-
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-38 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-39 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-40 September 2008
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,
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-41 September 2008
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.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
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
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-42 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-43 September 2008
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).
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-44 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-45 September 2008
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.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
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
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-46 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-47 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-48 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-49 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-50 September 2008
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
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-51 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-52 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-53 September 2008
NAVIGABLE WATERS
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
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
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-54 September 2008
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
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
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
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-55 September 2008
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
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-56 September 2008
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
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-57 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-58 September 2008
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
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-59 September 2008
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).
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-60 September 2008
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.
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, 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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-61 September 2008
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
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-62 September 2008
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.
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-63 September 2008
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
-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B
Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-64 September 2008
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