17 May 1971

ENVTR01MENTA.L STATEMENT

FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENT ON ESOPUS CREEK AT KINGSTON, NEW YORK

HUDSON RIVER. NEW YORK

prepared by

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 8 June 1971

Esopus Creek, Kingston, Hew York

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: U. S. Army Engineer District, Hew York, H. Y.

1. Hame of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative.

2. Description of Action: Flood~protection project consisting of levees, floodwalls, a ponding area and pumping station as well as associated interior drainage facilities in Ulster County, Hew York.

3. a. Environmental Impacts; Provide flood proofing of unprotected flood plains, allow for expansion and accelerated development of the flood plain, loss of natural wetland area.

b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Loss of a small wetland area, levees and floodwalls may restrict river access to man and wildlife; loss of some large trees along the stream bank.

4. Alternatives: Reservoir control, diversion tunnel, deepening and widening channel, and "no development."

5. Comments Received:

Water Quality Office, EPA W. Y. Dept, of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Water Hygiene, EPA Urban Renewal Agency Kingston, W.Y. Soil Conservation Service,USDA Dept, of Water Resources, Hew York, H.Y. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI

6. Draft statement to CEQ______. Final statement to CEQ 1 JtJL 1971______. 17 May 1971

ESOHJS CREEK AT KINGSTON, NEW YORK

FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

1 , Project Description: Esopus Creek at Kingston, Hew York, the site of the proposed flood protection improvement, is located near the Hudson River in Ulster County on the eastern edge of the Catskill Mountains, approximately 95 miles north of New York City.

The planned improvement was authorized under the small project authority provided by Section 205 of the 19^8 Flood Control Act, amended by Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1962.

The proposed improvement is designed to provide flood protection for lands along the right bank of Esopus Creek within the City of Kingston, New York, which includes a large shopping center and urban renewal area. • On the basis that the flood protection improvements will be implemented, the Kingston Urban Renewal Agency, which prescribes that planning pro­ posals shall be designed to prevent danger to human life or serious eco­ nomic loss, is presently carrying out an urban renewal project in the area.

The protective works will consist of 1,667 feet of levees varying in height from 158.3 feet, to 159*2 feet above mean sea level, and 872 feet of floodwalls (approximate elevation of 158 feet above mean sea level) which will be located along the top of the right (South) bank of the Esopus Creek between the highway embankments of State Highway 28 and Interstate Highway 587. Along the Route 587 embankment at the eastern ' end of the improvement, a ponding area and a pump station with appur­ tenant interior drainage facilities will be constructed to collect and discharge interior drainage during flood flows. Structural elements of the improvement will be given special design considerations to provide a pleasant and aesthetic appearance. In addition, trees and shrubbery wall be planted along the levees and floodwalls to enhance the setting of the flood control improvement.

The benefit-cost ratio (July 1970 price levels), based on an interest rate of 3~l/^ percent and 50 year life, is 1.2 to 1.0. The Detailed Project Report has been approved by the Chief of Engineers and has been transmitted to the Governor of New York to obtain official state indorsement. Upon receipt of this indorsement, notification will be given to the interested members of Congress and the State Governor informing them of the formal project approval and adoption under Section 2 0 5 . Subsequent to this action, the preparation of plans and specifi­ cations will be initiated.

2. Environmental Setting Without the Project: The topography in the Kingston area is characterized as an alluvial valley with stream meanders and flat gradients. The stream flood plain has been built up with material, eroded from the Catskill plateau. Esopus Creek, about 65 miles in length, flows generally southeast from its source in the Catskill Mountains into the Ashokan Reservoir which serves as part of the New York City Water Supply System. The stream, which is the only overflow from Ashokan Reservoir, then continues in a southeasterly direction to the Town of Marbletown about 25 miles above its mouth where it makes an abrupt turn to the north, passes through Kingston on the northern bound­ ary, and then continues north about lH miles before discharging into the Hudson River.

In the vicinity of Kingston, Esopus Creek is a slow-flowing warm water stream containing small-mouth bass, pickerel, pike, pike-perch and pan fishes. This stream is heavily fished for recreation. These waters are considers. 1 to be only slightly polluted and are generally suitable for bathing. The entire basin was originally densely wooded with hard and soft wood trees. Now, a considerable portion of the basin, especially the uplands, is covered with second and third growths of timber. Some . wildlife exist in the area. About one-third of the land in the basin is cultivated as pastures or farms. ' '

The site of the plan of improvement involves a reach along the right bank of Esopus Creek of about 2 , 5 0 0 feet in length which includes a flood plain of approximately 60 acres. This area is bounded on the north by Esopus Creek (about 1 0 0 feet wide) flowing in an easterly direc­ tion; on both ends to the east and west by embankments of major highways; and on the remaining side to the south by a railroad embankment, all of which tend to effectively insulate the area from the surrounding urban development and countryside. The railroad embankment and Esopus Creek generally parallel the contours of the bluff which is occupied by Kingston*s major retail center and historic area. On the north across the stream, the areas are primarily agricultural. On the south side of the creek, the flood plain is being filled in and developed commercially. Approximately half of the area to be protected by the plan of improvement is already filled in, graded, and developed as a large "Shoppers Plaza" which will expand in the future to include a total of three quarters of this area. The remaining area, formerly residential, has been cleared for urban renewal development to include commercial facilities. The City of Kingston has a population of about 3 0 , 0 0 0 persons. 3. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action. Implementation • of the improvement will result in the enhancement of land values and will permit the use of land through the urban renewal program, which should result in an improved environment.

As floods present a constant threat to the safety of the inhabitants, implementation of the project would bring peace of mind to the many residents in the area by providing the needed flood control protection to the existing establishments and encourage the upgrading of the environment through better upkeep and land improvements.

Implementation of the planned improvements will also allow for the ex­ pansion and development of lands that will be considered safe from flooding, thereby, resulting in the creation of more commercial and industrial enterprises. This would increase job opportunities and generally contribute to a more healthy economy necessary to an improved environmental condition.

Beautification measures will include the planting of trees and shrubbery along the proposed levees and floodwalls and will provide for the blending of structures with the attractive features of the surrounding area and produce a marked improvement of the lands as they now exist. This will compensate for the loss of those trees which will be removed for the construction of the project, and will generally create a favor- ' able change in the environment.

Implementation of the improvements will not significantly affect fish and wildlife resources; however, enhancement of fish and wildlife resources is not anticipated by construction of the improvements.

Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should The Proposal Be Implemented. Implementation of the improvement would require the removal of some large trees along the stream bank. It is anticipated, however, that the planned beautification measures will offset this adverse effect. As indicated previously, the area to be protected from flooding is insulated from the surrounding environment by manmade barriers on three sides and the river on the remaining side. The proposed levees and floodw'alls on the remaining side may restrict river access to man and wildlife, and obstruct the view of the river and farmlands on the opposite bank. Further, the natural environment would be affected somewhat by the loss of a natural wetland area lo­ cated at the eastern end of the protected area. Part of this wetland area will be modified and used as a ponding area and the remainder of the area will be filled and developed as the shopping center expands its facilities in the future. These adverse effects would be of little significance considering that implementation of the improvements will, in the long run, prevent a much greater uncontrolled degradation of the environment due to flooding. 5. Alternatives To The Proposed Action, One alternative to the ' proposed plan of improvement would be to use the storage space in the Ashokan Reservoir, or increase the capacity of the reservoir, to mod­ erate flood flows. This reservoir is owned by the City of Hew York and is used exclusively for water supply storage. The City, however, indicated an unwillingness to consider any use‘of the reservoir for flood storage and pointed out that in practice the reservoir is used to store the maximum amount of water that available storage permits. In addition, if this alternative plan were to be used, New York City would have to replace this water supply storage loss with another reservoir which might be environmentally disruptive to another area. This alternative was, therefore, not selected.

Another alternative is the use of a diversion tunnel to bypass flows to the north of Kingston. This scheme would cause a temporary dis­ ruption to the use of existing agricultural lands during the construc­ tion period. This alternative would be extremely costly and was not considered feasible, and therefore,’ was not selected.

Another alternative was to improve the.waterway by deepening and widening the existing channel to lower the flood profile. Due to the flat channel gradient in this reach, it would be necessary to modify the channel over a considerable length by dredging and altering two existing bridges. From an environmental point of view, this scheme would severely disrupt fishery resources in the lower 1^ miles of the stream during the dredging process. This plan would also be very costly in relation to the benefits that would accrue, and was not se­ lected.

In lieu of implementing the flood protection improvements, a non-struc- tural alternative of flood proofing the existing structures by local interests was considered. However, this work would cover only a portion of the flood plain area and would not relieve the effects of flooding the remaining flood, plain unless this low area was improved at substan­ tial cost to the local interests by placing fill at an elevation that would minimize potential flood damages. Since the proposed plan of improvement would serve the purpose of providing the needed flood pro­ tection for the entire project area and land enhancement to enable the local interests to develop the undeveloped land for commercial purposes as desired by them and will also obviate the high costs that would be incurred by a flood proofing and fill placement program, the non- structural alternative was not selected.

Another alternative is not to implement any plan of improvement. This action would not incur any of the adverse impacts cited in paragraph b at the expense of the potential gains cited in paragraph 3. A "no­ development" alternative would cause extensive economic and environ­ mental damage by allowing periodic flooding to continue that could cause damages of over a million dollars, as evidenced by floods that occured in 1951. A "no-development" alternative ’would also cause the’ local interests to suffer environmental losses that would he equivalent to - about'$60,000 annually during the life of the project. Since the adverse environmental effects seem to be heavily outweighed by the flood control protection considerations afforded by the proposed im­ provements, it appears that implementation of the improvements would be a more favorable course of action than- the selection of a "no-development" alternative.

6 . The Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment And The Maintenance And Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity. Under existing conditions, the area to be improved is used forresidential and commercial development. The implementation of the proposed im­ provement, in this respect, would maintain and enhance the short-term use of the lands. There would be a small conflict between the short­ term uses and long-term productivity since the construction of the structures would somewhat restrict the movement of wildlife. However, this restriction should not have any significant impact on the long­ term productivity of the wildlife habitat.

7. Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of resources Which Would Be Involved In The Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented. An irreversible commitment would be the loss of the wetland habitat located in the area to be protected. A portion of this wetland area at the east­ ern end of the protected area will be modified for use as a ponding area as part of the improvement, and the remaining portion would be used for the future expansion of the shopping center.

An irretrievable commitment of resources that would result with the implementation of the project would be the labor and materials required to construct the improvements. Such commitments would be less than the involuntary commitments of this nature that would be required to replace damages expected to result from floods should the project not be constructed.

8 . Coordination With Other Agencies. Coordination on the Esopus Creek flood control improvement at Kingston, Hew York, has been effected and is continuing with the interested Federal, State and local agencies during the planning of the project. A draft copy of the Environmental Statement was sent to each of the following agencies for comment:

Federal Water Quality Office, EPA — water quality appraisal Federal Bureau of Water Hygiene, EPA — public health appraisal Soil Conservation Service, U3DA — soil stabilization aspects U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, DI — fish and wildlife resources Department of Environmental Conservation, Hew York State — State views Department of Water Resources, Bureau of Water Supply, New York City Environmental Protection Administration — City views Urban Renewal Agency, Kingston, New York — local views Correspondence, furnishing comments on the project and the draft State- • ment,?was subsequently received from all agencies contacted, and is attached as part of this Environmental Statement. The comments that were received have been, where applicable, incorporated into the present Statement and a brief summary of these comments follows:

a. WATER QUALITY OFFICE, USEPA.

Comment: No additional comments to offer in connection with the draft Environmental Statement and the project.

b. BUREAU OF WATER HYGIENE, USEPA.

Comment: No objection to the environmental impact Statement.

c. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, USDA.

Comment: The Statement covers .very well the impact 6f the project on the environment. The improvement of man's environment with the project far exceeds the value of present conditions.

d. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, PI.

Comment: The project description should be more detailed with re­ gard to levees, floodwalls, and stream and channel modifications, if any.

Response: Additional details on the levees and flood walls have been included in the present Statement. Other details of the project descrip­ tion can be found on the layout plan attached to the Statement.

Channel modifications or stream realignment are not required to provide the necessary flood control protection and are not included as part of the plan of improvement. Therefore, channel conditions, as presently existing, will remain.

Comment: The first paragraph, regarding urban renewal, seems ap­ propriate for the project description section and should be moved to Section No. 1.

Response: The comment was considered valid and the statement on urban renewal was included in the Project Description Section of the present Statement.

Comment: The increase in land values does not seem related to the environment.

Response: Further amplification, regarding land values, has been included in the present Statement.

Comment: An adverse environmental effect will occur if the small wetland area is changed from a natural area to an urbanized area. Response: This comment was considered valid and has been included • in the present Statement.

Comment: We don*t see how a "no-development" alternative would result in an annual loss of $60,000.

Response: The estimate on annual losses to the local interests if flood control measures are not instituted was based on the annual ben­ efits that would accrue if the improvements are implemented. The esti­ mated benefits were derived by computing the actual flood damages suffered by the area residents from the largest flood of record in conjunction ■with data developed from hydraulic and hydrologic studies. In addition actual flood damage losses were gathered from personal in­ terviews with commercial interests, individuals, etc, during field investigations.

Comment: Is it not possible that developments in the flood plain might be removed and zoning instituted to restrict further* flood plain developments?

Response: It is to'be noted that the local interests have decided to develop the flood plain through the urban renewal program and the expansion of the large shopping center. Implementation of the recom­ mended plan of improvement will enhance the lands to provide for the development of the flood plain to meet the desires of the local interests.

Comment: There would be an irreversible commitment if the small wetland area is developed.

Response: This comment was considered valid and has been included in the present Statement.

e. DEPARTMENT OF EHVIR0I1MENTAL CONSERVATION. WYSTATE.

Comment: The Agency concurs in the project and the draft Environ­ mental Statement and states that the project will not have any adverse, effect's on the environment. The Agency further states that scenic values should be preserved.

Response: Beautification measures have been included in the plan of improvement that should preserve the scenic values.

f. ENVTROIMEHTAL PROTECTION ADMINISTRATION. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES. HEW YORK CITY.

Comment: The plan of improvement is of concern to the Agency only with respect to the proposal that Ashokan Reservoir be used as a flood control reservoir. Response: The present Statement indicates that the Ashokan Reservoir alternative was not selected as' the plan to provide flood protection for the City of Kingston, New York.

URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY. KINGSTON, m YORK.

Comment: Concurred with the project and the draft Environmental Statement, and suggested minor changes to the draft Statement.

Response: The suggested changes, as applicable, were included in the present Statement.

7 Incl: 1. Ltr. from Water Quality Office, ERA, Dtd.20 January 1971 2. Ltr. from Bureau of Water Rygiene, ETA, Dtd. 17 December 1970 3. Ltr. from Soil Conservation Service, DA, Dtd.l6 November 1970 4. Ltr. from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DI, Dtd. 16 November 1970 5. Ltr. from Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Dtd. 17 December 1970 3 6. Ltr. from Environmental Protection Administration, New York Citv Dtd. 18 November 1970 3 7. Ltr. from Urban Renewal Agency, Kingston, New York, Dtd. 23 October 1970 ' ESOPUS CREEK, KINGSTON, HEW YORK FLOOD COI3TROL PROJECT

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Office Northeast Region John F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water Hygiene Region II Office 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Room i-iOO - Midtown Plaza 700 East Water Street Syracuse, New York 13210

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Boston, Massachusetts 02109

State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, New York 12201

The City of New York Environmental Protection Administration Department of Water Resources Municipal Building New York, New York 10007

Kingston Urban Renewal Agency ^36 Broadway Kingston. New York 12it01

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION Northeast Region zJohn F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, MA 02203

January 20, 1971

!!r. Ci. I!. Yen Gunten Engineering Division U. 5. Department of the Army New York District Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10007

Re: £iivironmenta1 Impact Statements pertaining to the proposed Chappaqua Flood Protection Project, Esopus Creel:, New York.

Dear Mr. Von Gunten:

Hie environmental statements for the proposed Chnppaqua and Esopus Creek, New York projects have been reviewed. We have no add!tional comments to offer in connection with the proposed xrork.

The reply offered your sgency in tliis letter is based on the Environmental Protection Agency's responsibility to render technical assistance. If you desire a formal EPA response on your proposed action, it i3 suggested that a request be directed to the administrator, Environmental Protection Agency . 1626 K Street, 11.17., Washington, D.C. 204.60.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely yours, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Region II Office 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10007

December 17, 1970

Mr. Glenn H. Von Gunten Chief, Engineering Division NY District, Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Dear Mr. Von Gunten:

Your letter of 15 October 1970 relative to flood control improvements on Saw Mill River and Esopus Creek has been returned with our prepared comments for direct reply.

The State Health Department and water utilities which might be affected by the projects were consulted. (C»Aff>A QUA ") Saw Mill River - As is recognized ir. the environmental impact statement the work on the Saw Mill River will cause an increase in turbidity. About 12 miles downstream the city of Yonkers is just completing a new 15 MGD, $3*7 million dollar water treatment plant. Any increase in turbidity will have an adverse effect on this plant. The statement appears to recognize this fact and has indicated "Every precaution will be taken during construction to hold turbidity to minimum levels." The project, when completed, should lower turbidity during flooding — this is an environmental improvement.

Project was discussed with Mr. James Neary, Water Works Superintendent, Bureau of Water Works, Yonkers, New York.

Esopus Creek - The Esopus Creek project was also discussed with Mr. John Egan, Director of Water Quality Control of the New York City Department of Water Resources. This project is downstream from Rev York City's Schoharie Reservoir.

At this time this office has no objection to the environmental impact statement. Mr. Von Gunten

We wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity of reviewing the environmental statements prepared by your office for these two projects.

Sincerely yours, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE R o o m 400 Midtown Plaza 700 East Water Street Syracuse,New York 13210

November 16, 1970

Mr. Glenn H. V o n Gunten Chief, Engineering Division Department of the A r m y N e w York District, Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza N e w York, N. Y. 10007

Dear Mr. Von Gunten:

W e have reviewed the "5-point statements", transmitted October 15, 1970 for Esopus and Chappaqua Creeks.

Both statements cover very well the impact of the projects on the environment. The improvement of man's environment with the project far exceeds the value of present conditions.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed improvements.

Sincerely yours, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE U. S. POST OFFICE. AND COURTHOUSE BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02109

NOV 1 G 1970 District Engineer New York District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Dear Sir:

Your letter of October 13, 1970 requested our comments on an attached draft of the Environmental Statement on Esopus Creek at Kingston, Ulster County, New York, We understand that the project being considered Is a flood control local protection project consisting of construction of levees, floodwalls, a pumping station and interior drainage facilities.

We offer the following suggestions concerning your draft of the Environ­ mental Statement.

1, Project Description

We believe that the project description should be more detailed. It is possible that the Environmental Statement may be read without other project documents at hand. As a result such information as length and height of levees and floodwalls; length of stream channel to be modified, if any; nature of stream modification, e.g., would the modified channel be a flat-bottomed, straight ditch; plans for revegetation along the channel; and plans for providing resting pools for fish In the channel be included In the project description? It is noted that some of this type information is included In other sections of the draft.

2. Environmental Setting Without the Project

No comment - this is a good description of the environment. 3a. Identify "the environmental Impacts of the proposed aetion"

The first paragraph seems appropriate for the project description section and should be moved to Section No, 1,

The increase in land values does not seem to be related to the environment. Perhaps further amplification is necessary.

3'o. Identify "any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.''

An adverse environmental effect will occur If the lands and small wetland area, protected from flooding by the project, change from a natural area to an urbanized area.

3c. Identify ."alternatives to the proposed action"

While not building the project may be an alternative we don*t see how such action would result in causing an annual loss of $60,000, Is it not possible that developments in the flood plain might be removed if the owners foresee continuing flood damages? Another alternative which might be discussed is zoning to restrict further flood plain developments,

3d, Discuss "the relationship between short-term uses of man's environ­ ment and the maintenance and enhancement of lonr-term productivity.

No comment,

3e. Ldentify^'afly, irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources 3 jli.ch.cpql<3 bp Involved_i.f the proposed action should be implemented."

If the project results in developments on the small wetland area ■ then there would be an irreversible commitment of wetland for the purpose of unknown development.

At such time as your statement in final form reaches the Secretary of the Interior for comments, we undoubtedly will be called upon to respond. Experience has shown that time allowed for such response may be as little as 3-4 days. If your policies and procedures will permit, we would appre­ ciate receiving a draft of your statement as it is sent up through channels. This would give us a little lead time and allow us to prepare a more meaningful input to the Secretary's comments.

.Sincerely yours, State of N ew York

Department of

E nvironmental Conservation

A lbany

December 17, 1970

Dear Colonel Barnett:

This is in reply to your request of October 15, for comments on the Esopus Creek at Kingston, New York flood control project and draft environmental statement.

We have reviewed the project description and environmental statement and find that both subjects are adequately covered. It appears that the project will not have any adverse effects on the environment. Scenic values should be preserved by adequate land­ scaping at the project site.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity.

Sincerely,

James W. Barnett, Colonel District Engineer Department of the Army N. Y. District, Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 n § ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADMINISTRATION f DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Bureau ot Water Supply MUNICIPAL UU1LPING, Nf.W YGI?X. N Y. 1003/ Telephone: 566-

Novembor 18, 1970

N A N E N - B d Esopus Creek Flood Control Improvement

Mr. Glenn H. Von Gunten Chief, Engineering Division Now York District, Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Dear Mr# Von Gunton:

This replies tc your letter of October 1 3 , 1970 addressed to former^Chief Engineer Eduard J. Clark, concerning the pro­ posed Flood Control Improvement for Esopus Creek, New York, in which you requested our ’’early response and concurrence".

This project is of concern to this Department only with re­ spect to the proposal that Ashokan Reservoir be used as a flood control reservoir. Our opposition to this proposal has been indicated previously.

This Department is unalterably opposed to the use of Ashokan Reservoir for flood control purposes because this would seri­ ously impair or completely destroy its value as a water supply storage reservoir. Since the Ashokan and Schoharie Reservoirs furnish approximately forty percent of the entire viator supply for the City of New York, the substantial loss of Ashokan Reservoir as a storage facility would be extreme- xy serious and impose enormous costs upon the City for the development of an alternate source of at least equal yield. This obviously is unthinkable so far as this Department is concerned.

A3 we hove pointed out previously, Ashokan Reservoir acts to retard flow and reduce the severity of floods even when filled in its normal capacity a3 a water supply reservoir. This is an important point which should receive consideration in your studies on the proposed flood control project.

Very truly yours, // // Kingston Urban Renewal Agency

436 BROADWAY

KINGSTON, NEW YORK 12401

T ilcpho nci A m t C o d i >14 331-7720

October 23, 1970

Mr. Glenn H. Von Gunten Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army N.Y. District, Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Re: NANEN-Bd

Dear Mr. Von Gunten:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 13, 1970 relating to the Flood Control Improvement for Esopus Creek, New York, which was authorized under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended by Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1962, which enclosed a draft copy of the five (5) point environmental statement prepared by your office.

In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the statement and are enclosing herewith some suggested changes which we believe you may want to consider including in the statement.

We assume that your statement will meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, PL 91-190, so that it illustrates harmony between man and his environment and that the Flood Control Project will not be delayed because we have not met the purpose of this Act. Please let us know, if you have any questions on this matter or if we can provide you with additional information.

Thank you for your cooperation.

___ Sincerelv vours. Section 2, First Paragraph *1

The Esopus Creek, which is the only overflow from the Ashokan Reservoir,

flows generally southeast from the Reservoir into the Town of Marbletown at which place it makes an abrupt northerly turn and passes ....

Section 2, Third Paragraph *2

The railroad embankment and the Creek generally parallel the contours of

the bluff which is occupied by Kingston's major retail and historic area.

Section 2, Third Paragraph *3

West

Section 2, Third Paragraph

East

Section 2, Third Paragraph *5

Park is no longer planned for this area.

Section 2, Third Paragraph *6

30,000

Section 3, Sub-paragraph a. *7

presently carrying out DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310

1 JUL «71

Honorable Russell E. Train Chairman Council on Environmental Quality Executive Office of the President 722 Jackson Place, N. W. Washington, D. C, 20006

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The inclosed final environmental statement for the Esopus Creek at Kingston, New York, Flood Control project is transmitted in accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

This project is presently in the engineering and design stage.

Sincerely,