Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-35 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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 pier foundations would be demolished and removed.

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 Certificate.

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.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-36 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

Direct observations were made during site inspections on June 29, 2004 and April 20, 2005.

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.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-37 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Dredging Required)

Replace Bulkheads with Riprap No Limited Limited Moderate Moderate Moderate [meters (feet)] 34 (112) 34 (112) 131(430) 131 (430) 131 (430)

Removal of Existing Pier Footings No No No Yes Yes Yes from Creek ------407 407 407 Area of Disturbance [m2 (ft2)] (4,379) (4,379) (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,

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-38 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B 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 IVB.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.

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

New York State regulations include Title 6 NYCRR 663, which governs freshwater wetlands and Title 6 NYCRR 661, which applies to tidal wetlands. These regulations are implemented by NYSDEC through its Freshwater Wetlands Regulatory Program and Tidal Wetlands Protection Program, respectively. Activities within or adjacent to freshwater or tidal wetlands and waterways are subject to the permit requirements of NYSDEC. ECL Article 25 relates to

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-39 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B 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, and July 28, 2006.

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 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.

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.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-40 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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

WETLANDS IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

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

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

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

Operation Period

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

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

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

A layer of riprap would be required for each of the Build Alternatives, as shown in Figure IV-17, “Proposed Riprap.” The purpose of the riprap would be to protect the new pier footings and to provide a stable, porous creekbank. In meetings with NYSDEC, agency staff suggested riprap would be preferable to concrete bulkheads because it would provide a ‘softer’ surface. The Rehabilitation Alternatives would require a relatively small area of riprap since the existing Main

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-41 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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 Vol Area Vol Area Vol Area Vol [m3 Area Vol [m3 Area Vol [m3 [m2 [m3 [m2 [m3 [m2 [m3 [m2 (ft3)] [m2 (ft3)] [m2 (ft3)] (ft2)] (ft3)] (ft2)] (ft3)] (ft2)] (ft3)] (ft2)] (ft2)] (ft2)] Dredging

In LZ -- -- 15 10 15 10 15 10 15 10 15 10

(156) (341) (156) (341) (156) (341) (156) (341) (156) (341)

Deeper -- -- 2,583 2,740 2,583 2,740 2,583 2,740 2,583 2,740 2,583 2,740 than LZ (27,793) (96,761) (27,793) (96,761) (27,793) (96,761) (27,793) (96,761) (27,793) (96,761)

Total -- -- 2,598 2,750 2,598 2,750 2,598 2,750 2,598 2,750 2,598 2,750

(27,949) (97,103) (27,949) (97,103) (27,949) (97,103) (27,949) (97,103) (27,949) (97,103) Riprap

In LZ -- -- 160 267 160 267 311 519 311 519 311 519

(1,722) (9,435) (1,722) (9,435) (3,346) (18,326) (3,346) (18,326) (3,346) (18,326)

Outside -- -- 919 1,535 919 1,535 3,429 5,726 3,429 5,726 3,429 5,726 LZ (9,888) (54,183) (9,888) (54,183) (36,896) (202,185) (36,896) (202,185) (36,896) (202,185)

Total -- -- 1,079 1,802 1,079 1,802 3,740 6,245 3,740 6,245 3,740 6,245

(11,610) (63,618) (11,610) (63,618) (40,242) (220,511) (40,242) (220,511) (40,242) (220,511) Removal of Existing Pier Footings

From -- -- 0 -- 0 -- 407 -- 407 -- 407 -- LZ 0 0 4,379 4,379 4,379

MITIGATION

Construction Period

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

Operation Period

Dredging, placement of riprap, and removal of the existing piers would each provide long-term benefits, by removing contaminated materials from the river, providing improved creek-bank

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-42 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B 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 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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-43 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B 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.

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

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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-44 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

ƒ 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.

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

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

ƒ 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.

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

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

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

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

In addition, some dredging of Newtown Creek would be needed to accommodate the construction barges. The resulting deepening of the creek bed would benefit navigation. The height of any new structure over the creek would be less than the existing bridge, and some riprap would be placed along the riverbanks for erosion protection. However, the resulting

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-45 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ Policy 4.2: Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ Policy 5.1: Manage direct or indirect discharges to waterbodies.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-46 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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

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

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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.

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

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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-47 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ Policy 7.2: Prevent and remediate discharge of petroleum products.

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

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

Similar to other major construction projects in urban areas, the Kosciuszko Bridge Project would exercise care during construction to control the risks that could be associated with the mobilization of contaminants in soil, groundwater, building materials, or equipment. In particular,

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-48 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B 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.

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

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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-49 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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

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

ƒ 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.

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

ƒ 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.

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

ƒ 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.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-50 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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. Section 9 requires 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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-51 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-52 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-53 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-54 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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 DEIS. 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 DEIS.

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.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-55 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

ƒ 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).

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-56 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B 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).

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-57 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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:

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

ƒ 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;

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

ƒ 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 Certificate.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-58 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-59 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-60 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

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:

ƒ NYCDEP USA Project;

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

ƒ 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

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-61 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

Federal efforts include:

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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 best management practices are not employed. 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. This reference applies to temporary construction phase stormwater BMPs. It provides minimum standards and specifications for meeting criteria contained within the NYSDEC general permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. The construction protocol summarized in Section IV.B.3.i of this DEIS (HASP, Soil and Groundwater Management Plans, Spill Contingency Plan) would be implemented to ensure surface water quality is protected during construction.

Operation Period

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

Each of the Build Alternatives would be constructed using best management practices that would prevent contamination of receiving waters, as described later in this section.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-62 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

MITIGATION

With the proper avoidance, minimization, and treatment protocols described above, no adverse effects to surface water quality are anticipated from this project. Therefore no mitigation measures are proposed.

POINT SOURCES REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) (40 CFR parts 122-124 and 6 NYCRR 750-758) prohibits discharge of pollutants from a point source except in compliance with a SPDES permit. Point sources are defined as discernable, confined and discrete conveyances such as pipes, ditches and channels.

METHODOLOGY

Data on existing point sources such as CSOs and the Newtown Creek WPCP outfall was obtained from published NYCDEP (the USA Project) records and reports, as described above

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Existing point sources in the project area are described earlier in this section.

POINT SOURCE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

The No Build Alternative would have no immediate effect on point sources in the project area.

The Build Alternatives would each introduce two potential point sources during construction. First, runoff from the construction site could, depending on the staging required, result in concentrated flow to the creek. Construction-phase impacts to water quality are discussed earlier in this section. Second, dewatering of excavations also is discussed elsewhere in this section and, relative to treatment of contaminants, in Section IV.B.3.i.

Operation Period

The No Build Alternative would have no long-term effect on point sources, relative to existing conditions.

The Build Alternatives would each introduce two new stormwater outfalls – one on each side of the creek, directly below the BQE. Stormwater quality measures to be incorporated into the project are described below.

MITIGATION

The proposed stormwater renovation measures are described in the next section.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-63 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

STORMWATER DISCHARGE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

SPDES requires filing a Notice of Intent with NYSDEC, and development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all projects disturbing more than 1 acre on non-tribal Indian lands.

Title 6 NYCRR 703 defines effluent limitations. Unlike the water quality classification standards for waters that are more conducive for human contact and use (SA, SB, and SC), a more limited set of parameters for Class I and SD waters is applicable. The parameters are identified in Tables IV-13 and IV-14.

TABLE IV-13: NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASSES I AND SD Parameter Standard Taste-, color-, and None in amounts that will adversely affect the taste, color, or odor odor-producing, toxic and other thereof, or impair the waters for their best usages. deleterious substances

No increase that will cause a substantial visible contrast to natural Turbidity conditions.

Suspended, colloidal, and settleable None from sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes that will cause solids deposition or impair the waters for their best usages.

No residue attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes, nor Oil and floating substances visible oil film nor globules of grease.

Garbage, cinders, None in any amounts. ashes, oils, sludge, and other refuse

None in any amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds, and Phosphorus and nitrogen slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages.

Thermal discharges None that will prevent protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water. (See Part 704 of this 6 NYCRR) Source: 6 NYCRR Part 703.2

TABLE IV-14: SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS Fecal Coliform (# of Total Coliform (# of Dissolved Class colonies/100ml) colonies/100ml) Oxygen (DO) pH I Shall not exceed Shall not exceed 10,000 Shall not be less The normal range shall not 2,000 than 4.0 mg/L at be extended by more than any time. 0.1 of a pH unit.

SD (no standard) (no standard) Shall not be less The normal range shall not than 3.0 mg/L at be extended by more than any time. 0.1 of a pH unit. Source: 6 NYCRR Part 703.3 and 703.4

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-64 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

METHODOLOGY

Current state and local stormwater regulations were reviewed and field reviews were conducted in June 2004 and May 2005.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The existing stormwater handling system on the Kosciuszko Bridge and approaches is observed to not exist. Downspouts were disconnected during previous reconstruction work on the structures, resulting in stormwater runoff flowing directly down onto the ground surface and flowing overland to Newtown Creek. Stormwater from the northern portion of the project area from the interchange with the LIE to 54th Road drains to Newtown Creek via the 43rd Street storm sewer. Stormwater from the western portion of the project, west of Porter Avenue, is directed to the existing storm sewer system in Brooklyn. Additional detail on the existing drainage conditions is provided in Section II.C.1.g.

STORMWATER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

During construction, stormwater in the project area has the potential to cause erosion of soils, and sedimentation in downstream receiving waters (i.e., Newtown Creek). In order to avoid or minimize the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation, a sedimentation and erosion control plan would be required as part of the Section 401 Water Quality Certificate to be issued by NYSDEC. Additionally, a SWPPP would be developed prior to construction, in accordance with the required SPDES permit. These plans would document the proposed measures to be adhered to during construction.

Operation Period

The No Build Alternative would not result in any long-term changes to the existing stormwater flow in the project area.

Stormwater runoff for each of the Build Alternatives would be handled in a similar way. The project would be designed to incorporate best management practices that would prevent contamination of receiving waters. As described in Section II.C.2.f, stormwater from the west and north ends of the project would be handled as they are today. 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.

As currently envisioned at the conceptual design stage, six sets of two tanks would be installed at intervals along the length of the project (3 sets in Brooklyn and 3 sets in Queens). Each set of two tanks would consist of a pretreatment tank and a specially designed Vortechs® (or equivalent) tank. The pretreatment tank would capture coarser sediments and relieve some of the loading from the Vortechs® tank. Each set of tanks would serve a portion of the roadway runoff, removing pollutants before the runoff is conveyed to a storm sewer main conduit that would convey the runoff to new outfalls on each side of Newtown Creek. The advantage of these sets of tanks is that they require far less space than detention basins, they can be located underground, and they can be effective in removing suspended solids, floating debris, and petroleum compounds that float on the surface. The disadvantages are that they require

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-65 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B frequent maintenance to remove accumulated sediments and floating refuse/petroleum, and they lack the biological activity that is required to remove nitrogen from the runoff. Nitrogen contributes to oxygen demand; oxygen demand, and the resulting low dissolved oxygen, is a significant problem in Long Island Sound. (Refer to the Surface Water Quality discussion in Section IV.B.3.b of this document). Stormwater detention basins or detention ponds are not favored because space constraints make siting basins difficult, and the high groundwater table and shallow slope would limit the depth of a detention basin. This project would be constructed in conformance with NYSDEC’s General Permit for Construction Activities (GP-0201) and New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, August 2005. Permanent stormwater controls would be designed per the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual. NYSDOT believes that, should full compliance with the Stormwater Design Manual be unfeasible, NYSDEC’s Interim Strategy (April 2004) for Redevelopment Projects may apply. If compliance with the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual is not feasible, NYSDOT would notify USEPA for further discussion.

The Build Alternatives involve widening the existing BQE cross section and therefore would increase, to varying degrees, the BQE pavement area. Likewise, the Build Alternatives would increase the impervious surface area and consequently the volume of stormwater runoff. An analysis was performed to quantify the net increase in impervious area for each Build Alternative, the results of which are summarized in Table IV-15. In all cases the increase in impervious area was less dramatic than the increase in the BQE pavement area, because the BQE would be widened over areas that are already impervious such as buildings and local streets. For this analysis, the definition of pervious areas in the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual was used.13

TABLE IV-15: IMPERVIOUS AREAS No Build RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5 BQE and Ramp Pavement 6.32 9.79 8.83 10.45 10.43 11.22 Area [Hectares (Acres)] (15.61) (24.19) (21.83) (25.83) (25.78) (27.73)

Increase in BQE and Ramp -- 55 40 65 65 78 Pavement Area Relative to Existing (%)

Area Converted from Pervious to Impervious [Hectares (Acres)]

Vegetated Pervious -- 0.73 (1.81) 0.28 (0.70) 0.79 (1.95) 0.79 (1.95) 0.79 (1.95)

Unvegetated Pervious -- 0.04 (0.09) 0.03 (0.08) 0.05 (0.12) 0.06 (0.15) 0.06 (0.14)

Total Pervious -- 0.77 (1.90) 0.32 (0.78) 0.84 (2.07) 0.85 (2.10) 0.85 (2.09)

13 Definition: “Impervious cover is defined as all impermeable surfaces and includes: paved and gravel road surfaces, paved and gravel parking lots, paved driveways, building structures, paved sidewalks, and miscellaneous impermeable structures such as patios, pools, and sheds.”

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-66 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

MITIGATION

As described above, the Build Alternatives would include measures to avoid or minimize impacts to receiving waters from stormwater runoff, both during construction and long-term. No additional mitigation measures are proposed.

RESERVOIRS SUPPLYING WATER TO NYC REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

NYCDEP Watershed Regulations pertain to projects with potential to affect reservoirs supplying water to New York City. Two bureaus within NYCDEP are responsible for providing drinking water in New York City. The Bureau of Water Supply collects, conveys, and treats water from upstate reservoirs into the city. The Bureau of Water and Sewer Operations operates, maintains, and protects the water distribution system within the city.

METHODOLOGY

Mapping and data pertaining to the reservoirs supplying water to New York City was obtained from the New York City 2003 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report, 2003, NYCDEP.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Kosciuszko Bridge is not located near any reservoirs and has no potential to affect reservoirs.

The Bureau of Water Supply and the Bureau of Water and Sewer Operations maintain a system that provides 1.2 billion gallons of drinking water daily to more than 8 million residents and others who visit and work in New York City. The water originates from three watersheds, each containing several reservoirs: The ”Catskill/Delaware” Watersheds (two adjacent watersheds - the Delaware and the Catskill), located approximately 200 kilometers (125 miles) northwest of the city, provide 90 percent of the city’s water; and the Croton Watershed, located approximately 55 kilometers (35 miles) north of the city, provides approximately 10 percent.

The water is conveyed from the watersheds to two distribution reservoirs: the Hillview Reservoir in Yonkers, and the Jerome Park Reservoir in the Bronx. From those two distribution reservoirs, three major in-city water tunnels supply water to the boroughs of New York City. City Tunnel 2 serves the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens including the area surrounding the Kosciuszko Bridge. All of the drinking water supplied to Brooklyn and Queens in the area surrounding the Kosciuszko Bridge originates from the Catskill/Delaware Watersheds. A portion of City Tunnel 3 in Brooklyn and Queens is currently under construction (the Manhattan portion of City Tunnel 3 is complete). This tunnel, which parallels the BQE approximately 3 kilometers (2 miles) northeast of the Kosciuszko Bridge, will supplement the water provided by Tunnels 1 and 2.

Approximately 350,000 people in southeastern Queens receive groundwater or a blend of groundwater and surface water. The service area for this system is located approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) east of the Kosciuszko Bridge. The groundwater is provided by a system of 13 wells that supplied a daily average of 9 million gallons (less than 1 percent of the City’s total usage) in 2003. These wells were originally managed by the JWSC, which was purchased by the city in 1996.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-67 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

RESERVOIR IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

No construction period impacts are anticipated, because the project area is located far from drinking water reservoirs and related facilities.

Operation Period

No permanent impacts are anticipated, because the project area is located far from drinking water reservoirs and related facilities.

MITIGATION

Since no adverse impacts to drinking water reservoirs and related facilities are anticipated, no mitigation is proposed.

SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

A ”sole source aquifer” (SSA) supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water for an area for which there is no other reasonable available sources of drinking water should the aquifer become contaminated. The Federal Sole Source Aquifer Program was established under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. This section allows for the specific designation by USEPA as a sole source aquifer those areas that are dependent upon groundwater supplies. Executive Order 12372 stipulates that a federal SSA review by the USEPA regional office is required for certain types of federally funded projects in SSA areas, including those that would add through-traffic lanes.

METHODOLOGY

The data regarding the aquifers underlying the project were obtained from previous studies such as the ongoing NYCDEP Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer Study, USEPA's Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer System Support Document, data from borings and samples obtained from adjacent remediation projects, and interviews with NYCDEP, NYSDEC, USEPA, and USGS staff.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Long Island aquifer system underlies all of Nassau, Suffolk, Kings, and Queens Counties. In 1975, the USEPA designated the portion of the Long Island aquifer underlying Nassau and Suffolk Counties as a sole source aquifer. On June 18, 1979, JWSC petitioned the USEPA Administrator to declare the portion of the Long Island aquifer located in Kings and Queens Counties as a sole source aquifer under the provisions of Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-523). At the time, JWSC supplied water from sixty-five (65) wells located in or near the water supply franchise area to approximately 650,000 people in the southern portion of Queens County. At the time, about 80 percent of the water used by the JWSC was derived from groundwater in that area. In 1983 the Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer System, defined as the area under Kings and Queens Counties, was designated a sole source aquifer.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-68 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

The Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer System is composed of four overlapping aquifers (from shallow to deep, the Upper Glacial, Jameco, Magothy, and Lloyd Aquifers) separated vertically by confining layers. A review of a hydro-geological map series published by USGS14 indicates that, underlying a surface layer of fill, the Upper Glacial Aquifer extends down to approximately 27 to 30 m (90 to 100 ft) below NGVD29. An excerpt from that mapping is provided in Figure IV-21, “Subsurface Cross-Section.” Directly below the Upper Glacial Aquifer is an approximately 15-m (50-ft) thick layer of the Raritan Confining Unit (‘Raritan Clay’). Bedrock underlies the Raritan Clay, at an elevation of approximately 42 m (140 ft) below NGVD29. The Jameco, Magothy, and Lloyd Aquifers are absent in the project area. Borings taken just west of the project area in Brooklyn indicate that the Upper Glacial Aquifer is composed of materials categorized as sand in this area, and a thin (1.5 m [5 ft]) layer of clay is intermittently present at the bottom of the surface fill layer.

The Upper Glacial Aquifer is found essentially at the surface throughout the project area, covered by only a thin 1.5 to 9 m (5 to 30 ft) layer of fill.15 Fill is highly variable in depth and composition. A thin (1.5 m [5 ft]) layer of clay is intermittently present at the bottom of the surface fill layer.

The properties and quantities of potential contaminants are discussed earlier in this section and studies were conducted on the project site’s groundwater conditions. Please refer to this section for information on potential contaminants associated with Newtown Creek sediments, the Phelps Dodge Refining Site, and the Brooklyn oil plume.

AQUIFER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

The potential effect of construction activities on the Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer is discussed earlier in this section and in the accompanying Groundwater Assessment Report (Appendix K). Please refer to those sections for information on construction excavation and dewatering.

Operation Period

The No Build Alternative would not result in any long-term changes to the existing sole-source aquifer underlying the project area.

Permanent improvements to the stormwater handling system would be implemented as described earlier in this section and in the accompanying Groundwater Assessment Report (Appendix K).

MITIGATION

Avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures to address potential contaminants entering the Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer are discussed earlier in this section and in the accompanying

14 Smolensky, D.A., Buston, H.T., and Shernoff, P.K., 1989, Hydrologic framework of Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, HA-709, scale 1:50,000, 3 sheets. 15 Source: borings taken as part of the Peerless Importers Remedial Investigation, Greenpoint, Brooklyn, New York, provided by NYSDEC.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-69 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

Groundwater Assessment Report (Appendix K). Please refer to those sections for information on the project’s HASP, soil and groundwater management plans, and the spill contingency plan that would be developed for the project.

B.3.c. General Ecology and Wildlife This section discusses the inter-related topics of CEAs, fish and wildlife, forest preserve lands, endangered or threatened species, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges.

CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS CEAs are defined under ECL Article 8 and may be designated by local or state agencies.

There are no CEAs in the study area. The only designated CEA in the counties encompassing the study area (Kings and Queens counties) is Jamaica Bay, including its tributaries, tidal wetlands and regulated adjacent areas. Jamaica Bay is located approximately five miles southeast of the Kosciuszko Bridge; it is a tidal inlet connected to the Lower New York Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.

FISH AND WILDLIFE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.) requires consultation with USFWS and with State Wildlife Agencies (in this case, NYSDEC) for any federal aid project involving channel deepening of any stream or other waterbody.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1855) amendments in 1996 established procedures for protecting certain fisheries along the coast of the Unites States. The act required the National Marine Fisheries Service (referred to as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] Fisheries Service) to delineate “essential fish habitat” (EFH) along the coast. Federal agencies that fund projects that may affect these fisheries are required to consult with NOAA Fisheries Service to determine if the project would adversely affect EFH.

EFH is defined in the act as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”16

METHODOLOGY

The project is being planned and developed in consultation with NYSDEC, USFWS, and NOAA Fisheries Service. Early coordination letters were sent to NOAA Fisheries Service and USFWS on November 9, 2004. Two coordination meetings were held with NYSDEC on April 20, 2005 and May 6, 2005 to present the study alternatives and to seek guidance relative to dredging, handling contaminated soils, and other issues. Coordination is ongoing. Field reviews were conducted in June 2004 and April 2005.

16 Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies, dated December 1998, prepared by NOAA Fisheries Service.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-70 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

Vegetation

Project staff trained in plant identification made direct observation of vegetation in the project area.

Wildlife

NYSDEC sponsored a bird inventory program, the Breeding Bird Atlas, that provides information about the current distribution of breeding birds in the state. The program, which was conducted through the end of 2004, consists of field identification of breeding birds by volunteers. The data are accumulated in a database and made available to interested parties to assist in land management and conservation decision making. Data collected from 2000 to 2004 identified 251 breeding species statewide. Data is reported in 4.8 km x 4.8 km (3 mile x 3 mile) survey blocks.

Fisheries

A series of fisheries field investigations have been performed as part of the NYCDEP USA Project. These Field Sampling and Analysis Programs (FSAP) have been conducted as needed for each of the 23 waterbodies that are affected by CSOs. The goal of these studies is to establish a baseline of fisheries information in support of achieving water quality goals. Data has been collected in Newtown Creek as part of four of these FSAPs: Harbor-Wide Ichthyoplankton FSAP; Harbor-Wide Epibenthic Recruitment and Survival FSAP; the East River Waterbody Biology FSAP; and Tributary Benthos Characterization FSAP, Year 2002. These studies have identified and characterized ichythyoplankton communities (what species are spawning and where and when spawning may be occurring), epibenthic community composition, invertebrate community composition, species richness, diversity, bottom sediment composition and overall habitat suitability.17 Additional recent studies have included Subtidal Benthos Ichthyoplankton FSAP, Year 2003, and Tributary Toxicity Characterization FSAP, Year 2003.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Vegetation

The project area is highly urbanized and mostly paved. Small pockets of vegetation provide limited, highly fragmented habitat for wildlife tolerant of the noise, traffic, and human activity that characterize urban conditions. There are no vegetated wetlands in the project area. Vegetation is present intermittently along the top of the bulkheads lining Newtown Creek. That vegetation is composed of opportunistic species that are tolerant of the stressful growing conditions typical of urban areas. Mowed lawns with intermittent tree and shrub plantings are present at the few residences on 43rd Street in Queens, at the high-density residential neighborhoods on Meeker Avenue in Brooklyn, and Old Calvary Cemetery on Laurel Hill Boulevard in Queens. Street trees are present in the project area, such as at Sergeant William Dougherty Playground and along Meeker and Vandervoort Avenues in Brooklyn.

17 NYCDEP Use and Standards Attainment Project Field Investigations Summary, April 2003.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-71 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

A field review conducted on June 29, 2004 identified a sparse assemblage of native and introduced trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants throughout the study area as a result of natural colonization and planting. Naturally colonizing tree species include black locust (Robinia pseudacacia), poplar species (Populus sp.), mulberry species (Morus sp.), and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Planted shade-tree species along streets and in the playground include honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) and London plane tree (Platanus x acerifolia). Shrubs and vines include staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), Boston ivy (Parthenocissus tricuspidata), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). Herbaceous vegetation includes opportunistic species such as tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), common mugwort (Artemesia vulgaris), nightshade species (Solanum sp.), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), ragweed (Ambrosia eiatior), lamb's quarters (Chenopodum album), and Japanese Brome grass (Bromus japonicus).

Wildlife

The vegetation identified in the project area provide some food and cover for birds and wildlife, but the low quality of the habitat limits wildlife to those species tolerant of the noise, traffic, and human activity that characterize urban conditions.

Generally, the terrestrial wildlife in the study area comprises urban-adjusted species. The entire study area is highly urbanized and is characterized by roads, buildings, parking lots, mowed lawns, vacant lots and small patches of vegetation. Species typically inhabiting this type of landscape include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and various moles (Scalopus aquaticus, Condylura cristata), voles (Microtus sp.), and mice (Perommyscus sp.).

As reported in the NYSDEC Breeding Bird Atlas for the block that includes the Kosciuszko Bridge (Block 5850B), representative species include those typically found in urban areas: song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius) and rock (Columba livia), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Species observed during a June 26, 2004 field review include common egret (Casmerodius alba), herring gull (Larus argentatus), cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), and English sparrow (Passer domesticus). Participants in a June 16, 2005 SAC meeting reported the presence of swans, egrets and waterbirds in the vicinity of the project. Although the Breeding Birds Atlas data does not include those species for the block that encompasses the project area, the adjacent block 5851C includes sightings of green heron (Butorides virescens), Canada goose (Branta Canadensis), mute swan (Cygnus olor), and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). A local bird enthusiast/photographer reported sighting several Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) on a bridge pier in Queens on April 17, 2006 (Personal communication, Ente to Hearn). However, this sighting has not been confirmed, and the observer did not find any falcons on subsequent visits.

Fisheries

The East River Waterbody Biology FSAP included a monitoring station (NEWTF01) located in Newtown Creek approximately 610 m (2,000 ft) west of the Kosciuszko Bridge. Sampling was conducted on July 24, July 25, and August 30, 2001, using both otter trawls and gill nets. All organisms collected (including fish, crabs, turtles, etc.) were identified, photographed, and counted in the field. The total weight of each species was recorded, and all fish were measured to the nearest millimeter total length. Three species were found at the monitoring station in Newtown Creek: blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis).

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-72 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

The data from the USA Project show that abundance and diversity generally improves downstream towards the East River. For example, the number of benthic taxa increases from four near the Kosciuszko Bridge to 14 at the mouth of Newtown Creek and density of ichthyoplankton (measured as average number of eggs per 100 cubic meters) increases from 100 within Newtown Creek to more than 2000 in the East River.

Essential Fish Habitat has been designated in the immediate project vicinity for one or more species, per NOAA Fisheries Service’s coordination response letter dated May 18, 2005. An Essential Fish Habitat Assessment has been included in Appendix L at the request of NOAA Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division. The Assessment evaluates the potential presence of each species in the Habitat Block, based on project location characteristics such as salinity and substrate.

FISH AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

Vegetation

Existing vegetation could be disturbed by construction activities within the footprint of the alternatives and at any staging areas. However, the species present are those adapted to urban environments and human disturbance, and those species are likely to recolonize areas after construction.

Wildlife

Existing wildlife in the project area would be temporarily disturbed by construction activities and the associated noise and movement. However, the wildlife present in the project area is tolerant of human activities and urban conditions.

Fisheries

The activity with the greatest potential for adverse effect on fisheries habitat would be the dredging required to accommodate the construction barges. Dredging would occur in the first stage of the project and would occur over approximately two weeks. This activity would present a minor and temporary interference with feeding, predation avoidance, and movements but the impacts are deemed insignificant. During this time, turbidity can be expected in the project area but would be minimized by mitigation measures (see mitigation measures below). The dredging activities would be performed in accordance with the dredging permit.

Temporary pile-supported loading/unloading platforms would be placed in and removed from the creek. The Bridge Replacement Alternatives (Alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5) require removal of the existing piers from the creek. Impacts to the site include temporary disruption of bottom habitat during structure removal and installation activities. Impacts would be localized and confined to the immediate work areas. Disturbing the benthic substrate during deployment and installation would re-suspend sediment in the vicinity of the construction. This material has the potential to present a minor and temporary interference with feeding, predation avoidance, and movements but the impacts are deemed insignificant.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-73 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

Prey species for fish for which EFH has been designated may be impacted by equipment, attraction to the structures, and feeding on the biofouling organisms. Prey species that live in the water column or are part of the benthic community are unlikely to be seriously impacted. Following project completion, natural populations of prey species would readily reestablish. Disruption of the creek floor during placement activities would likely harm planktonic species in the vicinity of the activities. Following project completion, natural populations would readily reestablish within the plankton community.

Operation Period

Vegetation

The No Build Alternative would have no impact on existing vegetated areas, beyond the effects of highway stormwater runoff and air pollutants from the existing facility.

The proposed Build Alternatives would have minimal permanent impact on existing vegetation, because of the limited vegetation in the project area. Table IV-16 identifies vegetated areas that would be affected by each of the alternatives.

TABLE IV-16: VEGETATED AREAS AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5 Sergeant William Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dougherty Playground

Residences/lawns No No No No Yes

LIE Interchange No No Yes Yes Yes

Any disturbed areas not required for the proposed highway and ramps would be restored to their original condition or improved. Impacts to Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn would be offset by reconstruction and expansion of parkland adjacent to the impacted area or nearby (see Chapter VI). Directly impacted street tree plantings and portions of the small residential properties at 43rd street in Queens would be eliminated for some of the Build Alternatives. Impacted lawn and barren areas adjacent to the ramps and roadways of the LIE interchange would be seeded and mulched to achieve vegetative cover, following construction.

Wildlife

The No Build Alternative would have no impact on existing wildlife habitat areas, beyond the effects of highway noise, stormwater runoff, and air pollutants from the existing facility.

The Build Alternatives each require increasing the existing pavement area on the Kosciuszko Bridge and ramps. This increased paved area would displace the existing patchwork of paved and gravel surfaces at the perimeter of the existing roadway, either by overlapping (for the elevated viaduct portions of the project) or by displacement (for the at-grade and retained fill portions of the project). Therefore, the urban-tolerant wildlife present within the study area would see a permanent reduction in the low-value habitat afforded by the existing mowed

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-74 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B roadway embankments, street trees and residential lots that would be displaced by some of the alternatives.

Those impacts would be at least partially offset by reconstructed or compensatory parklands, streetscape related plantings, and potential stormwater management practices. These measures would be selected and designed in the permitting stage of the project.

Fisheries

The No Build Alternative would have no impact on existing fisheries, beyond the effects of highway runoff pollutants from the existing facility.

There would be no long-term adverse effects from the Build Alternatives on fisheries. The Essential Fish Habitat Assessment report that was prepared for this project (refer to Appendix L), in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, documents the analysis and rationale for this conclusion. While the EFH report focuses on federally managed marine and anadromous fish species, the basic conclusions regarding long- term impacts can be applied more widely to the assemblage of fishes and marine life found in Newtown Creek. In the long-term the project would result in a net benefit to the fish in Newtown Creek because the stormwater runoff water quality 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 'softer' (more natural and porous) creekbank. The Bridge Replacement Alternatives include removal of the existing bridge piers along the creekbanks, resulting in a net gain in aquatic habitat.

MITIGATION

Construction Period

Due to the existing contamination at the site, several strict protocols and mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize further contamination of the habitat as well as to avoid harm to construction workers and community members. For example, plans would be developed for: Stormwater Pollution Control, Heath and Safety, Soil Management, and Groundwater Management. Such plans contain procedures that can be considered mitigation measures to protect EFH. For example, best management practices would be used to ensure run-off from construction activities does not introduce material into the creek, and the stormwater renovation would be designed in accordance with the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual.

For dredging operations, enclosed vs. open dredge buckets were considered as a way to minimize impacts by reducing turbidity. The enclosed bucket method was selected and would help to reduce the amount of suspended solids and turbidity in the water which lead to burial and loss of benthic food organisms. With alternate feeding grounds/habitat nearby and the relatively small project area, the risks from dredging activities are considered minimal and temporary.

Silt curtains and silt screens are flexible devices used to control silt and turbidity in the water column. They are generally most effective in relatively shallow, slow moving water (1 to 1-½ knots). Silt curtains are made of impervious (or mostly impervious) materials and they redirect flow around the turbid area. Silt screens are water permeable but retain a majority of the suspended solids (Averett et al. 1990). Both are beneficial in reducing suspended sediment

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-75 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

which would protect delicate habitats and minimize the migration of contaminated sediments. Silt curtains are recommended for this project during dredging activities due to the existing contamination of the area.

The silt curtain would be placed downstream of the project area during dredging and major water disturbing activities. The curtain would remain in place until the dredging operations/activities are completed, although it may need to be opened to allow transport at the dredge site. The silt curtain should be inspected daily to reduce the spread of the turbidity and to prevent the migration of the existing contaminated sediments to adjacent water.

Other dredging considerations include the use of dredging windows where dredging activities are halted at certain times of the year to protect certain delicate life stages of the fish. Based on the seasonal presence of the EFH species, the optimal time for dredging and other water disturbing activities is during winter. However, it does not benefit the habitat to prolong the project to accommodate this window. The sooner the habitat disturbing activities are completed, the sooner the habitat can recover. All dredging activities would be conducted in accordance with the dredging permit.

Operation Period

Permanent impacts to vegetation and wildlife would be minor because those resources are minimal in the heavily developed project area. However, some street trees and mowed lawns would be displaced by some of the alternatives. These permanent impacts would be at least partially offset by the reconstruction of existing parkland and the creation of new parkland, streetscape plantings, and water quality measures.

No mitigation is proposed for long-term impacts to fisheries because the proposed Build Alternatives would result in a net improvement to fisheries habitats by way of improved water quality, creek-side habitat, and (for the Bridge Replacement Alternatives) increased water- column habitat. For all Build Alternatives, rip rap would be used along both creek sides where the current piers occur. Rip rap would provide a conservation benefit to the area because it would increase the quality of the habitat in that immediate area. Rip rap would soften the shoreline, reduce wave energy, and create additional beneficial fish habitat.

FOREST PRESERVE LANDS Forest Preserve Lands are defined under the Forever Wild Provision, Article XIV of the New York State Constitution. Forest preserve lands consist of public lands within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. There are no Forest Preserve Lands in the study area and therefore, Forest Preserve Lands would not be affected by the No Build or any of the Build Alternatives.

ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES (FEDERAL AND STATE) REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires coordination with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service. The act prohibits federal actions which jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitats of endangered or threatened species, or species proposed for listing.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-76 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

At the state level, ECL Article 11 requires coordination with NYSDEC regarding state listed species.

NYSDEC’s Natural Heritage Program maintains an inventory of threatened or endangered species in the state. The program combines field inventories, scientific analyses, expert interpretation, and a comprehensive database on New York's distinctive biodiversity to provide information for natural resources planning, protection, and management. This data is maintained at the NYSDEC and NYSDOT regional offices as a series of maps with identifying information (i.e., red flags) on them. This information provides an initial screening step for projects in their early phases.

METHODOLOGY

NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program maps dated December 1, 2003 were reviewed for red flags.

USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service were consulted by early coordination letters dated November 9, 2004 to determine the presence and potential for impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered species.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

No New York State Natural Heritage Program records of state or federally endangered or threatened species are located within one-half mile of the project limits.

Except for occasional transient individuals, no federally-listed or proposed endangered or threatened species are known to exist in the project impact area. In addition, no habitat in the project area is currently designated or proposed ”critical habitat” in accordance with provisions of the ESA (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), per USFWS letter dated January 24, 2005.

Federally listed endangered or threatened marine species are under the jurisdiction of the NOAA Fisheries Service. NOAA Fisheries Service was contacted by NYSDOT on November 9, 2004. A response was received on May 18, 2005 that endangered or threatened species under NOAA Fisheries Service’s jurisdiction "may be present in the project area." However, a follow- up letter from NOAA Fisheries dated August 18, 2005 states that,

While several species of listed sea turtles are known to be seasonally present in the New York/New Jersey Harbor complex, and federally endangered short-nose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) are known to be present in the Hudson River, no listed species are expected to be present in the project area and no farfield effects from the project are likely to affect any listed species present in the Harbor Complex or the Hudson River. As such, no consultation under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is necessary.

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is a state-listed endangered species; it was de-listed from the federal listing in 1999, and a Monitoring Plan was issued in 2003. A local bird enthusiast/photographer reported sighting several Peregrine falcons on a Kosciuszko bridge pier in Queens on April 17, 2006 (Personal communication, Ente to Hearn). However, this sighting has not been confirmed, and the observer did not find any falcons on subsequent visits.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-77 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Since there is no state or federally-listed threatened or endangered species present at or near the study area, those species would not be affected by any of the Build Alternatives.

Potential far-field effects from Build Alternatives would be avoided by proper construction-phase BMPs that would be used to prevent pollution of air and water, as previously discussed.

MITIGATION

Since no adverse impacts to state or federally-listed threatened or endangered species are anticipated, no mitigation is proposed.

WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) declares that it is national policy to make a special effort to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside, publicly owned parks, recreation areas wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or any historic sites of national, state or local significance. The application of Section 4(f) as it pertains to parks and historic properties is discussed in Chapter VI. Based on review of the online NYSDOS Coastal Atlas Maps on November 3, 2004 and again on January 10, 2007, no wildlife or waterfowl refuges are located in the project area. The federally-owned Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, is located five miles southeast in Jamaica Bay. Far-field effects would be avoided by proper stormwater BMPs that would be used to prevent water pollution, as previously discussed.

INVASIVE SPECIES REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Presidential Executive Order 13112 prohibits Federal agencies from carrying out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the US or elsewhere unless all reasonable measures to minimize risk of harm have been analyzed and considered.

NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) Chapter 4.8 provides guidance to implement EO 13112. During the project planning stage, in addition to the NEPA process, EPM requires a preliminary assessment of priority invasive species issues (plants and animals). The EPM provides inventory data forms to be completed early in the planning process.

METHODOLOGY

In accordance with NYSDOT EPM Chapter 4.8, a preliminary assessment of priority invasive species (plants and animals) was conducted. Inventory data forms have been prepared for those species found within the project area. Four state-wide priority invasive species were inventoried within the project corridor:

ƒ Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is a flowering herbaceous plant introduced from Europe, which has become a serious threat to freshwater and brackish wetlands throughout the contiguous United States in recent years. This plant aggressively moves into sunny, emergent and wet meadow areas, spreading by seed.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-78 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

ƒ Common reed (Phragmites australis) is a tall grass that spreads aggressively by long underground stems (rhizomes). In this way common reed forms large monocultures (pure colonies) that displace native wetland vegetation. Common reed prefers sunny, freshwater or brackish wetland areas but can also thrive in upland habitat and at the edge of saltwater areas, provided there is adequate freshwater input.

ƒ Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica a.k.a., Polygonum cuspidatum) is a tall brushy herbaceous plant that prefers sunny upland locations. It spreads by seed and also forms dense stands by sprouting from thick rhizomes.

ƒ Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) is a very tall, herbaceous member of the carrot family displaying large dissected leaves and large white flower umbels that resemble giant Queen-Anne’s-lace flowers. It is native to central Eurasia and escaped from garden culture in this country. This plant is considered a noxious weed because it contains a sap that causes a severe ‘sunburn’ reaction when skin is exposed first to the sap and then to sunlight, as well as temporary or permanent blindness when the sap gets into the eyes.

Five additional invasive species were added to the field study by NYSDOT Region 11:

ƒ Asian longhorn beetle (ALB) (Anoplophora glabripennis) was introduced from China and first identified in this country in the Greenpoint neighborhood of Brooklyn, adjacent to the project area. The beetles and larvae kill trees by tunneling under the bark and feeding on living tree tissue. If this species is not eradicated it has the potential to devastate North America’s eastern hardwood forests because it can infest a wide variety of commercially and ecologically important native hardwood tree species. Federal, State and local agencies are working to eradicate this species, which has been found in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Amityville, and Islip, NY, and has also been found in Chicago, Ill. Physical tree damage from beetle infestations can be observed as round, 10 mm (0.4”) diameter exit holes in the tree trunk where the adult beetles emerge after pupating, and as small round egg niches (chewed depressions) on the surface of the bark. ALB is currently known to attack 11 tree genera including Acer (maple), Aesculus (horse chestnut); Albizia (mimosa); Betula (birch); Celtis (hackberry); Fraxinus (ash); Platanus (London plane tree or sycamore); Populus (poplar); Salix (willow); Sorbus (mountain ash) and Ulmus (Elm). It is estimated that the beetle has required removal of more than 7,000 trees in New York City and Long Island, including many in Old Calvary Cemetery, adjacent to the project. The project is within a designated quarantine area. The quarantine requires that trees or branches of those affected species can be disposed of only by chipping and only at pre-approved disposal sites.

ƒ Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) is a small freshwater mollusk that originated in Eastern Europe. This species is thought to have been introduced in ship ballast water from international vessels arriving in the great lakes. It was first identified in Lake St. Clair in 1988, and since then this species has spread rapidly throughout most of the central and eastern United States and parts of Canada. It has fundamentally changed the ecosystems of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and has proliferated throughout New York State except Long Island. It is present throughout the Hudson River but saltwater conditions prevent it from colonizing marine areas. Although zebra mussel is a freshwater species, USFWS reports zebra mussels have recently been found in brackish

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-79 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

water with a salinity of 12 parts per thousand (ppt).18 The salinity in Newtown creek varies but it is typically around 21 ppt.

ƒ Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is a common invasive plant introduced from China as an ornamental shade tree. It prefers sunny upland locations and spreads by seed and, once established, by root sprouts. It is a large tree up to 20 m (65 ft) tall but is often much smaller under stress. The seeds are wind-blown and frequently sprout in cracks in pavement and foundations. It is an aggressive ‘weed tree’ that successfully colonizes disturbed and urbanized areas.

ƒ Norway maple (Acer platanoides) is a common street tree introduced from Europe and widely planted. It seeds freely and thereby becomes established in disturbed areas and, being relatively shade tolerant, in woodlands. This species casts such a dense shade that the underlying ground becomes bare and prone to erosion, and native tree species are displaced through competition.

ƒ Mile-a-minute vine (Polygonum perfoliatum) is an Asian species introduced accidentally in nursery stock in Pennsylvania. It is an herbaceous vine that grows extremely fast and quickly covers other vegetation. It spreads by seed and is currently known to be present on Long Island and in the lower Hudson River Valley.

There are many other invasive plant and animal species that are present in New York State and in the New York City region, many of which are listed in the Final Report of the New York Invasive Species Task Force.19

The project area was surveyed by vehicle and on foot, on January 18, 2007 by two inspectors – a field botanist and an inspector familiar with invasive plants. The project area in this instance included all areas within approximately 80 m (260 ft) from the existing edge of the existing bridge. The locations of these species were hand drawn on large-scale (1:1,000) metric scale mapping. All occurrences of the nine targeted species were mapped and documented, and survey forms have been completed.

The field inspectors made direct observations along the banks of Newtown Creek for zebra mussel.

The field inspectors met with representatives from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets, who provided information regarding the extent of the ALB quarantine area, which tree species are susceptible to ALB infestation, and instructions on how to identify tree damage caused by ALB. Tree species susceptible to ALB were inspected for damage.

18 The Exotic Zebra Mussel, Amy J. Benson/US Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Internet Website, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/zebra.html.

19 Final Report of the New York State Invasive Species Task Force, Fall 2005, NYSDEC and NYSDAM, Albany, New York.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-80 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

EXISTING CONDITIONS

No purple loosestrife was observed in the project area. Although purple loosestrife is easiest to identify in mid-summer by its showy purple flowers, any stems from 2006 should have been visible and identifiable even in winter, when the survey was conducted.

Common reed was found throughout the project area. Approximately 23 colonies were mapped, ranging in size from a meter in diameter to narrow curbside colonies over 100 m (330 ft) long. Small colonies of common reed are present along the Brooklyn edge of Newtown Creek, and at the Brooklyn pier foundation.

Japanese knotweed was similarly widespread with approximately 24 colonies mapped, ranging in size from a meter in diameter to narrow curbside colonies over 30 m (100 ft) long. One small colony is located east of the bridge on the creek bank along Newtown Creek in Brooklyn, and there is a large colony adjacent to the bridge along the Phelps Dodge property in Queens.

No giant hogweed was observed. This species has not been found in Brooklyn or Queens to date, according to mapping provided by the Invasive Plant Council of New York State.20

No signs of Asian longhorn beetle were observed. There are no known active infestations of ALB in the study area because infected trees are immediately destroyed as part of the state and federal government’s effort to eradicate this species.

Zebra mussel was not found in Newtown Creek, the only water body in the study area. No zebra mussel has been found to date along the East River or Newtown Creek, most likely due to salinity.

Tree-of-heaven was widespread throughout the study area. Approximately 145 tree-of-heaven plants were mapped, ranging from young plants less than 1 m (3.3 ft) high to mature trees. This species is present along the top of the creek banks on both sides of Newtown Creek, and prominently at the north end of the project area along the Calvary Cemetery fence line, and the ramp from the eastbound LIE.

Norway maple was less widespread than tree-of-heaven. Approximately 43 individuals were mapped, only one of which was in Brooklyn (on Apollo Street). A large stand of approximately 30 tree and shrub size individuals was located in the vegetated median along the east side of Laurel Hill Boulevard near the LIE interchange. Many mature Norway maples in the study area have been lost to ALB.

No mile-a-minute vine was found in the project area.

One well-known species listed in the Final Report of the New York Invasive Species Task Force,21 kudzu (Pueraria lobata), was observed near the project area in Brooklyn (east of Vandervoort Avenue, approximately 500 m [1640 ft] south of the project) but was not found within the project limits.

20 http://www.ipcnys.org/sections/target/giant_hogweed_map.htm

21 Final Report of the New York State Invasive Species Task Force, Fall 2005, NYSDEC and NYSDAM, Albany, New York.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-81 March 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

INVASIVE SPECIES IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Construction Period

The existing invasive species would continue to exist and may proliferate under the No Build Alternative. The Build Alternatives would each provide risks and opportunities relative to invasive species. Without mitigation, construction activities could introduce new invasive species to the project site, such as waterborne invasive species that might arrive on construction barges in Newtown Creek, or seeds that might arrive on muddy construction vehicles from elsewhere. Invasive species already within the project area could also colonize newly disturbed areas in the project site. These species could also be spread beyond the study area to earth/debris disposal sites, by transport within excavated earth and debris. For example, the seeds or roots of Japanese Knotweed may be present in project area soils and could propagate at disposal locations under the right conditions.

Conversely, new construction would displace some of the invasive species and provide new paved and vegetated areas that would eliminate entrenched invasive species. In this way the Build Alternatives would aid in management of invasive species.

If the existing ALB quarantine area is still in effect at the time of construction, any cleared vegetation of susceptible tree species would need to be disposed of at an approved disposal site to prevent spreading ALB.

Operation Period

The No Build Alternative would maintain conditions as they are today, continuing existing control efforts. The Build alternatives would provide a fresh start in the immediate project area by disturbing entrenched invasive populations, making future control easier by allowing removal of invasive species when they first appear, before they become established.

MITIGATION

Measures to control invasive species during construction and operation of any of the Build Alternatives could include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment, commitments to ensure the use of invasive-free mulches, topsoil and seed mixes, establishment of native vegetation and control or eradication strategies to be deployed should an invasion occur. These measures would be developed in the permitting and design stages when construction materials, excavation areas, landscaping plans, and construction specifications are developed.

B.3.d. Historical and Cultural Resources This section presents information on cultural resources located within the project area. The discussion includes a description of regulatory requirements, methods of identifying cultural resources, the presence of cultural resources in the project area and their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), potential impacts, and potential mitigation measures. A detailed discussion of the cultural resources investigations conducted as part of this DEIS is contained in Appendix M.

Cultural resources consist of archaeological and architectural resources. Archaeological resources include both prehistoric and historic sites. Prehistoric resources are physical properties resulting from human activities predating written records. These archaeological sites

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-82 March 2007