b.3. environmental consequences - new york state ......limited to the new pier footings south of the...

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-37 September 2008

There are no long-term local or regional economic impacts anticipated due to these relocations.

NYSDOT Real Estate staff conducted a Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan to determine the availability of adequate replacement sites. The complete relocation plan can be found in Appendix H. Based on this analysis, sufficient available residential and commercial properties exist on the market to accommodate these relocations. There are no highway construction or other projects by any public or private agency scheduled that would affect the availability of replacement property. It is estimated that the relocations on this project can be accomplished within one year from the date of vesting.

B.3. Environmental Consequences

This section describes the impacts of each of the Build Alternatives on the natural environment, including water resources, wildlife habitat, parks, air quality, noise levels, cultural resources, and contaminated materials.

B.3.a. Surface Waters/Wetlands

This section discusses the inter-related topics of surface waters, wetlands, coastal zone resources, navigable waters, and floodplains.

The descriptions of the No Build and Build Alternatives presented below are relevant to several of the environmental discussions that follow.

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would make no physical or operational improvements to the Kosciuszko Bridge, but would continue NYSDOT’s existing maintenance program. There would be little change to existing conditions in the study area, and no fill or excavation would take place in Newtown Creek.

Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6

During construction, up to six temporary pile-supported staging platforms would be constructed in Newtown Creek and remain in place until the end of the construction period. Newtown Creek would be dredged to provide adequate depth for barges serving the platforms. Based on the existing bathymetry, dredging is expected be to be required only on the Queens side of the Creek. The dredging would provide a minimum of 5.2 m (17 ft) below mean low water (MLW). This would require removal of approximately 2,750 cubic meters (3,597 cubic yards) of creek-bed sediments, over an area of 2,598 square meters (3,107 square yards). Deteriorated concrete bulkheads along the creek banks would be converted to riprap sideslopes in the area immediately below the proposed new structures. A new stormwater handling system would be installed. Stormwater from the south end of the project (from approximately Sutton Street to Van Dam Street in Brooklyn) would be conveyed to an existing storm sewer system. The remainder of the stormwater runoff would be conveyed to Newtown Creek after passing through stormwater management measures such as specially designed settling tanks designed to remove suspended solids and pollutants from the stormwater run off. New storm-sewer outfalls would be installed on each side of the creek.



Alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5

Similar to Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6, up to six temporary pile-supported staging platforms would be constructed in Newtown Creek and remain in place until the end of the construction period, and dredging in Newtown Creek would be required. Deteriorated concrete bulkheads along the creek banks would be converted to riprap sideslopes below the entire width of the proposed structures. The stormwater handling strategy would be similar to alternatives RA-5 and RA-6. In contrast to Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6, the existing concrete Main Span pier foundations would be demolished and removed to approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) below the mudline.

Figures IV-15, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Plan,” and IV-16, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Sections,” show the proposed temporary platforms and dredging, and Figure IV-17, “Proposed Riprap – Plan View,” shows the proposed riprap protection.

SURFACE WATERS

Surface waters are water bodies located aboveground such as a stream, river, lake, sea or ocean. Surface waters in the New York City region are not utilized for drinking water and are protected primarily for their habitat function. Figure IV-18, “Surface Waters,” identifies surface waters in the vicinity of the Kosciuszko Bridge.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, pertains to dredging or filling "waters of the United States." By authority of 33 CFR 320-330, USACE has jurisdiction over all "waters of the United States" and a Section 404 permit from the USACE is required to dredge or fill in those waters.

State regulation of surface waters is enabled by Title 6 of the New York State Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 703, which sets quality standards for New York State surface waters. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NYSDOT and NYSDEC regarding Articles 15 and 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) was signed February 12, 1997. That MOU authorized NYSDOT to conduct certain activities affecting waterways (e.g., removing streambank vegetation, placing stone scour protection, channelization, excavating or filling navigable waterways) without an individual permit from NYSDEC, provided that NYSDOT coordinates with NYSDEC as prescribed in the MOU.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1341) pertains to protecting the quality of surface waters. Section 401 requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States must obtain certification from the state agency charged with water pollution control. In New York, it is implemented at the state level by NYSDEC through the issuance of a Water Quality Certification.

METHODOLOGY

Information regarding surface waters was obtained from a literature search and from city, state, and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations. Early coordination meetings were held with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) on August 24, 2004, NYSDEC on April 20, 2005 and May 6, 2005, USACE and USCG on May 12, 2005 and USEPA on June 21, 2005.



Direct observations were made during site inspections on June 29, 2004, April 20, 2005, July 28, 2006 and January 25, 2007. Appendix I describes field observations in greater detail.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Kosciuszko Bridge crosses Newtown Creek approximately two miles east of where the creek enters the East River and New York Harbor as shown in Figure IV-18, “Surface Waters.” Newtown Creek is approximately 90 m (300 ft) wide at the bridge crossing. An estuarine tributary, Newtown Creek has been substantially modified over the years, with bulkheads along the entire length. Several ‘dead end’ tributaries flow into Newtown Creek: Dutch Kills and Whale Creek, approximately one mile to the west of the Kosciuszko Bridge, and Maspeth Creek and English Kills, to the east of the bridge. Newtown Creek has no freshwater sources.

Land uses along Newtown Creek are predominately industrial, manufacturing, warehouse, transportation, and utility uses. Several large, vacant, former industrial parcels are located adjacent to the creek. The land uses in the project area are more fully described in Section II.C.1.c.

SURFACE WATER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

The No Build Alternative would not result in any short-term changes to the existing surface waters.

Construction of the proposed project would disturb Newtown Creek sediment, since all of the Build Alternatives would require dredging of Newtown Creek for construction of temporary barge docking areas. Construction would also include conversion of deteriorated concrete bulkheads along the creek banks to riprap-lined sideslopes in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Alternatives BR-2, BR-3 and BR-5 would all require demolition and removal of the existing pier foundations along the creek sides. Any ground disturbing activity adjacent to Newtown Creek, such as construction of new pier footings or regrading, has the potential to result in construction-phase erosion and consequently sedimentation in Newtown Creek resulting from stormwater runoff. Any in-water work (such as dredging, placement of riprap, and construction of the temporary platforms) has the potential to cause turbidity in the creek. Potential impacts to water quality and wildlife due to these activities are discussed in Sections IV.B.3.b and IV.B.3.c, respectively.

Temporary impacts to Newtown Creek would include narrowing the navigable width of the creek due to the placement of the temporary platforms (refer to section III.C.2.q for navigational impacts).

The relative potential impact of each alternative is summarized in Table IV-10.



TABLE IV-10: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATERS

Relative Impact of Each Alternative

No Build RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5

Newtown Creek Sediments (Dredging Required)

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Replace Bulkheads with Riprap [meters (feet)]

No Limited

34 (112)

Limited

34 (112)

Moderate

131(430)

Moderate

131 (430)

Moderate

131 (430)

Removal of Existing Pier Footings from Creek

Area of Disturbance [m2 (ft2)]

No

--

No

--

No

--

Yes

407 (4,379)

Yes

407 (4,379)

Yes

407 (4,379)

Operation Period

The No Build Alternative would not result in any long-term changes to the existing surface waters.

For the Build Alternatives, permanent impacts to the surface waters would include changed creek-bed bathymetry (underwater topography), a modified creek bank configuration, and changed creekbed and creek bank surface materials. The creekbed bathymetry would be altered in three ways: dredging, reconfiguration, and placement of riprap. As shown in Figure IV-15, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Plan,” and Figure IV-16, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Sections,” each of the Build Alternatives alters the creekbed bathymetry on the Queens side of Newtown Creek by dredging approximately 2,750 cubic meters (3,597 cubic yards) of creek-bed material to accommodate construction barges. Waterward of the platforms, the creek-bed would be dredged to 5.2 m (17 ft) below MLW to provide sufficient draft for construction barges to dock at the temporary construction platforms. Beneath the platforms, the creekbed would be dredged to form a stable 1:3 slope up to the existing grade. This dredging would result in lowering the creekbed up to approximately 3 m (10 ft) in some locations. The design of the temporary platforms and the associated dredging has not been advanced sufficiently to differentiate between Build Alternatives. However, records of creekbed elevations over time suggest that creekbed morphology is dynamic, and that dredged areas would return to pre-existing contours over time.

The creekbank configuration would be altered by eliminating the bulkheads on both sides of the creek in the vicinity of the bridge and reshaping the creekbank to a 1:3 or flatter slope. This removal of the bulkheads would result in a slightly wider creek in the vicinity of the bridge. The Rehabilitation with Auxiliary Lanes Alternatives would require relatively small areas of riprap limited to the new pier footings south of the existing footings (Alternative RA-5) or north of the existing footings (Alternative RA-6). The Bridge Replacement Alternatives would require relatively large areas of riprap to protect the additional new piers and to stabilize the portion of the creekbank where the existing piers would be removed. The removal of the existing piers under the Bridge Replacement Alternatives would provide additional water column habitat.

The surficial materials of the creek bed and bank would change from sediments and vertical stone/concrete bulkheads to sloped riprap (broken stone) that would be placed to protect the new bridge piers from erosion. The majority of the creekbed in the vicinity of the bridge would remain at existing contours and the riverbed sediments would remain in place. In the long term,



dredging and reconfiguring the creekbanks would be beneficial since the existing potentially contaminated materials would be replaced by non-contaminated materials.

The slight additional shading from the new, wider bridge deck would not alter the character of Newtown Creek. Although the proposed Build Alternatives are 18 to 27 m (60 to 90 ft) wider than the existing structure, and would be lower than the existing bridge at a height of 27 m (90 ft), each would be high enough above Newtown Creek to avoid shading concerns (Stadnick, NYSDEC, April 20, 2006).

MITIGATION

Construction Period

Mitigation for potential water quality impacts during construction are addressed in section IV.B.3.b. Mitigation for potential impacts to fish and other aquatic life is discussed in section IV.B.3.c.

Operation Period

The proposed project would not cause any permanent adverse impacts to Newtown Creek. The Build alternatives would result in a slight deepening and widening of the creek in the vicinity of the bridge.

WETLANDS

Wetlands are land areas that are transitional between upland and aquatic ecosystems. Wetlands are important because they serve as habitats for fish and wildlife, purify water, maintain groundwater supplies, prevent flooding, support water-dependent uses by humans, and provide critical habitats for threatened and endangered species. Several scientific and regulatory definitions are used to denote an area as wetland. State and federal laws protect wetlands, watercourses, and waterbodies.


At the federal level, alterations to federal wetlands are regulated by the USACE in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).

Presidential Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands, issued in 1978, mandates that federal agencies avoid new construction in wetlands unless there is no practical alternative, and the proposed action must include all practical measures to minimize harm. This mandate applies to any project that is federally funded or permitted and is applicable to this project because the Newtown Creek Littoral Zone is a state-defined tidal wetland type, as described below.

Federal regulations define wetlands according to three parameters: soil indicators, vegetation dominated by plants adapted for growing in wetlands, and indicators of hydrology. For the most part, state and federal wetlands coincide; however, there are instances where wetland boundaries differ.

New York State regulations include Title 6 NYCRR 663, which governs freshwater wetlands and Title 6 NYCRR 661, which applies to tidal wetlands. These regulations are implemented by



NYSDEC through its Freshwater Wetlands Regulatory Program and Tidal Wetlands Protection Program, respectively. Activities within or adjacent to freshwater or tidal wetlands and waterways are subject to the permit requirements of NYSDEC. ECL Article 25 relates to impacts to tidal wetlands such as Newtown Creek. Outside the Adirondack Park, a joint NYSDEC/USACE permit application procedure is in place.

Title 6 NYCRR Part 663, defines freshwater wetlands as “lands or waters of the state which meet the definition provided in subdivision 24-0107.1 of the Act1 and have an area of at least 12.4 acres, or if smaller, have unusual local importance as determined by the Commissioner.” Title 6 NYCRR 661, defines tidal wetlands as “any lands delineated as tidal wetlands on an inventory map and shall comprise the following classifications as delineated on such map: coastal fresh marsh, intertidal marsh, coastal shoals, bars and flats, littoral zone, high marsh or salt meadow, and formerly connected tidal wetlands.”

METHODOLOGY

Wetlands data were researched from several available sources. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) provides National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides soil survey maps. The NWI maps for the Brooklyn and Queens area were obtained and reviewed.

Tidal wetland maps were obtained from the NYSDEC Region 2 office. Direct observations by individuals trained in wetland delineation were made during site inspections on June 29, 2004, April 20, 2005, July 28, 2006, and January 25, 2007. Appendix I describes field observations in greater detail.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Newtown Creek is the only wetland identified on NWI mapping (refer to Appendix I) within 46 m (150 ft) of the project area. The NWI mapping assigns the waters within the defined creek banks a habitat classification E1UBL (System E = Estuarine, Subsystem 1 = Subtidal, Class UB = Unconsolidated Bottom, Modifier L = Subtidal Water Regime).

The NYSDEC tidal wetland maps indicate that no tidal wetlands have been delineated anywhere along the shoreline of Newtown Creek or its tributaries. The entire basin itself, from English Kills to the East River, is classified as Littoral Zone (LZ). The Littoral Zone is defined as the tidal wetland zone that includes all lands under tidal waters which are not included in any other category. As defined by NYSDEC ECL Article 25, Tidal Wetlands Guidance and Information, there is no LZ under waters deeper than 2 m (6 ft) at mean low water.2

Direct observations along the banks of Newtown Creek in the vicinity of the bridge failed to identify any unmapped vegetated tidal wetlands. Vegetation in the intertidal zone is limited to algae. One small 1.5 m x 3 m (5 ft x 10 ft) colony of common reed (Phragmites australis) is present above the Mean High Water (MHW) line within the project area just east of the existing bridge in Brooklyn. Common reed is an invasive hydrophytic plant with a wetland indicator status designation FACW. However, none of the tidal wetland plant species indicative of a

1 'The Act' refers to the Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24 and Title 23 of Article 71 of the ECL).

2 Tidal Wetland Maps, Maps 590-506, 508; 588-508,510; 586-508, 510, NYSDEC.



healthy tidal wetland as defined in Section 1(b) of NYSDEC ECL Article 25 are present (species such as Spartina species, Distichlis spicata, or Typha species.) The absence of those species suggests pollution levels in the creek are presently too high to support healthy vegetated tidal wetlands.

Below MLW (approximately -0.76 m [-2.5 ft] North American Vertical Datum [NAVD88]) the creekbanks in the vicinity of the bridge are composed of sediments. The intertidal zone (between MLW and MHW, elevation approximately 0.64 m [2.1 ft] NAVD88) is composed of broken stone. The areas above MHW are composed of broken stone and concrete block masonry bulkhead in Brooklyn south/east of the bridge, cast concrete bulkhead in Brooklyn north/west of the bridge, an eroding gravel and stone embankment north/west of the bridge in Queens, and steel sheeting and riprap south/east of the bridge in Queens. The creek-side existing piers of the main bridge span are supported on foundations enclosed in concrete walls that project into the creek from the banks.

WETLANDS IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

The No Build Alternative would not result in any short-term changes to existing wetlands.

Construction of any of the Build Alternatives would disturb near shore tidal waters mapped by NYSDEC as Littoral Zone. Construction-phase impacts include effects from dredging and shading from the temporary platforms. Localized turbidity and sedimentation during dredging could, without careful control and timing, impact the biological functioning of adjacent natural aquatic communities. The temporary platforms would serve as construction staging areas in conjunction with construction barges. The temporary platforms would be constructed close to the water level, and would shade the water and creek bed areas directly below (refer to Figure IV-16, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Sections”). Although all six temporary platforms may not be required for any given alternative, the shaded area is conservatively estimated to be 4,920 square meters (5,940 square yards), the total area of all six platforms. Additional shading during construction would be caused by moored barges, but these shading impacts would be of a short duration. Since macrophytic wetland plants are absent, the shading would have minimal impacts relative to wetlands.

No vegetated wetlands are present, so there would be no temporary impacts to vegetated tidal wetlands.

Operation Period

The No Build Alternative would not result in any long-term changes to the existing wetlands.

For the Build Alternatives, the following project activities would permanently affect the Littoral Zone: dredging, filling, and removal of structures.

Dredging on the Queens side of the creek would be required for any of the Build Alternatives. The dredging would provide a minimum of 5.2 m (17 ft) below MLW, and would require removal of 2,750 cubic meters (3,597 cubic yards) of creekbed sediments, over an area of 2,598 square meters (3,107 square yards). Dredging would recontour the creekbed and thereby reduce the area of Littoral Zone, which by definition excludes areas deeper than 1.8 m (6 ft).



A layer of riprap would be required for each of the Build Alternatives, as shown in Figure IV-17, “Proposed Riprap.” The purpose of the riprap would be to protect the new pier footings and to provide a stable, porous creekbank. In meetings with NYSDEC, agency staff suggested riprap would be preferable to concrete bulkheads because it would provide a ‘softer’ surface. The Rehabilitation Alternatives would require a relatively small area of riprap since the existing Main Span piers would remain and continue to form a portion of the creekbank. The Bridge Replacement Alternatives, which remove the existing Main Span piers, would require a relatively large area of riprap to protect all the new pier footings. Removal of the existing piers also creates a net gain in creekbed area and water column volume. As shown in Figure IV-17, “Proposed Riprap – Plan View,” and quantified in Table IV-11, only a portion of the proposed riprap would be placed within the creek – the remainder would be on the dry banks of the creek.

TABLE IV-11: PERMANENT IMPACTS TO LITTORAL ZONE (LZ)

Project Alternatives

No Build RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5

Area [m2

(ft2)]

Vol [m3

(ft3)]

Area [m2

(ft2)]

Vol [m3

(ft3)]

Area [m2

(ft2)]

Vol [m3

(ft3)]

Area [m2

(ft2)]

Vol [m3 (ft3)]

Area [m2

(ft2)]

Vol [m3 (ft3)]

Area [m2

(ft2)]

Vol [m3 (ft3)]

Dredging

In LZ -- -- 15

(156)

10

(341)

15

(156)

10

(341)

15

(156)

10

(341)

15

(156)

10

(341)

15

(156)

10

(341)

Deeper than LZ

-- -- 2,583

(27,793)

2,740

(96,761)

2,583

(27,793)

2,740

(96,761)

2,583

(27,793)

2,740

(96,761)

2,583

(27,793)

2,740

(96,761)

2,583

(27,793)

2,740

(96,761)

Total -- -- 2,598

(27,949)

2,750

(97,103)

2,598

(27,949)

2,750

(97,103)

2,598

(27,949)

2,750

(97,103)

2,598

(27,949)

2,750

(97,103)

2,598

(27,949)

2,750

(97,103)

Riprap

In LZ -- -- 160

(1,722)

267

(9,435)

160

(1,722)

267

(9,435)

311

(3,346)

519

(18,326)

311

(3,346)

519

(18,326)

311

(3,346)

519

(18,326)

Outside LZ

-- -- 919

(9,888)

1,535

(54,183)

919

(9,888)

1,535

(54,183)

3,429

(36,896)

5,726

(202,185)

3,429

(36,896)

5,726

(202,185)

3,429

(36,896)

5,726

(202,185)

Total -- -- 1,079

(11,610)

1,802

(63,618)

1,079

(11,610)

1,802

(63,618)

3,740

(40,242)

6,245

(220,511)

3,740

(40,242)

6,245

(220,511)

3,740

(40,242)

6,245

(220,511)

Removal of Existing Pier Footings

From LZ

-- -- 0

0

-- 0

0

-- 407

4,379

-- 407

4,379

-- 407

4,379

--

MITIGATION

Construction Period

There are no inland wetlands or vegetated tidal wetlands in the project area so no temporary impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is proposed. Temporary construction phase impacts to near-shore waters (Littoral Zone) would be minimized by using construction methods and best management practices to reduce sedimentation and control contaminated materials.



Operation Period

Dredging, placement of riprap, and removal of the existing piers would each provide long-term benefits, by removing contaminated materials from the river, providing improved creek-bank habitat, and providing additional water column habitat. Since there are no long term adverse impacts to wetlands, no mitigation is proposed.

COASTAL ZONE

The “Coastal Zone” means the coastal waters and adjacent shorelands that are strongly influenced by each other. These areas support important and unique habitats and human uses, and therefore are protected by federal, state and local regulations.


The project is subject to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451 et seq.). The purpose of the act is to encourage and assist the states in preparing and implementing management programs to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone." The act stipulates that federal actions and federally funded actions within the coastal zone must be, to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with approved state management programs. This provision includes USACE and USCG permits and use of federal funds for infrastructure improvement and other projects.

The federal program is managed in New York by the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS), Division of Coastal Resources. The state’s program was established by the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resource Act of 1981. Consistency with waterfront policies is a key requirement of the coastal management program. NYSDOS is responsible for determining whether federal actions are consistent with the coastal policies. For actions directly undertaken by state agencies, including funding assistance, land transactions and development projects, the state agency with jurisdiction makes the consistency determination which is filed with NYSDOS. A consistency determination from NYSDOS would be required for any of the Build Alternatives. A Federal Consistency Assessment Form would be submitted at the time that permit applications are submitted to the USCG and the USACE.

The Division of Coastal Resources also provides information to communities to assist them in managing their waterfront resources, has mapped the coastal resources of the state, provides grants, establishes coastal zone policies and created and maintains the New York State Coastal Atlas. The Atlas presents a series of maps that delineate the State’s Coastal Area Boundary and identify the following coastal resources: Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats; Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance; federally owned lands; and Native American owned lands. New York State’s Coastal Area has been divided into four geographic regions: Long Island, New York City, Hudson Valley, and Great Lakes. Maps included in this Atlas are based on NYSDOT 1:24,000 scale planimetric quadrangle maps.

New York City established the WRP in 1982 as a local planning program in accordance with the City Charter. The WRP incorporated the 44 state coastal zone management policies, added 12 local policies, and delineated a coastal zone to which the policies would apply. (The city coastal zone boundary is the same as the state coastal zone boundary.) Pursuant to state regulations, the WRP was approved by New York State for inclusion in the New York State Coastal Management Program and then approved by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on September 30, 1982, as required by federal regulations. As a result of these approvals, state and federal



discretionary actions within the city's coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the WRP policies and the city must be given the opportunity to comment on all state and federal projects within its coastal zone. For federal and state actions within the city's coastal zone, NYCDCP, acting on behalf of the City Coastal Commission, forwards its comments to the state agency making the consistency determination.

All discretionary land use actions and projects involving the use of federal or state funds within the mapped coastal zone boundary must be found consistent with the policies and intent of the WRP. A proposed action or project is deemed consistent with the WRP when it would not substantially hinder the achievement of any of the policies and, where practicable, would advance one or more of the policies. In assessing the consistency of proposed actions with WRP policies, city review would be guided by the descriptions, standards and criteria set forth for each policy, as well as any relevant recommendations in the Comprehensive Waterfront Plan (CWP), the Borough Waterfront Plans, and adopted plans for areas within the coastal zone. Compatibility of the proposed project with its neighboring uses would also be taken into account.

The WRP recognizes two types of coastal areas with special characteristics that were identified in the CWP: Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas (SMIAs) and Special Natural Waterfront Areas (SNWAs). There are six SMIAs located in the city: South Bronx, Newtown Creek, Brooklyn Navy Yard, Red Hook Marine Terminal, Sunset Park/Erie Basin, and Kill Van Kull. These SMIAs, described under Policy 2, are particularly well suited for maritime and industrial development. Waterfront activity that furthers the industrial or maritime character of these areas would be consistent with coastal policies for these areas. There are three SNWAs: Northwestern Staten Island Herons Area, Jamaica Bay, and the East River Long Island Sound Area, none of which is in or near the study area.

METHODOLOGY

The project team reviewed the New York State Coastal Atlas, maintained by NYSDOS, and state and local coastal zone and waterfront regulations and mapping.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Portions of the Kosciuszko Bridge Project study area are located within the state and city coastal zone boundary. The project area is also located within a designated SMIA. Figure IV-19, “Coastal Zone,” shows the coastal zone boundary as well as the SMIA boundary around the Kosciuszko Bridge. A review of the State's Coastal Atlas maps indicates that none of the four coastal resources are located in or near the project area.

COASTAL ZONE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The following summarizes the ten WRP policies, identifies the ones that are relevant to the construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge Project, and describes how the project would be consistent with these policies.

Policy 1: Support and facilitate commercial and residential development in areas well suited for such development.

Policy 1.1: Encourage commercial and residential redevelopment in appropriate coastal zones.



Policy 1.2: Encourage non-industrial development that enlivens the waterfront and attracts the public.

Policy 1.3: Encourage redevelopment in the coastal area where public facilities and infrastructure are adequate or will be developed.

Each of the Build Alternatives would construct one or more new bridges in place of or immediately adjacent to the existing Kosciuszko Bridge. While each of the Build Alternatives has been designed to minimize impact on adjacent properties, each would impact adjacent private property, as described in Section III.C.2.I. As described in Section III.C.2.b., the Build Alternatives would improve the operation of both the BQE in this area and several key local streets, facilitating more efficient movement of goods and people through the area.

Policy 2: Support water-dependent and industrial uses in New York City coastal areas that are well-suited to their continued operation.

Policy 2.1: Promote water-dependent and industrial uses in Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas.

Policy 2.2: Encourage working uses at appropriate sites outside the Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas.

Policy 2.3: Provide infrastructure improvements necessary to support working waterfront uses.

The proposed project is located in the WRP coastal area designated as a SMIA, specifically the Newtown Creek SMIA as shown in Figure IV-19, “Coastal Zone.” Each of the Build Alternatives would provide a much needed transportation infrastructure improvement that would promote the existing water-dependent and industrial uses, encourage working uses at appropriate sites outside the SMIA, and support the working waterfront. Therefore, all of the project Build Alternatives would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 3: Promote use of New York City’s waterways for commercial and recreational boating and water-dependent transportation centers.

Policy 3.1: Support and encourage recreational and commercial boating in New York City’s maritime centers.

Policy 3.2: Minimize conflicts between recreational, commercial, and ocean-going freight vessels.

Policy 3.3: Minimize impact of commercial or recreational boating activities on the aquatic environment and surrounding land and water uses.

Newtown Creek is a navigable waterway. During construction, each of the Build Alternatives would require temporary platforms along both banks of Newtown Creek in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. The temporary platforms would leave an unobstructed channel width of approximately 30 m (100 ft). Construction phase navigational impacts in the project area are discussed in greater detail in Section III.C.2.q.



In addition, some dredging of Newtown Creek would be needed to accommodate the construction barges. The resulting deepening of the creek bed would benefit navigation. The height of any new structure over the creek would be less than the existing bridge, and some riprap would be placed along the riverbanks for erosion protection. However, the resulting channel would accommodate current recreational and commercial boating. Therefore, all of the proposed Build Alternatives are consistent with this policy.

Each of the Build Alternatives would include public access boat launches for small craft such as rowboats, canoes and kayaks, on each shore in the vicinity of the bridge. In this way the project would support and encourage recreational boating.

Policy 4: Protect and restore the quality and function of ecological systems within the New York City coastal area.

Policy 4.1: Protect and restore the ecological quality and component habitats and resources within the Special Natural Waterfront Area, Recognized Ecological Complexes and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats.

Policy 4.2: Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.

Policy 4.3: Protect vulnerable plant, fish and wildlife species, and rare ecological communities. Design and develop land and water uses to maximize their integration or compatibility with the identified ecological community.

Policy 4.4: Maintain and protect living aquatic resources.

The project study area is highly urbanized and mostly paved, with only small pockets of vegetation and highly fragmented habitat for wildlife. There are no Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) in the study area. No state or federally-listed threatened or endangered species are present, at or near the study area.

No NWI delineated freshwater wetlands are located within 46 m (150 ft) of the project area boundaries. No tidal wetlands have been delineated anywhere along the shoreline of Newtown Creek or its tributaries, according to the NYSDEC tidal wetland maps. The basin is classified as Littoral Zone. The Littoral Zone is defined as the tidal wetland zone that includes all lands under tidal waters which are not included in any other category. A detailed discussion of the project alternatives’ construction impacts, permanent impacts, and proposed mitigation measures is included earlier in this section.

The Build Alternatives would have no long-term adverse effects on fisheries. In the long-term the project would result in a net benefit to the fish in Newtown Creek because the quality of stormwater runoff would be improved by pretreatment, in contrast to the existing untreated runoff. Conversion of deteriorated concrete bulkheads along the creek banks to riprap sideslopes would provide a more natural and porous creekbank. The selection of one of the Bridge Replacement Alternatives would result in the removal of the existing bridge piers along the creek banks, resulting in a net gain in aquatic habitat.

The Build Alternatives would have no adverse impact on the quality and function of ecological systems in the study area, and are therefore consistent with this policy.

Policy 5: Protect and improve water quality in the New York City coastal area.



Policy 5.1: Manage direct or indirect discharges to waterbodies.

Policy 5.2: Protect the quality of New York City’s waters by managing activities that generate non-point source pollution.

Policy 5.3: Protect water quality when excavating or placing fill in navigable waters and in or near marshes, estuaries, tidal marshes or wetlands.

Policy 5.4: Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater, streams, and the sources of water for wetlands.

Detailed discussions of the impacts of the Build Alternatives on water quality are contained elsewhere in this Section and in Section IV.B.3.b.

Construction of any of the Build Alternatives would disturb Newtown Creek sediment, since all would require dredging of Newtown Creek for construction of barge docking areas. All Build Alternatives would also include conversion of deteriorated concrete bulkheads along the creek banks to riprap-lined sideslopes. Rehabilitation Alternatives would retain the existing pier foundations along the creek sides, requiring less riprap lining. Bridge Replacement Alternatives would require demolition and removal of the existing pier foundations along the creek sides. Any ground disturbing activity adjacent to Newtown Creek (such as construction of new pier footings, or regrading) has the potential to result in erosion and consequently sedimentation in Newtown Creek resulting from stormwater runoff. Any in-water work (such as dredging, placement of riprap, and construction of the temporary platforms, has the potential to cause turbidity in the creek.

The Kosciuszko Bridge Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with NYSDEC’s New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, August 2005, for temporary erosion control during construction. The project would be designed using best management practices to include permanent measures that would prevent contamination of receiving waters. Stormwater from the south end of the project would be conveyed to an existing storm-sewer system. The remainder (majority) of the stormwater runoff would be conveyed to Newtown Creek after passing through stormwater management measures such as specially designed settling tanks designed to remove suspended solids and pollutants from the stormwater run off. Refer to Section IV.B.3.b for detailed discussion.

Because each includes the construction of improved measures for treating nonpoint discharges during construction and after completion, the Build Alternatives would have a beneficial impact on the water quality in the vicinity of the Kosciuszko Bridge. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 6: Minimize loss of life, structures and natural resources caused by flooding and erosion.

Policy 6.1: Minimize losses from flooding and erosion by employing non-structural and structural management measures appropriate to the condition and use of the property to be protected and the surrounding area.

Policy 6.2: Direct public funding for flood prevention or erosion control measures to those locations where the investment will yield significant public benefits.



Policy 6.3: Protect and preserve non-renewable sources of sand for beach nourishment.

The Newtown Creek 100-year floodplain coincides with the bulkhead system of the creek in many places (see Figure IV-20, “Floodplain”). The historical backfilling of land adjacent to the creek has resulted in a channelization of the floodplain in some areas. In the area immediately adjacent to the Kosciuszko Bridge the floodplain ranges from 0 to 61 m (0 to 200 ft) on the Queens side and from 12 to 30 m (40 to 100 ft) on the Brooklyn side. The elevation of the 100-year flood is 3 m (10 ft) National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) in the vicinity of the bridge. There is no regulatory floodway associated with Newtown Creek.

Construction phase impacts to floodplains would be minimal. Temporary fill, such as stockpiles, would be located outside of flood prone areas as a best management practice to prevent erosion and water pollution. Construction-phase stormwater measures such as check dams and temporary sediment basins would detain stormwater inputs during storm events.

The impacts on the floodplain of the Build Alternatives are discussed in detail later in this section. The Bridge Replacement Alternatives include removal of the existing creek-side piers and installation of new piers located further away from the creek, in shallower parts of the floodplain. Therefore, the Bridge Replacement Alternatives would result in a substantial increase in the flood storage area.

The Rehabilitation Alternatives would leave the existing pier footings in place, and would include construction of new piers for the new structures. The Rehabilitation Alternatives represent a modest decrease in the flood storage area. However, since flooding in Newtown Creek is tidally driven, flood storage would not be an important consideration at the bridge; the flood storage area is essentially all of New York Harbor. Any flood storage volume increase or decrease would have a negligible effect.

Therefore, all of the proposed alternatives would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 7: Minimize environmental degradation from solid waste and hazardous substances.

Policy 7.1: Manage solid waste material, hazardous wastes, toxic pollutants, and substances hazardous to the environment to protect public health, control pollution and prevent degradation of coastal ecosystems.

Policy 7.2: Prevent and remediate discharge of petroleum products.

Policy 7.3: Transport solid waste and hazardous substances and site solid and hazardous waste facilities in a manner that minimizes potential degradation of coastal resources.

A detailed discussion of contaminated materials that may be encountered as a result of the construction and operation of the Kosciuszko Bridge Project is contained in Section IV.B.3.i. The majority of the study area contained historic land uses which may be potential sources of contaminants. These include former chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, metal works, automotive repair and filling stations, general manufacturing, and waste transfer stations. Potential sources of contaminants present are listed in Section IV.B.3.i.

Similar to other major construction projects in urban areas, the Kosciuszko Bridge Project would exercise care during construction to control the risks that could be associated with the



mobilization of contaminants in soil, groundwater, building materials, or equipment. In particular, it would be necessary to prevent or control exposure to hazardous conditions associated with the free-product plume in Brooklyn and Newtown Creek sediment.

To mitigate potential health concerns, a pre-construction analysis of each area of proposed excavation would be undertaken. This pre-construction analysis would include a review of existing sampling results and, if necessary, may include additional sampling and testing of soil and groundwater. The objective of these analyses would be to identify, to the extent possible, the environmental issues likely to be encountered in each area of excavation.

In addition, all work for the Kosciuszko Bridge would be conducted under the provisions of a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to protect both workers and the general public who may be near the project site during the construction phase. Contaminated materials encountered during construction would be handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and in compliance with the site-specific HASP.

Soil and groundwater management plans would be developed before the start of construction activities, as described in Section IV.B.3.i. The groundwater management plan would provide a description of the methods used to collect, store, and dispose of contaminated groundwater and petroleum product that could be generated during the chosen action. The groundwater management plan would also identify the requirements of permits, which must be obtained from NYCDEP and/or NYSDEC to discharge the water to either the city’s sewers or surface waters, respectively. Prior to obtaining NYCDEP or NYSDEC discharge permits, groundwater would be sampled and analyzed to characterize its physical and chemical properties. Depending on the results of the analyses, the type of treatment prior to discharge, if required, would be determined.

Prior to implementing any treatment system or discharge of groundwater, samples would be collected and analyzed, a treatment system would be designed, and the information would be included in the NYSDEC or NYCDEP permit applications. Approval from the responsible regulatory agency, in the form of a permit, would be obtained prior to construction activities. Depending on the quantity of water to be discharged, the permits require sampling on a regular basis to confirm that the treatment is effective. Discharging activities would be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified by the permit, including the discharge rate, the sampling frequency, and the duration.

A Spill Contingency Plan would be developed for the project during the design and permitting stages. The contractor would adhere to construction best management practices in accordance with NYSDOT specifications to minimize the risk of groundwater contamination.

With the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize environmental degradation from solid waste and hazardous substances the Build Alternatives would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 8: Provide public access to and along New York City’s coastal waters.

Policy 8.1: Preserve, protect and maintain existing physical, visual, and recreational access to the waterfront.

Policy 8.2: Incorporate public access into new public and private development where compatible with proposed land use and coastal location.



Policy 8.3: Provide visual access to coastal lands, waters, and open space where physically practical.

Policy 8.4: Preserve and develop waterfront open space and recreation on publicly owned land at suitable locations.

Policy 8.5: Preserve the public interest in and use of lands and waters held in public trust by the State and City.

The project area does not contain any public access to the waterfront or publicly owned land along the waterfront. Each of the Build Alternatives would provide public access boat launches for small craft on each shore of the bridge. A bikeway/walkway is proposed as part of Alternatives RA-5, BR-2, BR-3 and BR-5. Alternative RA-6 would not include a bikeway/walkway due to right-of-way constraints (there would not be enough width to accommodate the bikeway/walkway while avoiding impacts to Old Calvary Cemetery in Queens). The bikeway/walkway would afford visual access to waterfront areas. The proposed project is consistent with this policy in that it provides public access to the waterfront.

Policy 9: Protect scenic resources that contribute to the visual quality of the New York City coastal area.

Policy 9.1: Protect and improve visual quality associated with New York City’s urban context and the historic and working waterfront.

Policy 9.2: Protect scenic values associated with natural resources.

The No Build Alternative would have no effect on existing scenic value associated with natural resources, primarily consisting of Newtown Creek.

All of the Build Alternatives would maintain views to and from Newtown Creek and Old Calvary Cemetery. A detailed discussion of visual resources in the project area and potential visual impacts to the viewsheds of key viewpoints and resources is provided in Appendix J, “Visual Resource Assessment.”

Policy 10: Protect, preserve and enhance resources significant to the historical, archeological, and cultural legacy of the New York City coastal area.

Policy 10.1: Retain and preserve designated historic resources and enhance resources significant to the coastal culture of New York City.

Policy 10.2: Protect and preserve archeological resources and artifacts.

The Build Alternatives have been designed to avoid historic resources as well as enhance them where possible. NYSDOT is currently conducting the Section 106/4(f) process in which it seeks ways to protect and preserve archaeological resources and artifacts. Further discussion will be provided as the environmental process and project moves forward.

MITIGATION

Mitigation, where proposed, is described within the discussion of each policy above.



NAVIGABLE WATERS


Newtown Creek is a navigable waterway, and as such the project is subject to Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the General Bridge Act of 1946. Section 9 and the General Bridge Act of 1946 require a USCG permit for any structures over navigable waterways that are tidal and/or used for or potentially used for interstate commerce. Section 10 requires that any project that would dredge, fill, or otherwise alter a navigable waterway must first obtain a Section 10 permit from USACE.

METHODOLOGY

The conceptual plans for each of the Build Alternatives was reviewed and compared to existing conditions. Construction-stage activities such as dredging, barge placement, and temporary loading/unloading platforms were also identified and considered relative to navigational clearances. Information regarding USCG regulation was reviewed from the USCG Office of Bridge Administration’s 1999 Bridge Permit Application Guide (COMDTPUB P16591.3B). More rigorous analyses of potential navigational impacts are presented in Section III.C.2.q and Appendix F.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Existing navigational conditions in the project area are discussed in Section III.C.2.q.

NAVIGABLE WATERS IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

The No Build Alternative would have no direct effect on navigation in the study area.

Each of the Build Alternatives would require temporary platforms that would be constructed along both banks of Newtown Creek. The temporary platforms would leave an unobstructed channel width of approximately 30 m (100 ft). Construction phase navigational impacts in the project area are discussed in Section III.C.2.q.

Operation Period

The No Build Alternative would have no direct effect on navigation in the study area.

Each of the Build Alternatives would require at least some dredging to accommodate construction barges. The resulting deepening of the creekbed would benefit navigation. The height of any new structure over the creek would be less than the existing bridge, and some riprap would be placed along the riverbanks for erosion protection. Long-term navigational impacts in the project area are discussed in Section III.C.2.q.

MITIGATION

Although the creek width would be temporarily reduced during construction to accommodate construction barges and their temporary platforms, this would not adversely affect traffic on the creek. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed. The project would require a USCG permit that would include a public notice to interested parties including businesses using the creek. Prior to



issuing the permit, USCG would review any comments and ensure that ‘the reasonable needs of navigation’3 are met. Navigational considerations are discussed in Section III.C.2.q

WILD, SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVERS

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems Act is implemented by the U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS). The New York State Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act is implemented by NYSDEC. Review of the NPS listing of federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (NPS 2005), a listing of Congressionally Authorized Study Rivers, and the New York State Coastal Atlas indicate that there are no state or federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the study area and that there are no Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance located anywhere in the metropolitan region.

FLOODPLAINS


Floodplains and floodways are protected at the federal level through Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and USDOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection. At the State level, 6 NYCRR Subpart A Part 502 (Floodplain Management Criteria for State Projects) is implemented by NYSDEC. 6 NYCRR Part 502 contains 17 conditions that any proposed State-funded project must meet if it is to be constructed in a flood hazard area (the flood hazard area is equal to the 100-year flood zone, defined below). Otherwise the sponsoring agency must seek a variance from NYSDEC. The conditions primarily require the sponsoring agency to consider alternative sites that would not involve a flood hazard area, and to design the project to withstand flooding with minimal damage. Furthermore in riverine situations no project can be constructed that would result in increasing the base flood elevation by more than one foot at any point, and the cumulative effect of the project and other existing development cannot cause damage to existing development. Floodplains are also protected by Local Law 38 of 1988 in New York City, which contains requirements similar to the State regulations. All state projects must comply with the floodplain management standards and criteria. To the extent practicable, projects should avoid impacts to floodplains and, where unavoidable, minimize impacts. Mitigation may be required in some instances if practicable.

METHODOLOGY

Floodplains are areas near streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and the ocean that are subject to periodic flooding. Waterbodies and lands with higher frequencies of flooding, or with potential for causing property damage or injury, are identified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) through the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for communities. The 100-year flood zone represents land areas that, based upon their elevation and connectivity to a flood source, are prone to inundation at a recurrence interval of once every 100 years (1/100).

The floodplains for the project area were obtained from the Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of New York, New York; Bronx, Richmond, New York, Queens and Kings Counties, panel 48 of 131, November 16, 1983.

3 Bridge Permit Application Guide, USCG, 1999



Rivers and streams where FEMA has prepared detailed engineering studies may have designated regulatory floodways. For most waterways, the floodway is where the water is likely to be deepest and fastest. It is the area of the floodplain that should be reserved (kept free of obstructions) to allow floodwaters to move downstream. The term floodway is primarily applied in riverine systems where flooding is caused by the inability of flow in the river to effectively drain upstream areas during periods of high precipitation or snow-melt. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, City of New York, New York; Bronx, Richmond, New York, Queens and Kings Counties Map Index Community Panel Numbers 360497 0001-0153, May 21, 2001 was used for the floodway determination.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Floodplain maps obtained from FEMA for the Newtown Creek watershed show the 100-year floodplain coincides with the bulkhead system of the creek in many places (see Figure IV-20, “Floodplain”). The historical backfilling of land adjacent to the creek has resulted in a channelization of the floodplain in some areas. In other instances the floodplain extends 15 to 60 m (50 to 200 ft) beyond the edge of the creek.

In the area immediately adjacent to the Kosciuszko Bridge the floodplain ranges from zero to 60 m (200 ft) on the Queens side and from 12 to 30 m (40 to 100 ft) on the Brooklyn side. The elevation of the 100-year flood is 3 m (10 ft) (NGVD29) in the vicinity of the bridge.

Newtown Creek is a relatively short, dead-end waterway lacking significant upstream input relative to its hydraulic cross section. While the tidal flow near the center of the creek is deeper and faster than at the edges of the Creek (characteristics of a floodway), there is no regulatory floodway associated with Newtown Creek.

FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

Construction-phase impacts to floodplains would be minimal because temporary fill such as stockpiles would be located outside flood prone areas, as a best management practice to prevent erosion and water pollution. Some flood storage volume would be displaced by the temporary barges in the river, but flood storage would not be an important consideration at the bridge because the flooding would be tidally driven, and the flood storage area is essentially all of New York Harbor. Therefore, any flood storage volume displacements would have a negligible impact. Construction-phase stormwater measures such as check dams and temporary sediment basins would detain and thus desynchronize stormwater inputs during storm events (runoff waters from an area would flow downstream at different times), but this floodplain benefit would be negligible due to the waterway's tidal flooding characteristics.

There is no regulatory floodway associated with Newtown Creek. The temporary construction-phase barges and platforms in the creek would not affect the flooding characteristics of Newtown Creek since the flooding is not controlled by riverine conditions. Therefore, there would be no construction-phase floodway impacts.

Operation Period

The No Build Alternative would have no permanent effects on the floodplain. The existing pier foundations displace approximately 4,100 cubic meters of flood storage volume, measured from



100-year flood elevation 3 m (10 ft) (NGVD29) down to existing ground or mean high tide, as applicable. The No Build Alternative would not affect the configuration of the piers in the creek. Therefore, there would be no operational-phase floodway impacts.

Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6 would leave the existing pier footings in place and would include construction of new piers for the new structures. Therefore, the Rehabilitation Alternatives represent a modest decrease of approximately 65 m3 (2,295 ft3) in the flood storage area. However, since flooding in Newtown Creek is tidally driven, flood storage would not be an important consideration at the bridge as the flood storage area is essentially all of New York Harbor. Therefore, any flood storage volume increase or decrease would have a negligible effect.

Alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 include removal of the existing creek-side piers and installation of new piers located further away from the Creek, in shallower parts of the floodplain. Therefore, the Bridge Replacement Alternatives would result in an increase in the flood storage area of approximately 3,950 m3 (139,475 ft3).

Note that additional flood storage volume would likely be achieved for all of the Build Alternatives at the sides of Newtown Creek, where riprap slopes are proposed. However, since the precise configuration of the riprap slopes has not been established, no quantities are presented here.

The Build Alternatives would alter the floodplain limits in the vicinity of the bridge by altering the bridge pier 'footprint' within the floodplain.

The Build Alternatives would not introduce any new obstructions into the central part of the creek. The new footings would be outside of the creek bank. Therefore, none of the Build Alternatives would permanently encroach on the floodway. Newtown Creek does not have a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway.

There is no regulatory floodway associated with Newtown Creek, so there would be no permanent floodway impacts.

MITIGATION

Since any temporary or permanent changes to flood storage volume would have a negligible effect, no mitigation is proposed.

B.3.b. Water Source Quality

This section discusses the inter-related topics of groundwater, surface waters, point sources for water pollution, stormwater discharge, reservoirs supplying water to New York City, and sole source aquifers.

GROUNDWATER


Groundwater is regulated at the state level by Title 6 NYCRR 700-705. The groundwater classifications and standards require that proposed projects would not compromise the applicable groundwater standards.



METHODOLOGY

The groundwater regime at the project was evaluated based on data from previous studies such as the ongoing NYCDEP Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer Study, USEPA's Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer System Support Document, and data from borings and samples obtained from adjacent remediation projects.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Groundwater is classified in a similar manner as surface waters. According to NYSDEC all groundwater in the state is classified GA or in the case of saline waters such as Newtown Creek, GSA. The best usage of Class GA waters is as a source of potable water supply. The best usages of Class GSA waters are as a source of potable mineral waters, or conversion to fresh potable waters, or as raw material for the manufacture of sodium chloride or its derivatives or similar products.

Groundwater in the project area exists primarily within a system of aquifers (the Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer System). The upper-most aquifer, the Upper Glacial Aquifer, is found essentially at the surface throughout the project area, covered by only a thin (1.5 to 9.1 m [5 to 30 ft]) layer of fill.4 A thin (1.5 m [5 ft]) layer of clay is intermittently present at the bottom of the surface fill layer.

Groundwater elevations in the study area correspond closely with the water elevation in Newtown Creek. Water-table elevations for March 1997 were mapped by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) based on 59 observation wells in Kings and Queens Counties. The data show that in the project vicinity the groundwater altitude relative to sea level ranged from zero (0) meters at Newtown Creek to elevation 3 m (10 ft) at the project limits furthest from the creek.5 This corresponds to a depth of zero (0) meters below the ground surface at Newtown Creek where the water is at the surface, to 15 m (50 ft) below the ground surface at the north end of the project where the ground elevation is 18 m (60 ft) above sea level.

The direction of groundwater flow in the project area is generally towards Newtown Creek and the East River.6 This is confirmed by studies associated with treatment of groundwater/soil contamination adjacent to the project in Brooklyn.7

There are two sources of contaminants that could potentially enter the groundwater at the project area: pre-existing contaminants in the groundwater in and adjacent to the project site, and project-related pollutants from construction and operation. The locations of several potentially contaminated sites are provided in Section IV.B.3.i of this FEIS. Potentially contaminated sites exist within or close to the majority of the project area.

Some of the larger potentially contaminated sites (i.e., Newtown Creek, the former Phelps Dodge Refining Site, and the oil plume in Brooklyn) were previously investigated and the results of those studies were reviewed for this FEIS.

4 Based on borings taken as part of the Peerless Importers Remedial Investigation, Greenpoint, Brooklyn, New York, provided by NYSDEC. 5 Water-Table Altitude in Kings and Queens Counties, New York, in March 1997 (http://ny.usgs.gov). 6 R. Lawrence, USEPA Region 2, pers. comm. 4/29/05. 7 Initial Site Characterization Report for the Former Paragon Oil (October 2004) – Figure 3-4.



Newtown Creek. Newtown Creek sediments were found to contain various contaminants at potential hazardous waste levels, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and various Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Phelps Dodge Refining Site. The former Phelps Dodge Refining Site (a.k.a. “Laurel Hill Site”) is listed as a New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Site and a USEPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Site. A portion of the Phelps Dodge site lies within the Kosciuszko Bridge project limits in Queens abutting the east side of the existing BQE from Newtown Creek northward to 55th Avenue. Historic copper smelting and refining operations conducted at the Phelps Dodge site since the early 1900s resulted in contamination of underlying soils and groundwater with heavy metals, PCBs, and petroleum related compounds.

Brooklyn Oil Plume. A free-phase groundwater petroleum plume is known to exist approaching the limits of the study area in Brooklyn near Van Dam and Varick Streets due to the release of approximately 65 million liters (17 million gallons) of petroleum at the ExxonMobil Greenpoint Terminal that was first discovered in the late 1970s.

Soil and groundwater samples were collected for laboratory analysis from the study area in September 2005 to better define the conditions in areas of suspected contamination. The edge of the oil plume appears to exist within the limits of the project site between Varick and Van Dam Streets at thicknesses ranging from a sheen directly east of the BQE structure to up to 0.3 m (1 ft) thick just west of the BQE.

Potential construction-related contaminants would include fuel and oil spills from construction equipment.

There are no public wells within 200 m (660 ft) of the project. There is one mapped well on record at the New York City Department of Health that is within 200 m (660 ft) of the project, at 497 Scott Avenue in Brooklyn (approximately 90 m [300 ft] from the project). However, the permit for that well expired in 1981, the well is not used for drinking water (no individual private wells in New York City are legally used for drinking water), and the well is at or near the Brooklyn oil plume. There are several public water supply wells in southeastern Queens formerly owned by the Jamaica Water Supply Company (JWSC). These wells draw from the Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer System and are discussed later in this section.

GROUNDWATER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

The No Build Alternative would have no construction impacts on groundwater in the project area.

The Build Alternatives would require excavation and therefore potentially affect groundwater during construction.

The construction staging plan would take into account areas of potential contamination and would provide for proper treatment and handling of materials from those areas. Clean soils and groundwater would be segregated from contaminated materials to ensure efficient treatment of



contaminated materials and to ensure that the project would not spread the contamination to ‘clean’ materials.

Excavation dewatering fluids generated during construction in some areas of the project would likely require treatment prior to discharge to a sanitary sewer or Newtown Creek. Both NYSDEC and NYCDEP permits require that contaminated sediments suspended in groundwater be removed prior to discharge.

Deep operations along the BQE in the vicinity of Varick Street and Van Dam Street in Brooklyn could encounter the free-phase petroleum plume that exists on the groundwater table in this area at depths ranging from approximately 12 to 15 m (40 to 50 ft) below grade. Most of the construction for the project would be very shallow, but the pier footings would likely be pile-supported, particularly the taller piers nearest to Newtown Creek. Alternatives RA-5 and BR-5 would likely encounter less of the free-phase petroleum plume than the other Build Alternatives because the construction would be primarily south/east of the BQE, further from the plume than the other alternatives.

The deepest piles would extend an estimated 25 m (80 ft) below MHW to achieve the necessary resistance. It is estimated that the piles would therefore be entirely within the Upper Glacial Aquifer, and would not be likely to extend into the underlying Raritan clay. Even if the piles would extend into the Raritan clay layer the piles would not threaten any underlying aquifer layers because, within the project area, there are no aquifers underlying the Raritan clay. Borings would be taken during the design phase of the project to confirm conditions.

Operation Period

During the operations phase (long-term), typical highway stormwater runoff pollutants would include particulates, nitrogen, phosphorus, lead, zinc, iron, copper, cadmium, chromium, nickel, manganese, cyanide, sodium, calcium, chloride, sulphates, and petroleum.8 These typical highway pollutants can potentially enter the groundwater during the operational life of a roadway.

The No Build Alternative would not result in any long-term changes to the existing groundwater. Stormwater from most of the Kosciuszko Bridge would continue to flow, untreated, over land into Newtown Creek.

The project would be constructed using best management practices that would prevent contamination of the groundwater. Stormwater from the south end of the project would be conveyed to an existing storm-sewer system. The remainder (majority) of the stormwater runoff would be conveyed to Newtown Creek after passing through stormwater management measures. This would be more effective in protecting the groundwater quality than the overland flow now occurring as a result of the existing non-functional stormwater handling system.

8 FHWA, Stormwater Best Management Practices in an Ultra-Urban Setting (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/uubmp2.htm).



MITIGATION

Construction Period

Similar to other major construction projects in urban areas, the Kosciuszko Bridge Project would exercise care during construction to control the risks that could be associated with the mobilization of contaminants in soil, groundwater, building materials, or equipment. In particular, it would be necessary to prevent or control exposure to hazardous conditions associated with the free-product plume in Brooklyn and Newtown Creek sediment. The following measures are described in Section IV.B.3.i:

To mitigate potential health concerns, an analysis of each area of proposed excavation would be undertaken prior to construction;

All work for the Kosciuszko Bridge would be conducted under the provisions of a HASP to protect both workers and the general public who may be near the project site during the construction phase;

Soil and groundwater management plans would be developed before the start of construction activities; and

A Spill Contingency Plan would be developed for the project during the design and permitting stages. The contractor would adhere to construction best management practices in accordance with NYSDOT specifications to minimize the risk of groundwater contamination.

Operation Period

The proposed project would include stormwater runoff treatment measures, as described above.

SURFACE WATER

This section focuses on the water quality aspects of surface water. Regulations pertaining to filling and dredging are presented here due to their relevance to water quality.


Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, pertains to dredging or filling "waters of the United States." By authority of 33 CFR 320-330, the USACE has jurisdiction over all "waters of the United States" and a Section 404 permit from the USACE is required to dredge or fill in those waters. State regulation of surface waters is enabled by Title 6 NYCRR 703, which sets quality standards for New York State surface waters.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1341) pertains to protecting the quality of surface waters. Section 401 requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States must obtain certification from the state agency charged with water pollution control. In New York, it is implemented by NYSDEC through the issuance of a Water Quality Certification.



Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1987 requires states to report on the quality of their waters. Section 303(d) of the act requires states to identify "impaired waters" where specific designated uses are not fully supported. States are also required to develop a strategy to reduce the input of the specific pollutants that restrict uses of these impaired waters and to restore and protect those uses. One common strategy is the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). NYSDEC produces annual reports that assess state waterbodies and progress made toward meeting water quality standards. The report also lists impaired waters requiring a TMDL. The list identifies those waterbodies that have a high priority for state action to reduce pollution in them.

METHODOLOGY

Data on surface water quality was obtained from records and reports published by NYSDEC and the NYCDEP Use and Standards Attainment (USA) Project, as described below.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Newtown Creek is one of 26 waterbodies in the metropolitan New York City area that is included in NYCDEP’s USA Project. This four-year effort is a comprehensive program of waterbody/watershed planning. The goal of the program is to improve the water quality of these waterbodies such that they meet or exceed all state and federal water quality standards. The planning process includes technical studies, water quality and ecological data collection, and public participation (a Newtown Creek Stakeholder Team has been formed).

Of the 26 waterbodies, only three (Newtown Creek, Arthur Kill, and Gowanus Canal), are designated with the lowest possible waterbody classification (SD). NYSDEC assigns water quality classifications N (best), AA, and A (good) through D (worst) to fresh waters. Saline waters such as Newtown Creek are similarly classified, but using the prefix ”S.” Newtown Creek’s classification is defined as:

“Class SD – the best usage is fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish survival. This classification shall be given to those waters that, because of natural or man-made conditions cannot meet the requirements for primary and secondary contact recreation and fish propagation.” (Note that although Newtown Creek is considered suitable for fish habitat and consumption, certain consumption advisories may be issued due to elevated levels of pollutants.)

Newtown Creek is an urban tributary in the midst of two densely populated boroughs of New York City and is lined by industrial and commercial businesses. Water quality is adversely affected by urban runoff from adjacent land uses, effluent from the Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), at least twenty combined sewer outfall locations that discharge to the creek, and the absence of vegetated buffer along the creek that could mitigate some of these effects.

Several special circumstances contribute to the deteriorated water quality in Newtown Creek. A 65-million-liter (17-million-gallon), 55-acre underground oil spill site is located on the south bank of the creek in Greenpoint. This spill, which began in the 1940s and 1950s, continues to leach out into the creek.9 Efforts to clean up this spill with a remediation system are under way but

9 Riverkeeper, Half a Century of Secrets: A Summary of the Greenpoint Oil Spill, January 26, 2004



only about half of the historic spill has been recovered. The Phelps Dodge Refining Corporation site on the north side of the creek is a state Superfund site that contributes pollution (PCBs, heavy metal sediments and toxic silt) to Newtown Creek. Located east of the Kosciuszko Bridge, this site is under a consent decree for clean up. However, clean-up of Newtown Creek is not part of the consent decree. For more information about contaminated materials, see Section IV.B.3.i.

Newtown Creek is also the location of New York City's largest WPCP. The plant, one of fourteen serving the city, is located between Greenpoint Avenue and Newtown Creek, one mile west of the Kosciuszko Bridge. It has a design capacity for 310 million gallons of treated sewage per day and is the only WPCP that does not provide secondary treatment. It removes coarse material through screening and settling but provides no biological or chemical treatment. The Newtown Creek WPCP primarily discharges to the East River via the India Street outfall in Greenpoint but sometimes during rain events discharges to Whale Creek which feeds into Newtown Creek. The Newtown Creek WPCP is undergoing an upgrade to secondary treatment that is expected to be completed by 2007.10

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) also contribute to the degraded condition of Newtown Creek waters. Twenty outfalls are located along both sides of Newtown Creek and its tributaries. These outfalls discharge raw sewage during periods of heavy rainfall when the surrounding storm sewers are unable to handle water volumes. In addition, more than 100 stormwater discharge and numerous private discharge points along the creek further contribute to deteriorated water quality.11

The City of New York has monitored the New York Harbor's water quality with an annual survey for more than 90 years. NYCDEP collects samples at approximately 41 locations (sampling at another 37 locations was discontinued in 2000). These locations include New York Harbor, the East River, Jamaica Bay, and major tributaries including Newtown Creek. The three sampling locations at Newtown Creek are Maspeth Creek, one-half mile east of the Bridge (Station NC1); at the Amoco Tank Farm, one-half mile west of the Kosciuszko Bridge (Station NC2); and Whale Creek near the WPCP facility (Station NC3). Table IV-12 provides average sampling data from these locations.

10 NYCDEP, 2002 New York Harbor Water Quality Report, July 2003

11 NYCDEP USA Project, “Preliminary Waterbody/Watershed Characterization Report”, February 4, 2004.



TABLE IV-12: NYCDEP WATER QUALITY SAMPLING DATA FOR NEWTOWN CREEK

Station NC1 Station NC2 Station NC3

Parameter Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Depth of Samples (ft) 4.8 20.9 4.7 17.8 4.5 23

Total Fecal Coliform (per 100 ml) 1,611 1,283 1,284 1,252 1,240 1,161

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 2.94 2.05 3.91 3.21 4.91 4.37

Secchi Transparency (ft) 2.66 2.8 2.91

Chlorophyll a (mg/l) 30.92 31.05 21.84

Salinity (parts per thousand) 17.3 19.8 17.9 19.6 17.96 20.14

Temperature (°C) 20 19.6 19.9 19.6 19.8 19.4 Source: NYCDEP, Water Quality Data, May-December 2004

Note: This was the monitoring period for 2004.

The data indicate that Newtown Creek fails several of the narrative water quality standards (turbidity, oil and floating substances). Dissolved oxygen at Station NC1 is below the 3.0 mg/l standard for SD classified waters and secchi transparency readings of less than 0.9 m (3 ft) at all the stations signify reduced water transparency. The data also suggest gradual water quality improvement from the upstream location (Station NC1) toward the East River (Station NC3). Indicative of an estuarine waterbody, salinity in Newtown Creek also gradually increases from upstream toward the East River. For comparative purposes, water quality data from the East River near Newtown Creek indicates that salinity is generally 26-27 parts per thousand, dissolved oxygen is 5 to 5.7 mg/l and secchi disk readings are approximately 1.5 m (5 ft).12

Newtown Creek was listed by NYSDEC as an impaired water, under Section 303(d), for the first time in 2004. The cause of its listing was oxygen demand, caused by urban runoff, stormwater discharges and CSOs. Newtown Creek will remain on this list until sufficient progress has been made to reduce pollutant impacts.

Although the deteriorated quality of Newtown Creek has been well documented, broad based efforts are underway to upgrade this waterbody. These efforts are consistent with renewed interest in improving the waterfront of New York City as reflected in such recent planning studies as the Greenpoint 197-a Plan.

Examples at the local and state level include:

NYCDEP USA Project;

Ongoing pollution prevention and water quality maintenance programs, including the continuing upgrades to the Newtown Creek WPCP; and

Continued NYSDEC monitoring of water quality and implementation of programs to improve water quality.

12 NYCDEP, 2002 New York Harbor Water Quality Report, July 2003



Federal efforts include:

USEPA’s National Estuary Program (NEP) of which New York/New Jersey Harbor is one of 28 in the country. This program supports the development and implementation of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for protecting the estuary and its resources. USEPA provides financial and technical assistance to help achieve these goals.

The USACE is also conducting the Hudson-Raritan Estuary Environmental Restoration Program. This program, which was authorized by Congress in 1999, is designed to restore estuarine, wetland, and adjacent upland habitat. A feasibility study is currently underway and efforts are underway to initiate studies in Newtown Creek.

The USACE issued a preliminary report in June 2004 that identified Newtown Creek as one of 34 locations within the Harlem River/East River/Long Island Sound area that presents opportunities for ecological improvement that will be studied further. Initial findings suggest that Maspeth Creek, a tributary to Newtown Creek, is the part of Newtown Creek most suitable for restoration, because, "it is not intended for navigation and there are areas where the shoreline is not hardened and vertical,” as reported on the Hudson-Riparian Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Project website.

In addition to these ongoing governmental efforts, several nonprofit groups have been established to advocate for improvements to Newtown Creek. Groups such as the Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee, the Newtown Creek Alliance, Riverkeeper, and the Newtown Creek Stakeholder Team, which was established as part of the NYCDEP USA Project, provide oversight to the ongoing efforts to improve the quality of, and access to, Newtown Creek.

WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

The water quality of surface waters that receive runoff from active construction sites can be degraded if proper

b.3. environmental consequences - new york state ......limited to the new pier footings south of the...

Documents