Chapter 18B: Project Design Alternatives 18B.1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Chapter 18 of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) presents and analyzes alternatives to the Proposed Project. The analysis of alternatives in this DEIS is presented in four parts that, following an introduction, together make up Chapter 18: • Chapter 18A, which analyzes process and operational alternatives to the Proposed Project; • Chapter 18B (this chapter), which evaluates design alternatives for the Proposed Project; • Chapter 18C, which assesses the Ambrey Pond Reservoir Alternative; and • Chapter 18D, which assesses the Wastewater Reuse Alternative. To comply with SEQRA, environmental impact statements (EISs) must include an evaluation of alternatives that seeks to identify “reasonable alternatives available.” As set forth in the SEQRA regulations, EISs must include “a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor.”1 The SEQRA regulations call for analysis of a No Action Alternative—in which the Proposed Project is not implemented—as well as a range of alternatives, that “may also include, as appropriate, alternative: (a) sites; (b) technology; (c) scale or magnitude; (d) design; (e) timing; (f) use; and (g) types of action.”2 Chapters 18A, 18C, and 18D consider alternative technologies, uses, and types of actions. This chapter considers alternative sites and designs for the Proposed Project. 18B.1.1. CHAPTER ORGANIZATION After this introduction, this chapter of the DEIS includes the following sections: Section 18B.2: Alternative Sites for the Proposed Project. Section 18B.3: Alternative Energy Sources for the Proposed Project. Section 18B.4: Alternative Uses for Brine and Wastewater. 18B.1.2. SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS The analyses presented in this chapter discuss a range of project design alternatives considered during the development and design of the Proposed Project. Upon the analysis of numerous alternatives regarding location of the Proposed Project components, energy sources, and 1 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(v) 2 Ibid. 18B-1 Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS alternative uses of treatment process byproducts, this chapter concludes that the Proposed Project meets the purpose and need for the project in the most effective and feasible manner. United Water New York Inc. (United Water) conducted a rigorous site selection process to identify suitable locations for the Proposed Project’s water treatment plant and intake pumping station. A total of 13 sites in the Towns of Clarkstown, Haverstraw, and Stony Point were identified and evaluated. The site selection process focused on the eastern portion of United Water’s Rockland County service area, close to the proposed Hudson River water source, to facilitate withdrawal of water from the river for treatment with limited need for pumping, and to take advantage of land in existing industrial or utility areas (i.e., brownfield land). Project designs to locate the Intake Structure outside the Haverstraw Bay Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (SCFWH) area were also considered, yet were deemed infeasible due to a variety of factors, including engineering obstacles and parkland alienation. The proposed Water Treatment Plant Site and site for the intake pumping station and intake structure, at the former Town of Haverstraw Landfill Site and on an industrial parcel adjacent to the U.S. Gypsum plant, respectively, are deemed to be the most suitable sites for the Proposed Project. United Water is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving energy efficiency, and increasing and promoting renewable energy generation. This chapter discusses alternative energy generation options for the Proposed Project that could reduce its demand for power from the existing electrical grid. On-site and off-site wind power generation was evaluated, as well as the potential for on-site solar power generation and the use of off-site renewable energy sources. The analyses conclude that on-site wind turbines would have a marginal ability to offset the Proposed Project’s energy demands, whereas the off-site construction of a 2.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbine at United Water’s Lake DeForest Reservoir could provide up to 22 percent of the projected energy use of the Proposed Project. This option, however, would result in several environmental impacts. Solar power generation options were shown to provide between 2 and 7.8 percent of the projected energy demand. The incorporation of potential alternative energy sources for the Proposed Project will be further evaluated as design advances. This chapter also discusses possible alternative uses for the wastewater, solid wastes, and brine generated as byproducts of the proposed water treatment processes. Wastewater generated by the water treatment process potentially could be reused for irrigation, in the manner described in some detail in Chapters 18A and 18D. This chapter concludes that the volumes of wastewater anticipated to be produced by the Proposed Project are not large enough to warrant the investment needed to further treat and transport the wastewater for reuse. Alternative uses of solid waste generated by the Proposed Project indicate that solid wastes, in the form of sludge, following dewatering, could be recycled and used as compost, provided that the salinity levels of the materials were suitable for such use. No other feasible reuse of the solid waste was identified. Finally, alternative reuse options for the brine that is a byproduct of the Proposed Project were explored. The assessment of reusing brine as a road de-icing solution concluded that the salinity of the brine would be too low, and the sulfate concentration too high. The low salinity of the brine could actually contribute to further road icing, and the expense and energy consumption necessary to increase its salinity and decrease its sulfate concentration renders its reuse infeasible and uneconomical. Other uses, including the use of diluted brine for irrigation purposes, or to produce sodium hypochlorite, a chemical used in the water treatment process, were also evaluated. Neither reuse was deemed economically feasible due to anticipated cost of implementation. 18B-2 Chapter 18B: Project Design Alternatives 18B.2. ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 18B.2.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE This alternative describes the site selection process undertaken for the Proposed Project and evaluates alternative sites for the Proposed Project that would locate the raw water intake outside of the boundaries of the Haverstraw Bay Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (SCFWH), either to the south or north of Haverstraw Bay. As discussed in this DEIS in Chapter 9A, “Aquatic Natural Resources,” the area of the Hudson River where the Proposed Project’s river water intake is proposed to be located is within the Haverstraw Bay SCFWH. As shown in Figure 9A-2 in that chapter, the SCFWH occupies the full width of the Hudson River, from Rockland County to Westchester County. It extends approximately six miles on the Hudson River, from Hook Mountain State Park in Rockland County and Croton Point in Westchester County on the south, to Stony Point in Rockland County and Verplanck in Westchester County on the north. According to the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS), the following qualify Haverstraw Bay as a SCFWH under New York State’s Coastal Management Program: the extensive shallow estuarine habitat areas; the occurrence of commercial and recreational fisheries; the use of Haverstraw Bay as a nursery, feeding and/or overwintering area for marine and anadromous species; and the presence of vulnerable or sensitive species (i.e., endangered or threatened). The Haverstraw Bay SCFWH encompasses the entire river over this approximate six- mile reach, which is the widest section of the Hudson River. This brackish water portion of the river is highly productive and comprises a substantial part of the nursery area for striped bass, American shad, white perch, tomcod, and Atlantic sturgeon. Other anadromous species, including blueback herring and alewife, spawn in upstream freshwater areas but concentrate here before moving downriver in the fall. The bay is also a major nursery and feeding area for bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, and blue crab. Depending on the location of the salt front, a majority of the spawning and wintering populations of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River may reside here. The endangered shortnose sturgeon also overwinters here. Large numbers of waterfowl use the area for feeding and resting during spring and fall migrations. As noted in the NYSDOS’s coastal fish and wildlife habitat rating form for the Haverstraw Bay SCFWH, “Despite various habitat disturbances, Haverstraw Bay possesses a combination of physical and biological characteristics that make it one of the most important fish and wildlife habitats in the Hudson River estuary.”1 As discussed in Chapter 17, “Coastal Zone Consistency,” in the discussion of coastal zone management Policy 7, NYSDOS has established guidance for assessing whether a proposed activity would protect, preserve, and, where practical, restore SCFWHs, which is the intent of Policy 7. Guidance documents state that (1) “[a] habitat impairment test must be met for any activity that is subject to consistency