

oY

zs

t

ac wo & ;

!

'

—

- -

\

>

-— =, i

“Sh '

>

. ra TS |

. caneammentng Gp 9 ag aoa amen t » |

‘ : CG. el et ee ene 4!

a _- -! . | . Y.

; : : <=.

= eens is t j rt 4 ee

i owe Sion | | ‘ ‘ ae et ~~

a eee. “ower bs \ | ' | \ i

~“ Yt oo - ore —- «+! ! ' i | : i Th ee aco wee —

. , H i .

‘ a ; }

Se ee — ' -

- eal | ts -—---— : ) | | ‘

nantes H . f ' ) ” ' | tower Convene a

° —_— - -

~~ ae ae i ‘ r | | | w 8 joe corerercr et! Bd ow

3 * Spee : eae A ie

——— -* : a ras a H

; : . -—>

ne =a ‘ = =? orn -

* ie ee Sat ee

. aad s ee % ! ' — —

° eo 6 ae > .

~

fae

— =

‘

-

ou m=

® «©

ae’ wh aete

28 Shi Note Mote heniaitinds

o = ————— - -

.

oer

tot’)

BAS°CaswEe hese orr-.° *.5%°

* cre ate

PROPOSED Ye: 37°

Figure Il

Gast Cepy Available

=v

€S

os

A- 54

eee

Alla

RAMAPO ——~ 3

INCINERATOR

SITE

} 202 |

mamard

wu

<—

Gs)

03 INOUSTRIAL |

ETOWN

mms m ees

POTENTIAL COMPOSTING SITES

Figure 12

END OF DOCKET