UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     REGION I I
   wj 26 FEDERAL PLAZA
   •if NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1O278
Final
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for Phase III and Future Phases of the
Oakwood Beach Water Pollution
Control Project
                          '-•^ & \- - ^ •/>'—a—~-;&ry ^ •
                       Staten Island, NY
                                August, 1986

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   REGION I I
                               26 FEDERAL PLAZA
                           NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1O278
AUG 2 0  1986

To All  Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens:
This  is to  inform you that the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Phase
III and Future Phases of the Oakwood Beach Water Pollution Control Project,
Staten Island, NY,  is available for review at the following locations:
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Region II
   Environmental  Impacts Branch
   26 Federal Plaza, Room 702
   New York, New  York   10278

   Office of Borough President
   Borough Hall
   Staten Island, New York  10301

   Community Board Number 3
   277 Nelson Avenue
   Staten Island, New York  10301
New York City Department of
  Environmental Protection
Office of Public Participation
1 Centre Street, Room 2454
New York, New York  10007

Tottenville Branch Library
7430 Amboy Road
Staten Island, New York  10307

Great Kills Branch Library
56 Giffords Lane
Staten Island, New York  10308
This  final environmental  impact statement  (EIS) was prepared by the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency  (EPA) Region II with the assistance of C.E. Maguire,
Inc., an environmental planning and engineering consultant.  The document has
been  prepared  in accordance with the regulations published under the National
Environmental  Policy Act.

A draft EIS on this project was issued for public review in December 1980.
The draft EIS  reconmended construction of an interceptor sewer utilizing shal-
low open-cut construction and multiple pump stations to convey wastewater flows
from  southwestern Staten Island to the existing Oakwood Beach Sewage Treatment
Plant.  All comments that were received during the public comment period were
discussed in a responsiveness summary which was distributed in 1981, and which
is also included in this  final EIS.

Concerns about the constructability and reliability of the alternative recom-
mended in the  draft EIS were expressed by the New York City Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (NYCDEP) and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation,  as well as by local citizens and public groups.

To address these concerns, in June 1981 EPA provided the NYCDEP with grant
assistance to  prepare a detailed analysis of potential alternatives to the
construction project proposed in the draft EIS.  The NYCDEP's alternatives
report was submitted to EPA in June 1985, and supplemented in February 1986.

-------
Based upon the results of the additional studies,  this final EIS recommends con-
struction of the interceptor sewer utilizing a combination of small and large
diameter tunneling methods and requiring the use of only two pump stations.
This recommended alternative involves fewer environmental impacts, lower opera-
tion and maintenance costs, and less disruption to streets and utilities than
the previously proposed open-cut/multiple pump station alternative.
EPA will accept written comments on the final EIS for thirty (30)  days after a
Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register, which is expected
to be  s£p 2 6  1986  •  After evaluating any comments received,  EPA will issue
a Record of Decision on the recommendations of this document. Comments may be
addressed to:

                          Ms. Barbara Pastalove,  Chief
                          Environmental Impacts Branch
                          EPA-Region II
                          26 Federal Plaza, Room  702
                          New York, New York  10278.

If you need additional information, Ms. Carol Stein, Project Monitor, Environ-
mental Impacts Branch, may be contacted at (212)  264-5397.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Daggett
Regional Administrator

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   REGION I I
                               26 FEDERAL PLAZA
                           NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1O278
                                     Final
                         Environmental Impact Statement
                                     on the
                 Oakwood Beach Water Pollution Control Project
                            Staten Island, New York

                                  Prepared By:
                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                   Region II

Abstract;  In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a final
environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared on the wastewater
facilities plan for Phase III and Future Phases of the Oakwood Beach Water
Pollution Control Project, in Staten Island, New York.

During the public review period on the December 1980 draft EIS, EPA received a
number of comments from affected agencies and the general public.  These com-
ments generally indicated significant concerns about the proposed alternative
(interceptor sewer utilizing shallow open-cut construction, with 11 pump sta-
tions).  To resolve these concerns, in 1981 an EPA grant-assisted study was
initiated by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP).
The results of the study were submitted to EPA in June 1985, and supplemented
in February 1986.  The NYCDEP1s analysis recommends construction of the proposed
project utilizing a combination of small and large diameter tunneling methods,
with only two pump stations required.

The final EIS evaluates the environmental impacts, costs, and implementability
of both alternatives.  Based on the analysis of these factors, the final EIS
recommends construction of a gravity flow wastewater interceptor with two pump
stations to convey wastewater flows from southwestern Staten Island to the
existing Oakwood Beach Sewage Treatment Plant.

Contact for further information:

Ms. Carol Stein, Project Monitor
USEPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Roan 702
New York, New York  10278
Approved by:  L/Ur~--y \f<^ ^   l]^ /Mi                  A L^ U !> T
              Christopher 34 Dagg^tt                              Date
              Regional Administrator

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PREFACE

-------
                 PHASE III AND FUTURE PHASES
                           OF THE
        OAKWOOD BEACH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT
                   STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK
            FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PREFACE

DATE:                         AUGUST, 1986
TYPE OF STATEMENT:            FINAL
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCY:   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                              AGENCY, REGION II
TYPE OF ACTION:               ADMINISTRATIVE

A.   INTRODUCTION

     This Final  Environmental  Impact  Statement (FEIS)  was
     prepared  in  accordance  with the  provisions  of the
     National  Environmental  Policy Act  (NEPA)  and with
     applicable  regulations  of  the U.S.  Environmental
     Protection  Agency  (EPA).   The format  of this FEIS
     conforms  with  the  requirements  of  the  Council  on
     Environmental  Quality (40CFR  Part   1502)  entitled
     "Regulations for Implementing  the Procedural  Provi-
     sions of  the National Environmental Policy  Act"  as
     published in the Federal  Register.  The main  chapters
     of this document are organized as follows:

          Chapter I      - Purpose and Need
          Chapter II     - Alternatives
          Chapter III    - Affected Environment
          Chapter IV     - Environmental  Impacts

     Final  chapters present  documentation  on project
     coordination, a list  of  preparers,  reference sources
     and several  appendices.
                                 ES-1

-------
This FEIS supple-
ments the DEIS.
 The DEIS is  inaor-
 ported into  this
 FEIS by reference.
This FEIS is a summary document which  supplements  the
Draft Environmental  Impact  Statement  (DEIS).  Except
where noted  otherwise,  the  DEIS  is  incorporated by
reference  into  this  document.   For  ease  of
understanding and because of the  length  of time that
has  elapsed  between  issuance  of  the DEIS  and
preparation of this FEIS, some sections are summarized
in more detail than  normally  required  in  a FEIS, and
others are updated where  appropriate.   Together, the
DEIS and this  FEIS constitute  the complete EIS.  The
following table presents the relationship of the FEIS
chapters to the DEIS.
                                                  TABLE ES-1
                                                  FEIS FORMAT
                                   FEIS
                              Executive Summary/Preface
                              Chapter I
                              Chapter II
                              Chapter III
                              Chapter IV
                              Chapter V

                              Chapter VI
                              Chapter VII

                              Appendix 1
                              Appendix 2
                              Appendix 3

                              Appendix 4
                            CORRESPONDS
                              TO DEIS
                              Summary
                              Chapter 1
                              Chapter 2
                              Chapter 3
                              Chapter 4
                         No  corresponding  chapter in
                          DEIS
                              Chapter 9
                              Addition to  Chapter 8

                         (Updated)  Appendix B
                         (Updated)  Appendix E
                         No  corresponding  appendix in
                          DEIS
                         No  corresponding  appendix in
                          DEIS
                                                          ES-2

-------
                         B.   OVERVIEW
This FEIS covers the
last remaining seg-
ment of  the Odkuood
Beach Water Pollution
Control Project.
The portion of the  Oakwood  Beach  project  addressed  in
this FEIS  is  the  last remaining major segment of an
overall  scheme  of  interceptor  sewers,  force mains,
pump stations  and  sewage treatment  plants for  the
South  Richmond  area  (Figure  ES-1).   Some of  these
facilities have already been  constructed  while others
are either currently  under  construction  (Figure
or have been conceptually approved by the  EPA .
                              A  DEIS  was  prepared for this portion of  the  Oakwood
                              Beach project in December 1980 by the EPA and a public
                              hearing  on  the  DEIS was held on  February 26, 1981.
                              The alternative recommended  in the  DEIS was an  inter-
                              ceptor sewer which would transport wastewater flows  to
                              the  Oakwood Beach  Sewage  Treatment Plant  (STP)
                              utilizing eleven  (11)  pump  stations.  This multiple
                              pump  station/shallow  trench interceptor project  was
                              estimated to cost  (in  1979  dollars)  approximately $60
                              million,  with  an estimated  present worth value  of
                              $57.5 million.
The DEIS considered
two interceptor con-
struction alter-
natives along the
same route.
The other major alternative considered in the DEIS was
construction of a  gravity  flow interceptor along the
same  route  but at  a  greater  depth  using a  large
diameter  tunnel  constructed  by  the  slurry  shield
tunneling method.   This  would require only two  pump
stations  and  was  estimated  to  cost approximately
$136.7 million (in  1979 dollars), with a present worth
value of  an estimated $118.7  million.  Because of  the
significant difference in  estimated  costs,  and since
the multiple pump station alternative was also environ-
mentally acceptable, the tunnel method was eliminated.
                                                          ES-3

-------
   SUMMIT
                                          5EY
                                                                 .495
            UNION.
                       ELIZABET>
                                                                            • JAMAICA
                                                '278
                              STATEN ISLANC

                                    278
BROOKLYN
   .96
SOUTH
RIVER

                                                                  SOUTH  RICHMOND

                                                               1 Port Richmond Stwoge
                                                                 Treatment Plant       p
                                                               2 Oakwood Beach Sewoge
                                                                 Treatment Plant
                                                                             5  Miles
                                                                             	i
                                                                         5  Kjlom«ter»
                                                OAKWOOD  BEACH WATER POLLUTION
                                                    CONTROL PROJECT FWAL  EI3
                                                     STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
                                                      Ct Mefliilfe. Inc^ New Britain, CT
                                               TKto:
                                                     REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
                                                Source! DEIS
                                                O.I.: 3/86
            N/A

-------
                                                                                  PORT RICHMOND
                                                                                  TREATMENT PLANT
                                             RICHMOND HILL RD
                                             PUMPING STATION
                                            CEL-14 TtlRU
               MAYFLOWER AVE.
               PUMPING STA. 8,
               FORCE MAIN
              CfR-20 THRU 23)
                                 ELTINGVILLE
                                 PUMPING  STA.
KREISCHER ST.
PUMPING  STA.
(PROPOSED)
                                CEL-14 THRU 1Z)
                                      FORCE  MAIN
                                                                                                                           — PROPOSED
CD  CONTRACT NO.

    PUMPING STATION

    TREATMENT PLANT
             JEST BRANCH INTERCEPTOR (PROPOSED)
                                                   OAKWOOD BEACH
                                                   TREAT MJfTL ANT
                                                   26 THRU
                                                    UJOUTFALL
                                                                                                        ^
WARSAW AVE.
PUMPING STA. 8,
FORCE MAIN
                       EXISTING
                       UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR
                       PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
                                                -RICHMOND AVE.
                                                 PUMPING STA.
                                                 (PROPOSED)
OAKWOOD  BEACH WATER  POLLUTION
    CONTROL PROJECT FINAL  EIS
     STATEN  ISLAND.  NEW YORK
                                                                                                        Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
                                                                                                             CE Maguire.  Inc.. New Britain. CT
                                                                                                                 SCHEMATIC  OVERVIEW
                                                                                                      Source >  NYCDEP
                                                                                                      Date • 5/86
                                                                                                          Scale • N.T.S,
                             Figure •  ES~2

-------
                               During the  public comment  period,  comments  were
                               received  which  expressed concern  about the reliability
                               of,  and the cost of maintaining,  the 11 pump stations
                               required.   There was  agreement concerning  the  route  of
                               the  interceptor, but  disagreement as  to the recommend-
                               ed  construction alternative.   In fact, there was a
                               clear  consensus on the part of the public and the New
                               York City  Department of  Environmental  Protection
                               (NYCDEP)  in favor of  the  gravity flow/deep alterna-
                               tive.
 The NYCDEP prepared
 a  reportj The Alter-
 native Studyf based
 on comments to the
 DEIS.
The NYCDEP study
report favored the
gravity flow/deep
alternative.
As a result of the comments concerning the alternative
proposed in  the  DEIS,  in 1981 the  EPA  provided the
NYCDEP with a grant to conduct a detailed geotechnical
study.  The  purposes  of this  study,  which  included
soils engineering, a topographic and utilities survey,
a  cultural  resource survey, a  public participation
program and  geophysical  field testing,  "were  to
evaluate subsurface conditions along  the  proposed
alignment,   perform laboratory  tests  on selected
samples, prepare subsurface profiles, perform  analys-
es, and develop recommendations relating to  the design
and construction of the  interceptor"  (Woodward-Clyde,
1985).  The geotechnical study was used  by  the  NYCDEP
to prepare a  report entitled, WP-136  Oakwood Beach
Hater Pollution  Control  Project,  West Branch  Inter-
cepting Sewer, Alternative  Study,  hereafter referred
to as "The Alternative  Study".   The study  concluded
that the gravity flow or deep  scheme would be  the
preferable  alternative.   Some of  the  reasons  for
this conclusion are summarized below:

     The multiple  pump  station alternative  involves
     complex  legal  and regulatory problems relating to
     land  acquisition,  zoning  regulations,  and  con-
                                                           ES-4

-------
     struction in protected open  space,  wetlands  an
     floodplains.  All of these have the potential  to
     cause  delays,  therefore  adding unforeseeable
     costs to this alternative.

     Detailed topographical  studies indicated that the
     multiple pump station  alternative  would require
     13 pump  stations  instead of  the  11 originally
     planned, while the gravity flow alternative would
     require only 2.   Operation and maintenance of  13
     pump  stations would prove  to be  a long-term
     expense and burden to the NYCDEP.

     Under the requirements of Wick's Law,  a  New  York
     State Law regarding  construction  throughout  New
     York State, each pump station must be built under
     four separate contracts.  Therefore, the  multiple
     pump station alternative  would  require 44 addi-
     tional  construction  contracts.   Administration
     and coordination of  this  many contracts concur-
     rently would be  extremely difficult and costly.

After  the  Alternative Study was  submitted to, and
reviewed by the EPA and the New York State  Department
of Environmental  Conservation (NYSDEC),  the NYCDEP
revised certain  aspects  of the  project related  to
construction methods  and  costs for both  alternatives.
Instead of slurry shield  or compressed  air  tunneling,
the  NYCDEP proposed   the  use  of   a  boring/jacking
technique for the installation of most  of  the pipe  in
the  gravity  flow alternative.   These  changes  were
outlined in  a document  submitted  to  the EPA  and  the
NYSDEC  in  February,  1986 (Appendix 1).  The  project
description and costs used  in  this EIS  are based, in
part, on that final submission by the NYCDEP.
                            ES-5

-------
                              The  NYCDEP's  February,  1986  submission to the EPA and
                              NYSDEC contained  revised  cost  figures  for both alter-
                              natives which reflected additional appurtenant  project'
                              related costs for road  rehabilitation  and for mitiga-
                              tive measures which  would be necessary at several of
                              the  pump  station  locations.  These costs  were used in
                              determining the recommended alternative.  As  indicated
                              in Table  ES-1, the present worth  value of the gravity
                              flow (deep) alternative is  estimated to be less than
                              that of the multiple pump station alternative.

                                                  TABLE ES-2
                                        COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
                                              (Costs  in Millions)
                            Alternative
                         Capital
                          Costs
                 Present
               Worth Values
                            Multiple Pump Station
                              (Shallow)
                            Gravity Flow
           /Deep)
                         $117.15
$129.70
                 $148.20
$120.99
                         Source:   NYCDEP  Alternative Study  and  February,  1986
                         Revisions.
This FEIS recommends
the gravity flow/
deep alternative for
Phase III.
This Final EIS recommends the gravity flow alternative
because of the lower present worth  value  and because
of  the  difficulty and  issues  associated  with  the
siting and construction of the multiple pump stations,
as  well  as  the concerns  of  the  NYCDEP and  general
public as expressed at the public hearing.,
                         C.   PURPOSE AND NEED
                              The South  Richmond  section of  Staten  Island, which
                              includes the project area,  is the  only  remaining  area
                                                          ES-6

-------
The study area has
significant needs
for improved
wastewater faci-
lities.
of New York City which is largely undeveloped.   It  is
undergoing strong  development  pressures and,  conse-
quently, significant increases  in population have been
projected for this area.

With  the  exception of the  Tottenville area,  South
Richmond generally lacks sewers, and most  development
is served  by individual  septic  tanks  and/or  small
package sewage treatment plants.  If Phase III facili-
ties are not built, the need for small  package treat-
ment facilities would continue.  Because the operation
and maintenance of these  facilities is difficult to
manage, the  NYCDEP would  eventually have  to assume
responsibility  for operating  them.   Septic  tank
systems would continue to cause problems in  the  area,
especially after heavy rains when  surface  ponding of
septic flows would continue to pose potential health
hazards.  The use of private wastewater conveyance and
package treatment systems  would result in greater user
costs for the  individual  homeowners than  comparable
costs in other areas of the city where treatment and
sewers  are  provided  as  municipal  services.   The
existing systems which  have direct raw sewage dis-
charges would continue to convey untreated sewage into
the nearest  waterway  (i.e., Tottenville  flows,dis-
charging into the  Arthur Kill).  Such  discharges  have
previously contributed to the  closing  of shellfishing
areas and the  contravention of water  quality stand-
ards.
Conditions
continue to
deteriorate with-
out remedial action.
The  projected  rate  of  development  indicates that
existing  conditions  will  continue  to  deteriorate
unless  some  form of  remedial action  is  taken.  The
continued degradation of surface water quality,  the
potential health  hazards  during  heavy rains, and the
disproportionately high  user  costs  to new residents,
                                                          ES-7

-------
                              all contribute to the undesirability  of  the  no  action
                              alternative.  Furthermore, the  large  number  of  tempo-
                              rary  and  package treatment  plants  make regulation,
                              monitoring, and maintenance difficult.

                         D.   RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The recommended
alternative -in-
cludes 43,300 ft.
of gravity sewer,
2500 ft.  of force
mains and two
pump stations.
The  recommended  alternative,  the  gravity  flow  or
deep alternative,  includes a  13,121  meter  (43,300
foot) gravity  interceptor,  758 m (2500 ft)  of force
mains and two pump stations.
  /
The route of  the  interceptor  (Figure  ES-3) begins at
the proposed  Kreischer  Street  pump station  and  pro-
ceeds southeast  along  Arthur  Kill Road  to  Ellis
Street,  continuing east along  Ellis to  a  point oppo-
site Main Street.   The  interceptor will cross under
the Staten  Island  Rapid Transit Operating  Authority
(SIRTOA) tracks and follow Main Street to its junction
with Arthur  Kill  Road.   From this intersection,  the
interceptor will follow Arthur Kill Road  west to the
intersection with  Bentley  Street,  following  Bentley
Street south to the intersection with Hopping Avenue,
and then Hopping Avenue west to the intersection  with
Amboy Road.   From  this  intersection,  the  route  will
follow Amboy  Road  eastward to  the intersection  with
Craig Avenue,  and  south  along  Craig Avenue  to Hylan
Boulevard.
                              From the intersection of Craig Avenue and Hylan Boule-
                              vard, the route  will  follow Hylan Boulevard east  to
                              Richmond Avenue.  The interceptor will terminate at a
                              proposed major pump station  in  the  vicinity of Rich-
                              mond Avenue  and Hylan  Boulevard,  where  wastewater
                              flows, will be lifted approximately 12 m  (40  ft) to an
                                                          ES-8

-------
                                                                                                              RICHMOND
                                                                                                      OAKWOOD  BEACH WATER  POLLUTION
                                                                                                         CONTROL PROJECT FINAL  EIS
                                                                                                          STATEN ISLAND, NEW  YORK
                                                                                                      Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
                                                                                                           CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
                                            ALTERNATE ROUTE
Title;          ROUTE OF

   RECOMMENDED DEEP ALTERNATE
HOUSE
PARK

-------
                              existing  interceptor that  conveys  wastewater flows
                              from this junction to the Oakwood Beach STP.
The construction
method for most
of the route is
pipe jacking.
The  construction method  for  most  of interceptor (9400
m  (31,000 ft))  will  be  pipe  jacking, with  short
segments  (totaling about  900 m  (3,000  ft)) constructed
by compressed  air  tunneling.  The remaining distance
from Kreischer Street to  Hopping Street and Amboy Road
will be  constructed  using the  cut  and cover trench
method.   The  diameter of the  interceptor will  vary
from 0.3-1.2  m  (1-4  ft), except for  the sections
constructed by means of compressed air tunneling which
will be 2-3 m  (8-10 ft) in diameter.  The two required
pump stations will be located on Kreischer Street near
Arthur  Kill  Road,  and  in the  vicinity of  Richmond
Avenue  and Hylan  Boulevard.   The   total  capital
cost for  this  alternative is estimated to be $129.7
million,  with  an estimated  present  worth value  of
$120.99 million
                         E.   OTHER ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED
The multiple pump
station/shallow
alternative was also
considered....
The other major alternative considered was  the multi-
ple pump  station  or shallow alternative,  which  in-
cludes 8,800  m (29,000 ft) of  gravity interceptor,
8,200 m (27,000 ft) of force mains, and thirteen  (13)
pump  stations.   This  alternative would  generally
follow the same route as the deep alternative, but the
shallow trench cut and cover construction method would
require seven  (7)  pump stations  along  the mainline
interceptor.  In addition, six (6) lateral force mains
with  pump  stations on  Lipsett,  Foil Ion,  Arbutus,
Molten and Bayview Avenues plus  Carteret  Street would
also  be  required  to  enable  areas south  of  Hylan
                                                          ES-9

-------
... but eliminated
due to potent-Lai
adverse environmental
impacts and high costs
related to pump stat-
ion siting.
Boulevard  to  be served  by  the interceptor.   Short
sections of the mainline  interceptor  and  the laterals
would be installed  by the pipe jacking method.   The
total capital  cost  of this  alternative was  estimated
to be $117.15 million, with an estimated present worth
value of $148.20 million.

Environmental  impacts  and additional  costs  would  be
incurred as a  result  of  pump  station  siting and con-
struction because the  pump stations should  be  located
at or near the low  points in the route which  are  in
environmentally sensitive areas requiring expenditures
to implement mitigation  measures.   Impacts  to  these
areas plus  the long-term costs of operating  and
maintaining the pump stations, as well as concern over
the-ir reliability  were  important   factors   in  the
decision to reject this alternative.
The Phase III area
inaludes large
tracts of vacant
land suitable for
development.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The study area (South Richmond) encompasses the south-
ern half of Staten  Island,  while the Phase  III  area
includes both that portion of South Richmond that will
be serviced by the  proposed  project  and a portion of
the Fresh  Kills  area which  was already  approved  for
sewering by EPA.  The  Phase III area is  the  last on
Staten Island, and  in  all of New York City, that has
large tracts of vacant land suitable for  development.

The study area is divided into a northern and a south-
ern drainage basin  by  a  low ridge (terminal moraine)
that  runs  northeast from the  Outerbridge Crossing.
Significant water  resources are  Mill  Creek,  Lemon
Creek, Arbutus Lake, and Wolfe's and Sequine  Ponds.
Sensitive environmental areas include the flood  prone
areas along the Raritan Bay shoreline and the wetlands
                                                          ES-10

-------
•The study area's
population is
increasing rapidly.
The project may cause
short term impacts.
     associated with Lemon Creek  and  Mill  Creek.   A rela-
     tively high water table occurs throughout the  project
     area,- and  frequent flooding  after  heavy rains  is
     common.

     Population on Staten Island  (Richmond County)  grew by
     approximately 31% during the decade between  1960-1970
     (primarily due to the opening of the Verrazano Narrows
     Bridge)  while population in South Richmond grew 84% in
     the same period.  South Richmond continues to  grow at
     a much lower rate (28%) than in the 1960's,  but it is
     still the fastest growing section of the county.

     School overcrowding, which  was  considered a serious
     constraint to growth in the  1980 DEIS, is no longer a
     problem  due  to many factors including  new  school
     construction.   Currently,  of 15  public  schools in
     South Richmond, only Tottenville High School is above
     capacity (by 5%).

G.    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

     Environmental impacts are  usually discussed  in terms
     of short-term (construction-related) impacts and long
     term  (operational)  impacts.   Impacts can be either
     positive or  negative and  can be either primary (di-
     rect) or secondary (indirect).

     1.   Short-Term Impacts

          The primary construction related impacts  pertain
          to  wetlands, air quality, noise and  traffic (due
          to  construction activities  in  the  roadway).   In
          addition, dewatering  activities  associated  with
          excavation could also create impacts to sensitive
          areas and waterways.  All of these impacts can be
                                                          ES-11

-------
                                    reduced  or minimized  by  standard construction
                                    procedures.

                                    Construction of  the  two pump stations would  not
                                    create any  unusual  impacts,  except that air  and
                                    noise impacts could  be  a concern  in  the residen-
                                    tial neighborhood around the Richmond Avenue  pump
                                    station.
Overall long-term
impacts would be
positive.
Long-Term Impacts

Overall, the long-term impacts would  be  positive
and would be a major step toward  eliminating  the
problems of malfunctioning  small  package waste-
water treatment  plants  and  septic systems, and
pooling of  septic flows during  times of  high
precipitation.    The  reduction  of groundwater
recharge by septic  flows may lower groundwater
levels, but  because  these  flows  were  often
polluted due  to  malfunctions,  this  would, in
fact, be a positive  impact.   Because  the inter-
ceptors were sized based upon population  figures
from  208  areawide waste treatment management
planning for  Staten  Island,  adverse  secondary
impacts due to induced  growth  are not expected.
In addition, due to the  economies of  scale, user
costs for  sewage treatment  are  expected to  be
reduced as the small  package systems are connect-
ed to the new municipal  system.
Mitigation measures
eon minimize impacts.
Mitigation Measures

Plans,  specifications,  and  contract  documents
should  include  specific items  for controlling
noise,  dust,  and  erosion.   Settling  basins,
diversion  ditches  and  other standard methods
                                                          ES-12

-------
should be used to prevent direct discharges  from
dewatering  activities  from  entering  natural
waterways.  A traffic management plan  should be
prepared  in cooperation with  local  police, fire
emergency officials and neighborhood  leaders to
maintain  traffic  through  construction  areas,
and/or to  provide  for detours  where  required.
The construction grant  for  this project  should
contain  special  conditions  to  restrict  sewer
hook-ups from new development located in environ-
mentally  sensitive  areas  (floodplains  and wet-
lands) and  to  insure  that appropriate measures
are taken to protect cultural  resources.   A Stage
II  survey  of  cultural  resources  previously
identified  along  the  interceptor  route,  and
compliance with the provisions  of  the National
Historic  Preservation  Act will,  be  required
before initiation  of construction.
                       ES-13

-------
CONTENTS

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                            PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PREFACE                                   ES-1

A.   Introduction                                           ES-1
B.   Overview                                               ES-3
C.   Purpose and Need                                       ES-6
D.   Recommended Alternative                                ES-8
E.   Other Alternatives Considered                          ES-9
F.   Affected Environment                                   ES-10
G.   Environmental  Impacts of the                           ES-11
      Recommended Alternative

Table of Contents                                           i
List of Figures                                             v
List of Tables                                              vi

I.   PURPOSE AND NEED                                       1-1

II.  ALTERNATIVES                                           II-l

     A.    Alternatives Considered in DEIS                    II-l
          1.    Mo Action
          2.    The  Three-Plant System
          3.    The  Two-Plant  System
          4.    The  One Plant  System
          5.    Other  Treatment Systems
          6.    Alternative Routing Plans
          7.    Construction Alternatives Considered

-------
     B.   Plan Recommended For Implementation In DEIS       II-6

     C.   Multiple Pump Station/Shallow Alternative         II-8

          1.   Detailed Description of Route
          2.   Location of Pump Stations
          3.   Construction Methods and Issues
          4.   Costs
          5.   Timetable for Completing Construction

     D.   Gravity Flow/Deep Alternative                     11-30

          1.   Detailed Description of Route
          2.   Location of Pump Stations
          3.   Construction Methods and Issues
          4.   Costs
          5.   Timetable for Completing Construction

     E.   Recommended Alternative                           11-42

III.  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT                                   III-l

     A.   Existing Conditions                               III-2

          1.   Setting
          2.   Physiography
          3.   Geology
          4.   Water Resources
          5.   Ecosystems
          6.   Air Quality

-------
          7.    Noise
          8.    Cultural  Resources
          9.    Land Use
         10.    Zoning
         11.    Economic  Characteristics
         12.    Schools
         13.    Population

     B.    Constraints to Growth                               111-25

          1.    Wetlands
          2.    Zoning
          3.    Open Space
          4.    Cultural  Resources
          5.    Public School  Capacity
          6.    Public Water Supply
          7.    Public Sewer System

     C.    Future Conditions                                  111-32

IV.   ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES           IV-1

     A.    Introduction                                        IV-1

     B.    Short-Term Impacts                                  IV-2

          1,    Earth Resources
          2.    Water Resources
          3.    Ecosystems  and Endangered  Species
          4.    Air  Quality
          5.    Traffic
          6.    Noise
          7.    Cultural  Resources
          8.    Land Use
          9.    Economy and Energy
                                  m

-------
     C.   Long-Term Impacts                                   IV-13

          1.   Primary
          2.   Secondary

     D.   Mitigation Measures                                 IV-15

          1.   Air Quality
          2.   Noise
          3.   Erosion
          4.   Dewatering Activities
          5.   Traffic Control
          6.   Clearing and Restoration
          7.   Special Grant Conditions

V.   COORDINATION                                             V-l

VI.  LIST OF PREPARERS                                      VI-1

VII. REFERENCES                                             VII-1
APPENDICES
     1.   Cost Data
     2.   Cultural  Resources Management Plan
     3.   Responsiveness Summary (DEIS)
     4.   Correspondence Responding to the DEIS
                                  IV

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES


                                                             FOLLOWING
FIGURE NUMBER                 TITLE                             PAGE

ES-1                Regional Location Map                        ES-3

ES-2                Schematic Overview                           ES-3

ES-3                Route of Recommended Deep Alternative        ES-8



II-l                Route Recommended in DEIS (1980)             II-6

II-2                Plan and Profile Views -        Inside back cover
                     Shallow and Deep Alternatives

II-3                Typical  Pump Station Cross-Section          11-15

II-4                Pipe Jacking - Schematic Diagram            11-21

II-5                Kreischer Street Pump Station Location      11-33

II-6                Richmond Avenue Pump Station Location       11-34

II-7                Compressed Air Tunneling Method -            11-38
                     Schematic Diagram



III-l               Flood Prone Areas                             III-4

III-2               Surficial  Geology                            III-6

III-3               Surface  Water Features                       III-9

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NUMBER             TITLE                                   PAGE

ES-1                FEIS Format                                  ES'2

ES-2                Cost Comparison of Alternatives              ES-6


II-l                Interceptor Route Segments -                11-10
                     Shallow Alternative

II-2                Capital  Costs for Shallow Alternative       11-28

II-3                Total Present Worth - Shallow Alternative   11-28

II-4                Shallow Alternative Interceptor Design
                    Timetable                                   11-29

II-5                Shallow Alternative Pump Station and
                    Force Main Design Timetable                 11-29

II-6                Shallow Alternative Construction            11-31
                     Schedule by Phase, Gravity
                     Interceptor Sewer

II-7                Shallow Alternative Construction            11-32
                     by Phase, Pump Stations & Force
                     Mains

II-8                Allowable Working Periods Under             11-39
                     Compressed Air

II-9                Capital  Costs for Deep Alternative          11-41

11-10               Total Present Worth - Deep Alternative      11-41

11-11               Construction Schedule by Phase, Deep
                    Alternative                                 11-43

11-12               Cost Comparison - Shallow and               11-44
                     Deep Alternatives

III-l               Population 1950-1980                        111-26

III-2               Public School Enrollment and                111-30
                     Capacity

III-3               Population Projections                      111-33

-------
PURPOSE AND NEED

-------
                         CHAPTER  I

                         PURPOSE  AND NEED

                         The  information  provided below  is  taken  from Chapter  1,
                         Purpose  and  Need,  of the DEIS.   Minor  changes have been
                         made regarding references to figures and terminology.
Portions of the Oak-
wood Beach Project
are completed or
underway.
This FEIS addresses  that  portion  of Phase III and  Future
Phases of the Oakwood Beach Water Pollution Control Project
located  in  the  South Richmond  section  of Staten  Island
(Richmond County), New York.  Phase  I,  approved  by  the  EPA
in 1973  has already  been  constructed,  and included expan-
sion and upgrading of the Oakwood Beach STP, a sludge force
main to  the Port  Richmond  STP,  the  plant outfall, and two
interceptor sewers.  Phase II, which received grant funding
from EPA in  1977  and 1979, includes the  Eltingville and
Richmond Hill pump stations and the  connecting Fresh  Kills
interceptor and force main.   Phase  III and future  phases
includes a network of interceptors,  pump stations and force
mains  in South  Richmond.   Some of  these  facilities have
already  been constructed while  others are  either currently
under  construction or have been conceptually approved  by
the EPA  (Figure ES-2).
Development pressures
in the area are
strong.
South Richmond is the only remaining area of New York  City
which is  largely undeveloped.   It  is  undergoing  strong
development  pressures  and,   consequently,  significant
increases in population have  been projected for this area.
In 1973,  the  New York City  Department  of City Planning
(NYCDCP) prepared the South  Richmond Plan  in  an  effort to
control  development  in  South Richmond,  but the  plan  was
never officially adopted by the City.   However, out of this
planning effort  the South Richmond  Special  Development
District zoning  regulation was  formulated and adopted  in
1975.
                                                     1-1

-------
 Most residences in
 the area are served
 by septic systems or
 package plants.
With the exception of  the  Tottenville  area,  South Richmond
generally  lacks  sewers,  and most development is  served  by
individual  septic  tanks  and/or  small  "package" treatment
plants.

If Phase III facilities are not  built,  the need for  package
treatment  facilities would continue.   Because the operation
and maintenance  capabilities  of  these  facilities is  diffi-
cult to  manage, NYCDEP might ultimately have  to assume
responsibility  for  them.   Septic tank  systems  would con-
tinue to cause problems in the area, especially after heavy
rains when  surface  ponding of septic flows would  continue
to pose  potential  health  hazards.  The  private wastewater
conveyance  and  package treatment systems would result  in
greater  user costs  for  the  individual homeowners  than
comparable  costs in other  areas  of  the  city where treatment
and sewers  are  provided  as municipal  services.   The  exist-
ing areas  with direct  raw  sewage discharges  would continue
to convey  untreated sewage  into  the nearest waterway (i.e.,
Tottenville  flows  discharging to the Arthur  Kill).   Such
discharges  have  previously contributed  to the  closing of
shell fishing areas  and the contravention of water quality
standards.
Conditions will con-
tinue to deteriorate
unless remedial
action is taken.
The projected  rate  of development indicates that existing
conditions will continue to deteriorate  unless  some form of
remedial  action  is  taken.  The  continued degradation of
surface water  quality,  the potential  health hazards  during
heavy rains, and  the  disproportionately  high  user  costs  to
new residents  all contribute  to the need for the project.
Further,  the  large  number of  temporary treatment  and
package treatment plants would make regulation, monitoring,
and maintenance difficult.
                                                      1-2

-------
                         In 1968, New  York  City passed the Septic  Tank  Law which
                         restricted development using septic tanks on lots less than
                         930 square meters (10,000 square feet).  The NYC Department
NYCDWR designed a        Of Water Resources (NYCDWR) then finalized a drainage  plan
sewer system to serve
Staten Island.
for Staten Island and  proceeded  to design an  interceptor
sewer network to serve  the  area.   The proposed wastewater
treatment facilities evaluated in this EIS are part of this
network.
                                                     1-3

-------
ALTERNATIVES

-------
                          CHAPTER II
                          ALTERNATIVES
Discussion of alter-
natives is based on
the DEIS and updated
information.
Because  the  primary  issues  resulting  from  the  public
hearing on the  DEIS  are related to construction  alterna-
tives  (shallow  trench  construction  with multiple  pump
stations versus  deep tunnel construction with two  pump
stations), they will  be  discussed  in  detail  in sections D
and E of this Chapter.   Information concerning  preliminary
alternatives that were  discussed in detail  in  the DEIS is
summarized in sections A through C.   Information  from the
1985 Alternative Study  prepared by NYCDEP is used in this
chapter to update  the information  provided in  the  Draft
EIS.   Additional  information  submitted by  the  NYCDEP
(concerning construction methods and costs)  since the  time
of publication  of  The Alternative  Study are addressed in
this chapter.
                         A.   ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED  IN DEIS

                              The  following  alternatives were  considered in  the
                              Draft  EIS and are briefly reviewed below:

                                   No-Action
                                   Three - Plant System
                                   Two - Plant System
                                   One - Plant System  (two options)
                                   Other Treatment System Alternatives
                                   Alternative Routing Plans
No new alternatives
have been proposed
sinoe the DEIS.
     In  addition, three methods  of construction for  the
     interceptor were considered,  i.e.  shallow open cut,
     deep  open  cut and  tunneling.   Since the  publication  of
     the  DEIS,  no additional treatment or routing alterna-
     tives have been  proposed.
                                                     II-l

-------
                               1.   No-Action
No-oat-ion would
allow problems to
continue.
This alternative  assumes  that the proposed Phase
III facilities would  not  be built.  The existing
Oakwood  Beach Plant  would  continue to  receive
flows from the existing sewered areas  and  the use
of  septic tanks  and  package  treatment plant
facilities  would  continue  for the  remaining
unsewered areas.
                                    The  no-action  alternative was  eliminated  from
                                    further   consideration  because  the  problems
                                    discussed in  Chapter I  would  continue if  no
                                    action were  taken.

                                    The  Three-Plant System
A three-plant  sys-
tem was  too  ex-
pensive.
 In addition to using  the  existing  Oakwood  Beach
 Plant, this treatment  scheme  would  involve con-
 struction  of  two  major wastewater  treatment
 facilities, one in Tottenville  and  the  other in
 Fresh Kills.   This alternative was  eliminated
 from further evaluation due to  its high relative
 costs.
                                3.    The Two-Plant System
A two-plant system
was inappropriate.
 This  treatment scheme  would  involve two waste-
 water treatment  facilities  for South Richmond.
 The  Oakwood Beach Plant would  receive flows from
 the majority of the  South Richmond area  and a new
 plant would  be constructed  in Tottenville to
 receive  wastewater  flows  from  the  Tottenville
 area.   In  the  Draft EIS,  this  alternative was
 considered  a  feasible  alternative.   However,
                                                      II-2

-------
                                   further evaluation  in  the  Draft EIS showed that,
                                   while  impacts would  be  similar  for this alterna-
                                   tive  and  the one-plant alternative,  the  cost
                                   would  be  significantly  greater  than that of the
                                   one-plant alternative.   Therefore, this alterna-
                                   tive was eliminated  from further consideration.

                              4.   One-Plant System
 The one-plant
 system was re-
 corrmended in the
 DEIS.
Under this alternative, the entire South Richmond
area would  be served  by  the existing  Oakwood
Beach STP.  To provide adequate capacity for  the
projected population, the Draft EIS discussed two
options under  this  alternative.   The first  in-
volved the expansion of the  Oakwood  Beach  STP to
provide treatment  for  all  the wastewater  flows
generated in the South Richmond area, as original-
ly proposed  by the NYCDWR  (1971).   The second
option was to  use the  projected Year  2000  excess
capacity at the existing Port Richmond STP on the
North Shore  of Staten  Island (Bodine Street and
Richmond  Terrace).   Under  this  option,   the
Oakwood Beach  STP  would  not have to  be further
expanded until the capacity of the Port Richmond
Plant is  also  reached.  This option  was recom-
mended in the  DEIS.
The Oakwood Beach
STP has adequate
capacity for pro-
jected wastewater
flows.
The design  capacity at  the Oakwood  Plant is
152,000 cu m/d  (40 mgd)  and  the average flow in
early  1986 was  95,000-114,000 cubic meters  per
day (25-30 million gallons  per day).   The Fresh
Kills interceptor (Sections FK19, 24 and 25) when
operational  will contribute an  additional  23,000
cu m/d (6 mgd)  to  the  Oakwood Beach plant.  The
design capacity  at the  Port  Richmond  STP is
27,000 cu m/d  (60  mgd) and the average  flow  in
                                                     II-3

-------
                                   early  1986 was 152,000 -  170,000  cu m/d  (40-45
                                   mgd)  (NYCDEP  Bureau  of Water Pollution Control).

                                   Based  upon the  population  projections  in the
                                   Draft  EIS, the  Phase  III  area is  ultimately
                                   expected  to produce approximately 57,000  cu  m/d
                                   (15  mgd)   of  waste  flows  requiring  treatment.
                                   Therefore,  when  the Oakwood  Beach plant  reaches
                                   capacity  there would still  be available treatment
                                   capacity  at the  Port Richmond STP.

                              Other Treatment Systems
 Alternative waste-
 water treatment
 processes were not
 considered.
Alternatives such as  land  application and physi-
cal-chemical treatment were not considered in the
Draft EIS, nor are they  in this  document.   Land
application is not practical due  to  the high cost
of land in  the New  York  City metropolitan area.
Physical-chemical treatment is  not practical  due
to high treatment and energy costs.  Moreover,
the existing Oakwood Beach and Port  Richmond STPs
can provide adequate treatment at minimum cost.
                              Alternative  Routing  Plans
Alternative inter-
ceptor routes were
considered in the
DEIS.
For each  of  the plant system  alternatives  con-
sidered in the Draft EIS, alternative  interceptor
routes were  considered.   The  interceptor route
was divided  into  two  sections; the  northern and
westerly  section  called the Tottenville Inter-
ceptor, and the remaining section  called the West
Branch Interceptor.   Two alternatives  for  each
section were considered.
                                                      II-4

-------
The route around
Conference House
Park was selected
for the Tottenwi'Lle
section.
(a)  The Tottenville Interceptor

     The two  alternative  routes considered  for
     this  section  were related  to  Conference
     House Park; one route  through  the  park and
     another around the park.  The  route  through
     the park is more  expensive  and would cause
     significant  impacts   to  the   historical
     resources  of  the  park.   Therefore,  the
     routing  alternative  around the  Park was
     considered  the only feasible route.

(b)  The West Branch Interceptor
The Hylan Boulevard
route was selected
for the West Branch
section.
     The two alternative  routes  considered for
     this section were the  shore  route and the
     Hylan  Boulevard route.  These  alternatives
     provided routes for  the interceptor from  the
     junction of Page Avenue and Hylan Boulevard
     to an  existing  section  of  interceptor in  the
     vicinity of  Hylan  Boulevard  and  Nelson
     Avenue.   The basic difference between these
     routes  was  that from the vicinity  of Shar-
     rott Avenue and Hylan  Boulevard,  the shore
     route  followed  the shoreline  of Raritan Bay
     very closely while the  Hylan  Boulevard Route
     continued  to follow  Hylan  Boulevard.  The
     shore  route  was eliminated  from  further
     consideration because,  although  its costs
     were comparable with  the  Hylan  Boulevard
     route,  it was  incompatible  with  the NYS
     Draft  Coastal  Zone  Management  (CZM)  Plan
     (1978)  and,  it  involved numerous  significant
     environmental impacts.
                                                     II-5

-------
                               7.   Construction  Alternatives  Considered
 Three  construc-
 tion methods were
 considered in the
 DEIS.
     As part of  the  routing alternatives,  three  con-
     struction techniques  were  considered:  shallow
     cut, deep cut and slurry shield  tunnel.  Based on
     preliminary  cost estimates,  the deep  cut  and
     slurry shield tunnel methods  were not  recommended
     in the DEIS.
                          B.    PLAN  RECOMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN DEIS
The  DEIS recommend-
ed the  one-plant
system...
The plan  recommended for implementation  in  the  DEIS
and presented  at  the Public  Hearing  on February 26,
1981 was  a  one-plant system (Oakwood Beach STP)  using
the additional  capacity  at  the Port Richmond STP once
capacity  at the Oakwood  Beach STP  was  reached.  Use of
the Port  Richmond  STP,  will  preclude  the need  to
expand Oakwood  Beach STP until  a later  date.  However,
plans for expansion of the  Oakwood Beach  STP will have
to be considered  when both  these  facilities approach
their design capacities  in  the future.
...  using the
shallow trench
(out and cover)
construction, method.
The  routing  of the Tottenville section of the inter-
ceptor would be around Conference  House  Park, while
the  West  Branch section would follow the Hylan Boule-
vard route  (Figure II-l).  The recommended construc-
tion method  was  the  shallow  trench  cut and cover
method for both gravity interceptors  end force mains,
with a total  of eleven (11) pumping stations, includ-
ing  six  (6)  main-line  pump  stations  and five  (5)
lateral  force main pump  stations  at  the locations
shown below:
                                                       II-6

-------
        ROUTE OF INTERCEPTOR SEWERS

        MAIN LINE PUMP STATION  (P.S.)
        LATERAL PUMP STATION (P.S.)
        INCLUDES FORCE MAIN
        PHASE AREA BOUNDARY

        0
        E
ND SPECIAL
DI STRICT ,&00NDARY
        u ",EU^

   KREISCHER STREET P.S.-
                                                                                                      PHASE I  '
                                              CLAY PIT PONDS STATE PARK
                                                                         LUTEN AVE. P.S.
                                                                                                                              OAKWOOD BEACH
                                                                                                                             .TREATMENT PLANT
                                                                   HOGAN AVE.  P.S.
      FINLAY STREET P.S.
                                ELLEN STREET P.S.
                              .
                 SHARROTT AVE. P.S
          CARTERET STREET P.S.
                                                                                       POUGHKEEPSIE AVE. P.S.
•CONFERENCE HOUSE PARK
                BAYVIEW AVE. P.S.
                                                             HOLTEN AVE. P.S.  1— ARBUTUS AVE. P.S.
                                                                                               OAKWOOD BEACH WATER POLLUTION
                                                                                                  CONTROL  PROJECT  FINAL EIS
                                                                                                   STATEN ISLAND,  NEW YORK
                                                                                                Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
                                                                                                   .  CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain,
                                                                                              Tltl9:
                                                                                                                        ROUTE RECOMMENDED
                                                                                                                            IN DEiS(1980)
Source:  DEIS
                                                                                              Date: 3/86
                                                                                                                             scal«: As Shown

-------
                              Main Line Pump Stations  Lateral Pump Stations

                              Kreischer Street         Carteret Street
...  and II pimp               Finlay Street            Bayview Avenue
stations.                      Sharrott Avenue          Molten Avenue
                              Ellen Avenue             Arbutus Avenue
                              Luten Avenue             Poughkeepsie Avenue
                              Hogan Avenue

                              Other details contained  in  the  DEIS Recommended Plan
                              included the following:

                                   Each pumping station was to have  two  independent
                                   sources of  power;  the  private utility electric
                                   system  plus diesel  powered generators,  with
                                   mechanical  redundancy,  i.e., back-up pumps;

                                   Emergency  outfalls  in  the Lemon  Creek  area
                                   (Ellen, Luten  and Hogan Avenue  Pump  Stations)
                                   would  not  discharge into  Lemon  Creek,  but be
                                   routed along force  main  routes to the Bayview,
                                   Molten and  Arbutus  Avenue  Pumping  Stations  to
                                   allow for discharge into Raritan  and/or  Princes
                                   Bays;

                                   To avoid environmental  impacts to Lemon Creek,
                                   the interceptor crossing  in this area would  be
                                   accomplished by anchoring  the  force main  to  the
                                   side of the Hylan  Boulevard overpass;

                                   As a  condition of  any  grant  awarded for  the
                                   project, EPA would  prohibit sewer hook-ups from
                                   new developments  in environmentally  sensitive
                                   areas (floodplains and  wetlands); and
                                                     II-7

-------
                                    EPA would  require  that construction  of  the
                                    project be subject to satisfactory  completion of
                                    a  cultural resource management  plan and written
                                    authorization from the EPA.
The cost of the
shallow alterna-
tive was less
than half the cost
of the deep alter-
native.
The shallow alterna-
tive is one of the
alternatives con-
sidered in this FEIS.
                          C.
The capital cost of the multiple  pump  station  alterna-
tive, also referred to as the  shallow  alternative, was
estimated  to  be approximately  $54 million  (in  1979
dollars), while that of the gravity  flow/deep  alterna-
tive was estimated  to  be approximately  $136 million.
The present worths  of  the shallow and deep alterna-
tives were estimated to  be  approximately $57 and $118
million respectively-
     PLE PUMP STATION/SHALLOW ALTERNATIV
                              ,X
This alternative  is  a refined version  of the alter-
native recommended in  the  DEIS and described above  in
Section B.  One of the methods considered for the con-
struction of  the  interceptor  sewer  along the recom-
mended route  is the  shallow trench  cut and cover
method requiring multiple  pump stations.  The follow-
ing sections  describe the  location  of the  proposed
interceptor route, the location of the  pump  stations
required for both the  mainline interceptor and  later-
als, the construction  methods  for the interceptor and
pump stations,  cost-estimate analysis,  and a proposed
timetable for  the design  and  construction of the
project.
                               1.    Detailed Description of Route

                                    The  shallow trench  interceptor route  would  be
                                    comprised of  a  series of  gravity interceptors
                                    (8788  m  (29,000 ft)  total  length), force mains
                                    (8182  m  (27,000 ft)  total  length) and  thirteen
                                                      II-8

-------
The shallow alterna-
tive  includes:
.  29,000 ft.  of gra-
  vity interceptors3
.  2?f000 ft.  of force
  mains3 and
.  13 pwnp stations.
(13) pump  stations,  extending  from  the inter-
section of Arthur Kill Road and  Kreischer  Street
to the intersection of Hylan  Boulevard  and Rich-
mond Avenue.   Thirteen  (13)  stations  would be
required instead of the eleven  (11)  discussed  in
the DEIS based on data from the  1985 Alternative
Study.   Seven (7) pump stations would b.e required
along  the  main-line  interceptor  route  and  an
additional  six  (6) would  be required along  the
south shore to convey flows through lateral force
mains to the mainline interceptor.
                                   Because of the  number  of pump stations and  the
                                   concern demonstrated over  their location, con-
                                   struction and reliability,  all pump stations  will
                                   be discussed in detail  in Section  2.  The  inter-
                                   ceptor route  is summarized in  Table II-l and
                                   shown on Figure 11-2 (inside back cover).

                                   The mainline interceptor for  this  project would
                                   begin at a pump station to be located on Kreisch-
                                   er Street  north of the  intersection  of Arthur
                                   Kill  Road.

                                   Wastewater flows will  be pumped  from this point
                                   through a  force main  to Allentown Lane'.   From
                                   there, flows would be  carried by gravity  flow to
                                   the intersection of  Arthur  Kill  Road and  Ellis
                                   Street.  Gravity flow would continue  along Ellis
                                   Street, to  a  point opposite  Main  Street.   The
                                   Main  Street  segment of  the  interceptor would
                                   cross  under  the Staten  Island  Rapid Transit
                                   Operating Authority  (SIRTOA)  tracks.   The route
                                   would  then  follow Main  Street  south to  the
                                   intersection with  Arthur Kill Road.   From the
                                   intersection of Main Street and Arthur Kill Road,
                                                     II-9

-------
                                TABLE  II-l
                         INTERCEPTOR  ROUTE SEGMENTS
                            SHALLOW  ALTERNATIVE
Location
Streets
Kreischer to Allentown
Allentown to Richmond Valley
Richmond Valley to Ellis
Arthur Kill to Bentley
Hopping to Pittsville
Pittsville to Finlay
Fin!ay to Yetman
Yetman to Sharrott
Sharrott to Woodvale
Woodvale to Bayview
Bayview to Hoi ten
Hoi ten to Wolfe's Pond
Wolfe's Pond to Stecher
Stecher to Arbutus
Arbutus to Poillon
Poillon to Leo!a
Leo!a to Richmond

Other Portions
Wards Point Avenue to Hopping
South Shore Laterals

TOTAL LENGTH
Gravity Sewer (GS)
or Force main (FM)
FM
GS
GS
GS
FM
GS
FM
GS
FM
GS
FM
GS
FM
GS
FM
GS
GS
FM
FM
Diameter
(in.)
12
18
24
30
16
30
24
30
30
30
36
30
36
30
42
36
48
8
10
Length
(ft)
2,000
3,235
1,200
4,945
2,700
1,765
2,495
8,360
2,260
1,250
2,600
880
2,565
1,320
1,360
1,350
5,360
1,000
10,400
                                                                      57,105
                                               11-10

-------
                                   the interceptor  would  follow Arthur  Kill  Road
                                   west to  the  intersection with  Bentley  Street,
                                   following Bentley south to the  intersection with
                                   Hopping Avenue, and then  Hopping  Avenue  west  to
                                   the intersection with  Amboy Road.

                                   At this intersection,  another pump station would
                                   be required  in  order  to  convey flows easterly
                                   along  Amboy Road to the  intersection  with  Craig
                                   Avenue, and south along Craig to Hylan Boulevard.
                                   From the intersection of  Craig  Avenue and  Hylan
                                   Boulevard,  the  collection system  route  would
                                   follow Hylan  Boulevard east from Craig Avenue  to
                                   Richmond Avenue,  requiring  five  pump stations
                                   along   the  route (see Section  2  below).   The
                                   project would terminate  at  Hylan  Boulevard and
                                   Richmond Avenue, connecting  to  the interceptor
                                   (currently  under construction)  that  carries
                                   wasteflows  from  this  junction  to  the Oakwood
                                   Beach  STP.
Six lateral pump  sta-
tions and force mains
are also  required.
In addition  to the  mainline  interceptor,  the
shallow alternative  would require  six  lateral
force mains  and  pump stations to  convey  waste
flows from  the residential  areas  south,  and
down-gradient  of  Hylan  Boulevard.  Generally
these force  mains  would be constructed  in  the
beds  of the following streets:
                                        Lipsett Avenue
                                        Poillon Avenue
                                        Arbutus Avenue
                              Hoi ten Avenue
                              Bayview Avenue
                              Carteret Street.
                                   A pump station would be required at the southern-
                                   most end of each of these streets.
                                                     11-11

-------
Seven mainline pump
stations would be
required at the
following locations;
. Kreischer Street
. Hopping Avenue
. Finlay Street
. Sharrott Avenue
. Bayview Avenue/
  Lemon Creek
. Wolfe's Pond
. Arbutus Avenue/
  Hylan Blvd.
2.   Location of Pump Stations

     For the  multiple pump station/shallow alterna-
     tive, pump stations would  be required along both
     the mainline  (7  locations)  and lateral (6  loca-
     tions) interceptor  sewers.  The general  location
     for each pump  station in each  category  is  des-
     cribed below:

     (a)  Main Line Pump Stations

          (1)  Kreischer Street Pump Station:   This
               station  is  required  under  both  the
               multiple pump  station and the  gravity
               flow alternatives.   It would be located
               on the west side of  Kreischer  Street
               north of the junction with Arthur Kill
               Road.  A more  detailed  description of
               this  location  is  given  in section
               II.D.2.  under  the  gravity  flow/deep
               alternative.

          (2)  Hopping  Avenue  Pump Station:   This
               station should be  located in the area
               of Hopping  Avenue and  Amboy Road to
               avoid  deep  construction  through the
               ridge at Pittsville  (Shore)  Road.  One
               possible, currently  vacant,  site  is the
               northwest corner of  Hopping Avenue  and
               Amboy  Road.  However,  this site is
               privately owned  and  it  is  not  the
               lowest point  on  this portion  of the
               route.   (Pump stations   are  usually
               located at  low points to  minimize deep
               excavation).  The  site at the low point
               is a city owned  vacant  lot on  the west
                                                      11-12

-------
     side  of  Hopping  Avenue at  Patten
     Street.   However,  due  to topography,  if
     this  site were  chosen,  wastewater flows
     from  the  newly  developed area  along
     Wards Point Avenue between  Perth Amboy
     Place and Amboy Road  could  not reach
     the  interceptor by gravity, and  would
     require   a  small  underground  pump
     station  at Amboy Road.  In  addition, a
     small  ejector pump would be  required  to
     bring wastewater flows from the struc-
     tures at the northern  end  of Bentley
     Street to  the  interceptor  at  Arthur
     Kill  Road.   Both  sites  on  Hopping
     Avenue are in the  floodplain.

(3)   Finlay Street  Pump  Station:    This
     station  could be located in  either  side
     of Hylan Boulevard at  Finlay Street.
     All   the  property  in  this   area  is
     privately owned, although some  lots  are
     not yet  developed.

(4)   Sharrott  Avenue  Pump  Station:   The
     natural  low  point in  this  area  is  a
     point approximately  700 ft  west of the
     junction  of Sharrott Avenue and  Hylan
     Boulevard.   Land on  both sides  of Hylan
     Boulevard in  this  area is owned by the
     Mount Loretto Home for Children.  In
     addition, there  is a  tidal  salt pond  on
     the  south side  of Hylan Boulevard in
     this  area which is protected under the
     NYS  Tidal  Wetlands  Act,  and  other
     portions  of  the area  are within  the
     floodplain.

             11-13

-------
(5)   Bayview Avenue/Lemon  Creek Pump  Sta-
     tion:  The natural  low point location
     for a pump station  in this area would
     be at  the point  where  Lemon Creek
     crosses Hylan Boulevard.  However, this
     entire area is covered by the NYS Tidal
     Wetlands Act and has been identified as
     significant habitat.   A possible site
     for the pump  station  is on the south-
     west corner of  the  junction  of  Hylan
     Boulevard and Bayview  Avenue.  Land on
     the northwest and southwest corners is
     also  currently  vacant and  may   be
     suitable for the station site.

(6)   Wolfe's Pond  Pump Station:   The low
     point location for a pump station would
     be where  a small  stream  flows  under
     Hylan Boulevard toward Wolfe's  Pond.
     However,  the  land on  both sides of
     Hylan Boulevard from  Hoi ten  Avenue  to
     Cornelia Avenue is included  in Wolfe's
     Pond Park.  Therefore, the pump station
     would probably have to be  located at a
     nearby site.

(7)   Arbutus  Avenue/Hylan   Boulevard  Pump
     Station:  The pump station in this area
     would be  located  between Arbutus and
     Bertram Avenues.  The lowest point  is
     where  a  culvert  runs  under  Hylan
     Boulevard  into  Arbutus Lake  from the
     wooded area to the north  of  the  Boule-
     vard.  However, since that area  is  in
     the floodplain other  locations must  be
             11-14

-------
                                             evaluated.  The remainder  of  the land
                                             to the south is developed.   The land to
                                             the north  of  Hylan Boulevard  on the
                                             corner of Arbutus Avenue is developed,
                                             while the  remaining  land  (northeast
                                             quadrant)  is  vacant  and  potentially
                                             available for  locating  the pump sta-
                                             tion.
These pump  stations
do not require  emer-
gency outfalls.
Each of  the mainline pump  stations  would
require an above ground  location and  there-
fore could not be located within the  mapped
width of Hylan Boulevard.  The pump stations
would include  pumps,  mechanical  equipment,
instrumentation and odor control equipment.
Although the primary pumps would be operated
with power  from existing  utility lines,
stand-by diesel powered  generators would  be
provided at each location  in  case  of power
failures.  In  addition,  the  stations would
be checked,  and stand-by pumps tested daily,
by maintenance  crews.   Because of NYSDEC
concern, there will  be no emergency outfalls
associated with any pump station.  Although
each station would  be slightly different due
to  location,  number  and size  of pumps
required, and  other  site-specific  factors,
the basic design and  construction  would be
similar.  A schematic diagram  of  a typical
pump station is shown in Figure II-3.
                                                     11-15

-------
                                            EL+34.0
ROOF STRUCTURE
ABOVE  GRADE
STRUCTURE
ARCHITECTURALLY
DESIGNED
                                                                         EL.+9.0'
                                                                    SEWAGE TO
                                                                    FORCE MAIN
SEWAGE. INTO
STATION  FROM
GRAVITY  SEWER
                                              OAKWQOD BEACH WATER  POLLUTION
                                                 CONTROL PROJECT FINAL E1S
                                                  STATEN ISLAND.  NEW YORK
                                            Environmental Protection Aflency. Region
                                                 CE Magulre. Inc.. New Britain. CT
                                                    TYPICAL PUMP STATION
                                                       CROSS-SECTION
                                           Source • ADAPTED FROM NYCDEP
                                           Date • 5/66	| Scale • N.T.5.   | Flpure •  ||~3

-------
                                    (b)  Lateral Pump Stations
Six lateral pump
stations are required
at the following
locations:
   Carteret Street
   Bayview  Avenue
   Holten Avenue
.   Arbutus  Avenue
   Poillon  Avenue
   Lipsett  Avenue
Lateral   pump  stations would  be  required
under this  alternative  to pump wastewater
flows through force mains  from  areas  south
of Hylan  Boulevard  to the mainline inter-
ceptor  under  Hylan  Boulevard.    Although
these stations will be smaller  in size  than
the mainline stations, they would be similar
in most  other  respects.   The six stations
required  would  be  located as  described
below:
                                         (1)  Carteret  Street Pump  Station:   This
                                             station was originally proposed for the
                                             southern  end  of  Yetman  Avenue,  but
                                             moved  to  the  junction of Carteret and
                                             Bill ops Avenues to coincide with  the
                                             low point of the drainage area.

                                         (2)  Bayview  Avenue  Pump  Station:    This
                                             station  would  be  located  near the
                                             intersection  of Bayview  Avenue  and
                                             Johnston  Terrace.   However, it may be
                                             difficult to  find  a suitable location
                                             since  all of  the area to the  east is
                                             included  in  state regulated wetlands
                                             and floodplains,  and  the areas to the
                                             west  are  privately  owned  with  some
                                             portions  in the floodplain.

                                         (3)  Holten Avenue  Pump  Station: This  pump
                                             station  would  be  located  near the
                                             intersection  of Holten Avenue,  Purdy
                                             Place  and Johnston  Terrace.  Sites to
                                             the west  of this intersection  may be
                                                     11-16

-------
     suitable,  although  privately  owned.
     Wolfe's Pond Park is adjacent to Hoi ten
     Avenue on  the east and therefore would
     not be  suitable for  a  pump station
     site.   The lot on the corner of Purdy
     Place   and  Hoi ten Avenue  is already
     developed.   This entire area is within
     the floodplain.

(4)   Arbutus Avenue   Pump  Station:   The
     Arbutus Avenue  pump  station would be
     located at  the  southern end  of the
     street adjacent  to the beach area owned
     by the City of New York.  The  area to
     the east of Arbutus Avenue  is occupied
     by a  high  school.   Lots on  the  west
     side are privately owned and developed.
     The site would  be  constrained by its
     location within  the  floodplain.

(5)   Poillon Avenue:   The Poillon  Avenue
     pump station would  be  located at the
     southern end of the street  adjacent to
     the beach  area  owned by  the  City of New
     York.   This  site will  be constrained
     because of  its   location  within the
     floodplain and  "designated open space".

(6)   Lipsett Avenue:   The Lipsett  Avenue
     pump station would also  be  located at
     the southern end of  the  street adjacent
     to the  beach  area.   As  with  Poillon
     Avenue, this site will  be  constrained
     due to its  location  within  the  flood-
     plain.
             11-17

-------
     The  original   recommendations   for   pump
     station sites in the DEIS included a site on
     the  south  end of  Poughkeepsie  Avenue  to
     serve the area between Holdridge Avenue and
     Poillon Avenue.  Data from the  geotechnical
     study shows Poughkeepsie Avenue to  be  a 60
     foot mapped street, with  no  existing road-
     way.   In  addition, houses  exist in  the
     mapped  bed  of  the street,  which  makes
     construction unfeasible.   Moreover,  Sequine
     Pond  is  located directly  between  Pough-
     keepsie Avenue  and Lipsett  Avenue, thus
     cutting off access from the eastern  side of
     this  area.   Alternate sites were  studied
     and,  because  of the  location  of Sequine
     Pond,  it was  determined  that two stations
     would be necessary.   One  of  these would be
     at the foot of Lipsett Avenue to  serve the
     area  east of  Sequine  Pond, and the other
     would be at the  foot  of  Poillon Avenue to
     serve the area west of Sequine  Pond.

     Because  all  the  lateral   pump  stations
     described above are in the floodplain,  they
     would require an above ground structure de-
     signed with consideration  given   to flood-
     proofing.

3.   Construction Methods and  Issues

     The  following  paragraphs  describe the
     construction methods that would be  used for
     various segments of the shallow  alternative,
     including pump stations and laterals.   This
                  11-18

-------
                                        discussion also includes the reasons  for use
                                        of each  of the methods  and some  of  the
                                        issues related to them.
Soil conditions
influence the choice
of construction
method..*
A primary factor for choosing a construction
method, which  determines the  cost of the
project, is  soil  conditions.  As  described
in  detail  in  Chapter III,   the  shallow
alternative would be  built  in  glacial  soils
that are highly variable in  terms  of content
of cobbles and  boulders.   In addition, the
easternmost 394 m (1300 ft)  of the alignment
would encounter another level of soils which
are comprised of mostly  sands  and  clay.  At
the interface  of  these two  layers,  it is
possible to  encounter even  more  boulders,
cobbles and nests of boulders.  These bould-
ers  and cobbles  could  present  serious
construction problems which  could  add to the
cost of the project.
...  groundwater is
(mother important
facto?.
Another major source  of  potential  construc-
tion problems would be groundwater.  Approxi-
mately  one-half the  shallow  alternative
alignment would  be  at or below the ground-
water  level.   Therefore, excavation  would
encounter  varying  amounts  of  inflow, re-
quiring methods  to  remove  the  water from
the working area (dewatering).
                                        The  issues  of  soils  and groundwater  are
                                        addressed  further as  appropriate to  the
                                        construction  method  discussed  below.   The
                                        mainline  interceptor  sewer  and  lateral
                                        sewers  are  discussed  separately.   The
                                                     11-19

-------
                                        mainline  interceptor would be  the primary
                                        conduit of wastewater to  the  Oakwood  STP  and
                                        therefore  would  be  of a large  diameter
                                        (75-120  cm (30-48  in)).   The laterals or
                                        secondary collectors would convey wastewater
                                        from  clusters  of residences  to the mainline
                                        and are much  smaller in  diameter  (25-30  cm
                                        (10-12 in)).

                                        (a)   Mainline  Interceptor
 The out and cover
 construction method
 would be used for
 almost all of the
 mainline interceptor.
Cut and cover is a
standard,  normally
the least  expensive,
construction method.
The  basic  construction  method  for
almost  the entire  length  of  this
multiple pump station/shallow  alterna-
tive would be the cut and cover  trench
method.   This  method  consists  of
excavating a  trench  2-10 m (6-10  ft)
wide and  2-15 m (5-50  ft)  below the
existing ground surface for a length of
8-15 m (25-50 ft);  placing a section of
pipe 3-18  m  (12-25 ft)  long  in the
trench, and then covering that  portion
of  the completed  pipe  as  the  next
section of trench  is  being  dug.  It  is
estimated that 30-50 m  (100-150  ft)  of
pipe can be installed per day depending
upon sub-surface conditions and depth
of  excavation.   This  method  requires
only a  short  length of  trench  to  be
open at any one time,  allowing for ease
of construction, reduction of potential
impacts,  and  reduction  of  safety  and
traffic  hazards.   The cut  and cover
method for  interceptor  sewer  installa-
tion is  a  standard  construction  method
and  is normally the  least expensive
                                                      11-20

-------
                                             method,  except where very deep installa-
                                             tion  is  required and/or unusual ground-
                                             water or other  environmental  problems
                                             are encountered.
Pipe "jacking" would
be used under envir-
onmentally sensitive
areas.
This cut and cover method  would  be  used
for the entire  length of the  alignment,
except  for  those portions  crossing
sensitive  environmental  areas (Wolfe's
Pond,  Lemon  Creek   and  Mill  Creek
areas).   In order  to avoid  serious
environmental  impacts  to  the existing
stream  beds and  adjacent  wetlands  in
these  areas,  a method known  as  "jack-
ing"  would  be used.   This  method
consists of drilling a  horizontal  hole
between excavations  (jacking  pits) with
a  special   auger  or  rotary  cutting
device while at the  same time pushing a
section of pipe through the  hole with
hydraulic  jacks  (Figure   II-4).   In
effect,  this method  tunnels beneath
these  areas without disturbing  their
sensitive   surface   features.   The
jacking  method   is   generally  more
difficult  and  more  expensive than cut
and cover  trenching  and would,  there-
fore,  only be used  for  approximately
182 m  (600 ft)  long  sections at these
three  locations  for  a total  of  545  m
(1800  ft).  In addition to increased
costs of construction, jacking in these
areas would also  require special equip-
ment associated with this  construction
method.
                                                      11-21

-------
JACKING
  PIT
                      EXCAVATED TUNNEL
                         ROTARY
                         CUTTING
                         HEAQ
PIPE-
     JACKING
       PIT
HYDRAULIC
JACKS
                                                       FILM  OF  BEWTONITE
                                                       (CLAY) LUBRICANT
                                                                              \_
                                                                                           -ANCHO.R
                                                                                            BLOCK
                       COMPLETED
                         TUNNEL
            PUMP
                                                                        OAKWOOD BEACH WATER POLLUTION
                                                                            CONTROL PROJECT FINAL  EIS
                                                                             STATEN  ISLAND. NEW  YORK
                                                                       Environmental Protection Agency. Region II
                                                                            CE Magulre. Inc.. New Britain.  CT
                                                                                    PIPE JACKING
                                                                                 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
                                                                      Source
       ADAPTED FROM-
       "GROUND ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT AND METHODS"
                                                                          5/86
             ! Scale
                                        U.S.

-------
Primary issues with
out and cover- ore
excavation and de-
watering.
The primary issues associated with  the
cut and cover trench method are excavat-
ing the trench  itself,  and dewatering
once it has  been excavated.  Both  of
these  issues  are related to depth  of
the  trench.   Although  most of  the
trench would  be  relatively  shallow  (up
to 5 m (15  ft)  deep), there are  sec-
tions where depths will  reach  15-18 m
(50-60 ft).
                                             All trenches would require some sort of
                                             support  system  in order  to  maintain
                                             their  stability  and   insure  worker
                                             safety.  For trenches up to 5 m (15 ft)
                                             in depth, the support could be provided
                                             by vertical  wood sheeting or trench
                                             boxes  (a prefabricated steel  boxlike
                                             structure used  to support  the  sides  of
                                             the trench during excavation). However,
                                             if dewatering is required, the feasibi-
                                             lity of  using trench  boxes diminishes.
                                             Trenches greater  than 5 m (15 ft)  in
                                             depth would require more  intricate  and
                                             more costly sheeting systems.  In these
                                             instances, the  control  of groundwater
                                             must  be  taken  into  account  and  the
                                             viability of  certain  sheeting systems
                                             evaluated.
Dewatering is required
to provide relatively
dry working conditions.
In construction of this type, the water
table is normally lowered by the use of
well  points,  deep wells  or  ejector
systems to  provide  a relatively  dry,
workable trench for the construction of
the sewer.  Where  the water  table  is
not being lowered significantly and the
        11-22

-------
                                             soil  in the excavation  is  not highly
                                             permeable,  water  can be  controlled
                                             efficiently  in this manner.   However,
                                             where  the water  is subject  to more
                                             dynamic  conditions, such as  hydrauHe
                                             connection  with   surrounding  tidal
                                             waters,  artesian  conditions,  under-^
                                             ground  streams and highly  permeable
                                             soils,  the efficiency  of this operation;
                                             diminishes.   The  Alternative  Study
                                             suggests  the likelihood  of  encountering
                                             such  conditions  throughout  the project
                                             route.
Extensive dewatering
could accuse salt watev
intrusion.
Where  such  dynamic  conditions  are
encountered,  especially in  the  deep
cuts of 8  m (25 ft)  or greater, there
is a good  possibility  that water will
have to  be  pumped continuously,  24
hours  a  day,  in  order  to maintain
stable trench  conditions.   Such large
scale pumping  operations could  Iet4 to
salt water  intrusion of the groundwater
table  and/or drawdown  of  the  water
table  around the  project  site.   In
turn,  this could  result  in  surface
subsidence  and  residual   effects  on
adjacent structures and environmentally
sensitive areas.
                                             Sheeting  systems  used for  open-cut
                                             trenches  greater than 5 m  (15 ft)  in
                                             depth  are of two  types:   1) vertical
                                             steel  I-beams  spaced  2-3 m  (8-10 ft)
                                             apart  with  horizontal wood lagging
                                             between  and,   2)  interlocking  steel
                                             sheeting.   For  depths greater than  8 m
                                                     11-23

-------
Steel sheet-ing eon be
used to stabilize
shallow trenches.
(25 ft),  the  viability of  the first
method  decreases  greatly  and  steel
sheeting  is generally  used.   Open-cut
construction to depths greater than 8 m
(25 ft) can pose  logistic and  monetary
risks which tend to make other construc-
tion methods,  such  as  jacking,  more
attractive.  For  example, steel  sheets
would have to be driven to 3-5 m (10-15
ft) below  the  subgrade  (bottom of the
trench) in order to provide the necessa-
ry  structural  stability.   In conjunc-
tion with this, there is the likelihood
of  encountering  cobbles,  boulders  or
other  hard  ground while  driving the
steel  sheets.   Since  these  conditions
would cause the sheets  to deflect  from
their vertical  line, it would  necessi-
tate either the extraction and  redriv-
ing of  the sheet  or pre-augering  holes
where  the sheeting  would be driven.
Both are costly procedures.
Cut and cover can
also impost  traffic
flow and utilities.
Other issues related  to  cut and cover
construction  include  traffic  disrup-
tion,  restoration of  roadways,  in-
fluence on  adjacent underground  utili-
ties, possible undermining  of  adjacent
structures  and  possible  interference
with  sewers,  culverts,  and  utilities
running perpendicular to  the excavated
trench.
                                                     11-24

-------
                                        (b)  Pump Stations

                                             The  multiple  pump  station/shallow
                                             alternative would require the construc-
                                             tion of seven (7) mainline, and six (6)
                                             lateral pump  stations.   All of  these
                                             would be above-ground structures except
                                             the small underground station  at  Wards
                                             Point Avenue and Amboy Road.
Mainline pump stations
would be above ground
st-ruotures, up to 120
feet square and SO
feet high.
Construction  of  these stations  would
not  present  any unusual  construction
problems.  All would  be  brick on con-
crete  buildings   of  various  sizes,
depending upon the size of  pumps  and
other  equipment   required.    However,
most mainline  pump stations  would  be
approximately 35 m (120  ft)  square  and
approximately 9  m (30 ft) high.   The
lateral pump stations would be somewhat
smaller (see Figure 11-3  for  a  typiipaiil
pump  station cross  section).   Each
station would  contain the  number of
pumps  required  for  normal  and  high
flows,  plus  spare  pumps  in   case  of
breakdown.  For example,  if three pumps
are required for normal excepted flows,
there  would  be  two extra  pumps as
spares,  (i.e.,  to  provide mechanical
redundancy).   There  would  also be
back-up diesel  powered generators  in
case of  electrical failures.  Because
of  the  mechanical  redundancy  and
emergency  power  source,  no  emergency
outfalls would be  required.
                                                     11-25

-------
Pump station designs
are subject to sev-
eral review procedures.
For those  lateral  and  mainline  pump
stations  in  the floodplain,  special
design features  would  be incorporated
to make  them conform  to regulations
concerning  flood proofing.   Another
important  factor is that  under the
tenants of New York State's Wick's  Law,
all of the  above-ground stations must
be built  under  separate contracts  for
each  of  the four major construction
trades, i.e.,  structural,  mechanical,
electrical and HVAC (heating, ventilat-
ing and air conditioning).   In  addi-
tion,  the  design of  each pump  station
must  be  approved by the City's Art
Commission and must  be  in  conformance
with  the   Uniform  Land  Use Review
Procedure  (ULURP)  and   City  Environ-
mental Quality  Review   (CEQR).    Other
considerations that may apply  to some
sites  due  to  their  location, are the
Coastal Zone Management  Plan (CZM) and
state  inland and tidal   wetland regula-
tions.
                                             In general, construction  of  the pump
                                             stations would  require  only  normal
                                             construction methods.   Of more import-
                                             ance,  however,  are the  various  contrac-
                                             tual  arrangements,  reviews,  and  ap-
                                             proval  procedures  that  must be  con-
                                             sidered and/or  obtained as part of the
                                             design  and  construction  process.   These
                                             procedures  are important  in  terms of
                                             the time they require  and,  therefore,
                                             the costs  they  add to  the project.
                                                     11-26

-------
                                         (c)   Lateral  Force Mains
Lateral force mains
would be built using
the cut and cover
method.
          Six  lateral  force mains would  be  con-
          structed  to  transport wastewater  from
          the  area  south of Hylan Boulevard  to
          the  mainline interceptor  (see  Figure
          II-2).  All  of the force mains  would be
          constructed  by the cut  and  cover method
          described above  (Section a.), and would
          generally  be approximately 30  cm  (12
          in)  in  diameter.  Generally, the pipe
          would be  installed approximately 2 m (6
          ft)  below the surface  of  the  ground.
          The  construction method and procedures
          for  these laterals would be the same as
          for  the mainline interceptor  except on
          a smaller scale.  The actual connection
          to the  mainline  interceptor would be
          via  manholes located on the  mainline
          interceptor,  generally  at  Hylan Boule-
          vard.
                               4.    Costs
Estimated costs for
the shallow alterna-
tive are based on
NYCDEP's revised
figures.
The Table  II-2 summarizes  the  costs and Table
II-3  shows  the present  worth for  the  shallow
alternative.  These cost estimates  assume the  use
of the cut and  cover  construction method for the
mainline  interceptor  and  lateral force mains,
except  for those  sections  in  the  sensitive
environmental  areas which  would  be  jacked.  All
costs are  taken from  the  NYCDEP's  Alternative
Study and  February  1986  submission to NYSDEC.   A
more detailed discussion of  costs is contained in
Appendix 1.
                                                      11-27

-------
                            TABLE 11-2

               CAPITAL COSTS FOR SHALLOW ALTERNATIVE
                                                   Costs
Category                                       (In millions)

Gravity Interceptors                              $  27.10
Force Mains                                           5.20
Pipe-Jacking                                          5.70
Pump Stations                                        46.50
Site Acquisition                                      4.50
Archaeology                                           0.50
Mechanical Redundancy                                 4.65
Dwelling, Utilities, Restoration                      4.05
Design Fees                                           4.70
     Construction Cost Differential                   7.50
     Other*                                           6.75
     TOTAL                                        $ 117.15

*0ther includes vehicles for operations and maintenance,
 additional costs of siting pump stations in sensitive areas
 and additional construction supervision costs.
                         TABLE II-3
                    TOTAL PRESENT WORTH*
                     SHALLOW ALTERNATIVE
                                                   Costs
Category                                       (In millions)

Direct costs (Construction)                      $108.65
Operation & Maintenance                             7.70
Equipment Replacement**                            49.0
Salvage Value                                     (24.65)***
Construction Cost Differential                      7.5

     TOTAL                                        $148.2

  *Based on a 40-year planning period.
 **During useful life of project.
***Salvage Value deducted from total.

Source:   Costs for both Tables  II-2  and 3 are from  NYCDEP,
          Alternatives Study,  undated;   and  NYCDEP1s,
          February, 1986, revisions.
                               11-28

-------
     Some of the  costs  included above are unique  to
     the shallow alternative,  and are discussed in the
     NYCDEP cost data included in Appendix 1.

5.   Timetable  for Completing  Construction

     The following timetables  were prepared  by NYCDEP
     and assume that the design  of  interceptor sewer
     components will  be completed by the NYCDEP "s
     in-house staff.   The design of pump stations and
     force main components  are assumed to be  completed'
     by private consultants.

                    TABLE 11-4
                SHALLOW  ALTERNATIVE
           INTERCEPTOR DESIGN  TIMETABLE

     Final- Design             - 9 months
     Grant Approval            - 3 months
     Advertise  & Award        - 7 months
     Construction             - see  Table II-6
                    TABLE II-5
                SHALLOW ALTERNATIVE
   PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN DESIGN TIMETABLE

     Consultant Selection     - 6 months
     Negotiations and Bd.
      of Estimate  Approval    - 9 months
     Facility Plan/Site
      Plan Selection          - 8 months
     ULURP Procedure          - 9 months
     Final Design             -12 months
     Grant Approval           - 3 months
     Advertise & Award        - 7 months
     Construction             - see Table II-7

                       11-29

-------
                                   For purposes of awarding  construction  contracts,
                                   the overall project would be divided into several
                                   phases, both for  the  construction of the inter-
                                   ceptor, force  mains  and  pump  stations.   The
                                   construction schedule for the mainline sewer work
                                   is shown  on Table  II-6 and  that for  the  pump
                                   stations and force  mains  (including the lateral
                                   force mains) is shown on Table II-7.
                         D./  GRAVITY FLOW/DEEP ALTERNATE
The deep  alternative
includes:

.  43,280  ft. of
  gravity interceptor
.  23500 ft. of force
  main, and
.  2 pump  stations.
This  section  provides  data  for  the  gravity  flow
alternative, also referred to as the deep alternative,
comparable  to  that  provided  for the shallow  altern-
ative in  Section  C.   The following subsections  des-
cribe the  route,  construction methods, costs, and  a
timetable for construction.

This alternative  is comprised of  13,146 m  (43,380  ft)
of gravity  interceptors,  758 m (2,500  ft)  of force
main, and two pump stations.

1.   Detailed Description of Route
This alternative
follows  the same
route as the shallow
alternative.
     The route of the mainline  interceptor  under  this
     alternative is the same  as  that of the mainline
     interceptor of the shallow trench alternative but
     at a greater depth  (See  Figure II-2 inside back
     cover).
                                   This alternative  would begin  at  the Kreischer
                                   Street pump station  (Kreischer Street  and Arthur
                                   Kill Road) proceeding  southeastward  along Arthur
                                   Kill Road to Allentown Lane.   From there  it would
                                   follow along the same route as the shallow trench
                                                     11-30

-------
                                               TABLE II-6
                                           SHALLOW ALTERNATIVE
                                     CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE BY PHASE
                                        GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR SEWER
CO
          PHASE

          Phase 1

          Phase 2
          Phase 3

          Phase 4

          Phase 5
     DESCRIPTION

Richmond Avenue to PoiUori Avenue

Arbutus Avenue to Kingdom Avenue
Wolfe's Pond to Hoi ten Avenue
Bayview Avenue to Woodvale Avenue

Sharrott Avenue to Yetman Avenue

Fin!ay Street to Pittsville Avenue

Through Tottenville to Kreischer
 Street
LENGTH  START COMPLETE

6,700 ft.  4/88*  8/89

1,320 ft.  9/89   9/90
  880 ft.
1,250 ft.

8,360 ft.  9/90    9/92

1,765 ft.  9/92    6/93


9,380 ft.  6/93   12/93
          *Assumes commencement of design activities in Fall, 1986.

-------
                                             TABLE I1-7
                                         SHALLOW ALTERNATIVE
                                   CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE BY PHASE
                                     PUMP STATIONS & FORCE MAINS
CO
ro
        NO
        Phase 1
Phase 2


Phase 3


Phase 4

Phase 5


Phase 6


Phase 7
     DESCRIPTION
Arbutus Lake & Hylan Boulevard
Lipsett Avenue (South Shore)
Poillon Avenue (South Shore)
Arbutus Avenue (South Shore)

Wolfe's Pond & Hylan Boulevard
Hoi ten Avenue (South Shore)

Lemon Creek & Hylan Boulevard
Bayview Avenue (South Shore)

Sharrott Avenue & Hylan Boulevard

Finlay Street & Hylan Boulevard
Carteret Street (South Shore)

Hopping Avenue & Amboy Road
Wards Pt. Avenue & Hopping Avenue

Kreischer Street
                                                                       START   COMPLETE
3/91*


9/91


3/92


9/92

3/93


9/93


3/94
 3/93


 9/93


 3/94


 9/94

 3/95


 9/95


3/96
        *Assumes commencement of design activities in Fall, 1986.

-------
                                   alternative to the  intersection  of Hopping Avenue
                                   and Amboy  Road.

                                   The  deep alternative would  continue from  this
                                   point  along the  same route as the shallow alter-
                                   native,  except  without  pump  stations or  force
                                   mains,  to  Richmond Avenue and  Hylan Boulevard.
                                   At this  location,  a major pump  station would  be
                                   required to  lift the wastewater flows  approxi-
                                   mately  12  m (40  ft)  from the  new interceptor into
                                   the interceptor  currently under  construction that
                                   will carry the flows  to  the Oakwood  Beach  STP.
The deep alterna-
tive does not -in-
clude lateral
force mains.
In contrast  with the  shallow alternative, the
deep alternative would  not  require  lateral  force
mains nor pump stations to  convey flows from  the
areas south of Hylan Boulevard.   Wastewater would
flow directly to the  Hylan  Boulevard interceptor
via gravity collector sewers.
                              2.   Location of Pump Stations
Only 2 pump sta-
tions are re-
quired ...
The  deep  alternative  would require  only two
mainline pump  stations;  one on the northern end
at Kreischer Street, and the other on  the eastern
end at Richmond Avenue and  Hylan Boulevard.
    at  Kreischer
    Street...
The  Kreischer Street  pump  station would  be
located  on  the west  side of  Kreischer Street
where  it intersects a  small tidal  basin  just
north  of the  junction  with  Arthur Kill Road
(Figure  11-5}.   The site  for this  station  is
owned by New York City.  Portions  of the site  are
included in the floodplain,  which  would be taken
into account  in the design of the station struc-
ture.
                                                     11-33

-------
                                              ANDROVETTE
                                                                                                        ENGLEWOOD AVE
FLOODPLAIN
                              APPROX. LOCATION OF
                              KREISCHER STREET
                              PUMP STATION
OAKWOOD BEACH  WATER POLLUTION
   CONTROL PROJECT FINAL EIS
    STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK
                                                                                            Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
                                                                                                CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
                                                                                         Title:
         KREISCHER STREET
      PUMP STATION LOCATION
                                                                                         Source: NYCDEP
                                                                                         Date: 3/86
            Scale: N/A
Flt«re? 11-5

-------
    and at Rich-
    mond Avenue.
The Richmond Avenue  pump  station, which  is  not
required under the shallow  alternative, would  be
a major station  handling  all  of  the  wastewater
flows (113,650 cu m  d  (30 mgd))  from the entire
system.   The location  of  this station would be
behind the existing  bus turn-around on the  south
side of Hylan  Boulevard west  of  Richmond Avenue
(Figure II-6).   This  site  is within  a  large
parcel of City-owned property (from Hylan Boule-
vard to Tennyson  Drive between  Richmond  Avenue
and Prol Place), and is not located within either
floodplain or wetland.
                              3.   Construction Methods and Issues

                                   This  subsection  describes  the  construction
                                   methods to  be  used  for various segments of  the
                                   deep  alternative and  pump  stations.    Since
                                   portions of this alternative will  be constructed
                                   using  the  same  methods  as described  for  the
                                   shallow alternative, only those methods which are
                                   different will be discussed here,  with  reference
                                   made to those methods already discussed.
Soils and ground-
water are again
basic factors  in
ohoioe of con-
struction method.
As with the shallow alternative,  primary  consid-
erations in this alternative are  the  soil  condi-
tions and groundwater levels in the project area.
These two  issues  plus  environmentally sensitive
areas and cost are the primary  factors  in choos-
ing the construction method  to be used for  the
deep alternative.  These factors are  discussed
below, where relevant.
                                   (a)  Interceptor Construction
                                        The  basic construction  method  for  this
                                        alternative  is  by  the pipe jacking method.
                                                     11-34

-------
                             APPROX. LOCATION OF
                             RICHMOND AVE.
                             PUMP STATION
FLOODPLAIN
                                                                                 OAKWOOD  BEACH WATER POLLUTION
                                                                                    CONTROL PROJECT FINAL EIS
                                                                                     STATEN ISLAND,  NEW YORK
YORK   BAY
                                                                                  Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
                                                                                      CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
                                                                                          RICHMOND AVENUE
                                                                                       PUMP STATION LOCATION
                                                                                Source: NYCDEP
                                                                                Date: 3/86
                                                                                           Scale: N/A
Figure:  ll~6

-------
The pipe jacking
method would be used
for almost all of
the deep alterna-
tive.
This is  the  same jacking method  described
under  the shallow  alternative  (Section
II.C.3.)  and  shown in  Figure II-4.   The
difference is that jacking would be used for
approximately 9,400 m (31,000 ft)  of the
total 13,146 m  (43,380  ft)  under the  deep
alternative,  as  compared to  only  545 m
(1,800 ft) under the shallow trench alterna-
tive, and the  jacking  would  occur  at a
significantly greater depth than  under the
shallow alternative.
The interceptor
would be 40-80  ft.
below ground level.
Jacking pits would be excavated using  stan-
dard construction methods along the route of
the  interceptor  at  different  intervals,
depending on the diameter of  the pipe  to be
jacked.  Large diameter  pipe  (120  cm  (48
in)) may require jacking pits every 90-120 m
(100-400 ft)  while the  smallest  diameter
pipe 30 cm  (12 in) would require pits  every
150-180 m  (500-600 ft).   Soil and  ground-
water  conditions  could  also  affect  the
length of  the  jacked section, requiring a
shorter  interval  between  pits.   Once  a
section is completed, the jacking pit  would
be  filled  in  and  a  new  pit for the next
section to be jacked would be excavated.

The  interceptor  would range  from  12-24 m
(40-80 ft) below the  surface  of the ground,
with the deepest section at  the eastern  end
where  it  enters  the  Richmond Avenue pump
station.
                                                    11-35

-------
Jacking is the least
expensive of all
tunneling methods.
This method,  the  least expensive of all the
tunneling methods,  has  been used for inter-
ceptor  sewer  construction on Staten  Island
in the  past and is  suitable to  the types of
soils to  be  encountered.  Where  large  size
pipe (120  cm (48 in))  or larger  is  used,
workers  may   enter  the  tunnel  to  remove
boulders encountered  at the working face of
the tunnel  (the  front  of  the  tunnel  where
excavation takes  place).   If large boulders
are encountered which prevent the  drilling,
machine from  progressing,  it may  be necessa-
ry to excavate a  pit  from  the surface at the
head of the  tunnel  to  remove the boulders
and free the  drilling machine.
Jacking avoids most
potential ground-
water problems.
An  advantage to  jacking  is related  to
groundwater  levels in the  area.  The jacking
method  avoids  most  potential groundwater
problems.  Because the  actual interceptor
pipe is  hydraulically  jacked (pushed) into
the tunnel  immediately  behind the  drilling
machine, there is  little  exposed earth from
which water  can  enter  the tunnel.  It  is
only the working  face  of  the tunnel  and a
short length of  tunnel  behind it  that are
exposed at any time.  Any  water  entering the
tunnel  from  this  area  can  be removed by
pumps at  the jacking pits.   Because  there
would be  only a  minimum  amount  of water
entering the jacked tunnel,  the potential
environmental and cost impacts  of ground-
water removal would  not be significant.
                                                     11-36

-------
Cut and cover wilt
be used from Kreis-
aher St. to Hopping
Ave.
The  remaining sections  of  the  mainline
interceptor  would  be  constructed  by  two
different methods.   The section  from the
Kreischer Street  pump station  to  Hopping
Avenue and Patten Street would be construct-
ed by  the cut and  cover method,  just as  in
the shallow alternative except that for both
alternatives  the  interceptor  would  be
tunneled  (by jacking  or  compressed  air
tunneling) under the  area  surrounding Mill
Creek.  Cut  and cover construction  in this
area would  not be  environmentally  sound.
This section would also include a force main
from the  Kreischer  Street  pump station to
Allentown Lane, a distance of  approximately
758 m  (2500 ft).
                                        Under the  deep  alternative,  the  jacked
                                        section  would start  at  Hopping  Avenue and
                                        continue southeast to the junction of Craig
                                        Avenue and Hylan Boulevard where the inter-
                                        ceptor would turn eastward in a large curve
                                        until  it is beneath Hylan Boulevard,  follow-
                                        ing Hylan Boulevard to the  Richmond  Avenue
                                        pump station.
Compressed air tunnel-
ing would be used
under environmentally
sensitive areas.
In addition to the  jacking  and  the cut and
cover  construction  methods,  a  few  short
segments  totalling   approximately  900  m
(3,000  ft)  of  the   mainline  interceptor
(those segments under the sensitive environ-
mental areas of  Wolfe's  Pond, Lemon Creek,
and possibly Mill Creek) would be construct-
ed  using the  compressed  air  tunneling
method.  This method uses air locks  so  that
the tunnel  can be  pressurized  to  prevent
                                                    11-37

-------
                                         groundwater  seepage   from  entering the
                                         working  area thereby  eliminating the need
                                         for large-scale  dewatering.  The  compressed
                                         air tunneling  method  is recommended for the
                                         environmentally  sensitive areas  because of
                                         the organic  soil  conditions, and  ground-and
                                         surface water  conditions.   Although, jacking
                                         could  be  used in these  areas,  if problems
                                         were encountered  and  a  pit  was required to
                                         free the  boring machine,  additional costs
                                         and impacts  to the  environmentally sensitive
                                         areas  could  be incurred.
Compressed air
tunneling requires
a 10 ft. diameter
tunnel.
This is an expensive
tunneling method.
Use  of the  compressed  air method  would
require a  large tunnel  (approximately  3 m
(10 ft) in diameter)  in  order to accommodate
larger  and  more complicated equipment  and
construction  workers  (Figure  II-7).   The
working face  and the  head  section  of  the
tunnel  are  isolated, from the outside atmos-
phere by a series of  air locks, so that they
can  be pressurized.   As  the  tunnel  is
advanced by a  tunneling machine, a  support-
ing system of  steel  plates, or prefabricated
steel or concrete  sections would be erected
inside  the earth tunnel.  These supports may
then  be lined  with concrete  to form the
tunnel  or a large diameter concrete pipe can
be  installed   inside  the  earth tunnel  to
actually carry the  wastewater flows.

The  cost  of  compressed air tunneling  is
related to high labor costs for this type of
work,  especially in  New York  City.  These
high costs represent several factors includ-
ing high workmen's  compensation  levels, and
for health and safety reasons, the relative-
                                                      11-38

-------
HEADER
  PIT
              WETLANDS
                     WETLANDS
ORGANIC
  SOILS
                      \
                    /
                       \
                         \WATER PRESSURE  /
                  ROTARY   x r-	-~	
                  HE™  /™ PRESSURE
                                                         AIR
                                                        LOCK.
                                                    -f\   t >    r^
HEADER
  PIT
                                                                           /\
                  PRESSURIZED
                  WORK AREA
                                                                     OAKWOOD BEACH WATER  POLLUTION
                                                                        CONTROL PROJECT  FINAL EIS
                                                                         STATEN  ISLAND. NEW YORK
                                                                   Environmental Protection Agency. Region
                                                                        CE Magulre. Inc.. New Britain. CT
                                                                      COMPRESSED AIR TUNNELING METHOD
                                                                             SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
c ADAPTED FROM'
1 .ource • »ERQUN[| ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT AND METHODS"
Date
5/66
(Scale • N.T.S.
j Figure • ||-/

-------
                                         ly  short length  of  time the  workers  may
                                         legally  work,  even  though  they are paid for
                                         a  full   eight  hour  shift.   The  following
                                         table  presents the  schedule of allowable
                                         working  hours  permitted for compressed  air
                                         work in  New York  City.

                                               TABLE II-8
                             ALLOWABLE WORKING PERIODS  UNDER  COMPRESSED AIR
                                                              Maximum  Work Time
                           Maximum  Pressure                   Per Paid, 8-Hour
                           Pounds/Square Inch (psi)           	Shift
                                0 but  less than  26                   4  Hours
                                26 but  less than  31                   3   "
                                31 but  less than  36                   2   "
                           Note:  Pressures greater than  36 psi  not  included.
                           Source:   Woodward-Clyde, Geotechnical Report, January,
                                     1985, p. 2-61.

                                         Based  on The  Alternative  Study,  it  is
                                         estimated  that pressures  to  balance  the
                                         hydrostatic  head  (groundwater  pressure)
                                         would be approximately  117  kilopascals  (17
                                         psi).  However,  higher   pressure  may  be
                                         required in  the  Wolfe's  Pond  area because
                                         the soil strata could allow  significant  loss
                                         of compressed  air requiring  higher pressures
                                         to  balance the  hydrostatic pressure  and
                                         prevent  the working face  from  collapsing.

                                         Other  issues  such  as traffic disruption,
„.    ,.     ,                             road  restoration, interference with under-
Dtsruptions to
traffic and utilities                     ground utilities, and disturbance  of struc-
would be  limited to                      tu                    applicable to  the  cut
cut and cover and                                       J     ^K
jacking pit ex-                          and cover sections  and  jacking pits  for  this
oavations.

                                                    11-39

-------
                                         alternative.   Since the interceptor would be
                                         far  below utilities, there is  little  chance
                                         of disruption, except for the  jacking  pits.
                                         In general,  this alternative avoids many of
                                         the  potential  impacts  associated with the
                                         multiple  pump station/shallow alternative.

                                    (b)   Pump  Station  Construction:
Pump station con-
struction would be
the same as for the
shallow alternative.
     As already mentioned, only two  pump  stations
     would be  required under  this  alternative.
     Since the construction  of pump stations  was
     described  in  detail  under  the  shallow
     alternative  (Section  C.S.b.),  and  the
     stations  under this  alternative  would be
     constructed under the same regulations using
     the  same  construction methods, no  further
     discussion is  included here.
                                   Costs
Estimated costs for
the deep alterna-
tive are based on
NYCDEP's revised
figures.
The,x-f(Tilowing  tables  summarize capital  costs
(table II-9) and present worth  (Table \I-10)  for
the  deep alternative  using  the jacking  and
compressed air tunneling methods and  the cut  and
cover method,  as  discussed above.  As/with  the
shallow  alternative,  all  costs  are taken from
NYCDEP sources.  A more detailed  discussion  of
costs for this  alternative is contained  in  Ap-
                                   Timetable  for  Completing Construction

                                   As  with the  shallow  alternative,  the  design
                                   timetables are based on the design  of the  inter-
                                   ceptor  components  by NYCDEP in-house staff, and
                                                     11-40

-------
                         TABLE I1-9

             CAPITAL COSTS FOR DEEP ALTERNATIVE

                                          Costs
Category                              (In millions)

Jacking                                 $ 79.00
Compressed Air                            30.00
Cut and Cover                              5.20
Pump Stations and Force Mains             12.45
Pump Station Mechanical Redundancy         2.40
Utilities and Restoration                  0.65
                         TOTAL          $129.70
                         TABLE 11-10

                    TOTAL PRESENT WORTH*
                     DEEP ALTERNATIVE
                                             Cost
     Category                            (In millions)

     Direct Costs (Construction              $129.70
     Operation and Maintenance                  2.35
     Equipment Replacement**                   14.40
     Salvage Value                            (25.46)***
                              TOTAL          $120.99
       *Based on a 40-year planning period.
      **During useful life of project
     ***Salvage Value deducted.

     Source:   Costs for Tables II-9 and 10 from NYCDEP's
               Alternative Study (undated) and NYCDEP's
               February, 1986 revisions.
                              11-41

-------
The deep alternative
is the recommended
alternative.
                                    design  of the pump  stations and force mains  by
                                    outside consultants.  The  design  timetables are
                                    the  same as  those listed for the shallow alterna-
                                    tive in Tables 11-6 and 7,  and  therefore are  not
                                    repeated here.   The construction  schedule by
                                    phase is shown on (Table 11-11).
                              RECOMMENDED  ALTERNATIVE
Based on the  above information for both  alternatives
including  costs  and other  construction  issues, the
concern of the general  public as expressed  at the
Public  Hearing for the  DEIS, and  the supplemental
information provided by  the  NYCDEP,  the deep alterna-
tive has been  determined to  be the recommended alter-
native.  Although the  capital costs  of  the deep
alternative  are   slightly  higher  than the  shallow
alternative ('|a^^/lL-,l,2), the present worth value is
significantly  less for  the  gravity flow/deep alterna-
tive.   Use of the  pipe-jacking and  compressed air
tunneling methods for most of  the  route will  eliminate
many potential construction  problems  in  the  environ-
mentally sensitive areas and  the  potential  problems of
siting  the thirteen pump  stations required  by the
shallow alternative.  Overall, it represents the best
alternative which meets  the  goals  of  this project.
                               \
                                                     11-42

-------
                                                        TABLE 11-11
                                              CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE BY PHASE
                                                     DEEP ALTERNATIVE
PHASE
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
DESCRIPTION
Richmond Avenue to Kingdom Avenue
Kingdom Avenue to Butler Boulevard
Butler Boulevard to Hopping Avenue
Through Tottenville to Kreischer Street
Pump Stations (Richmond Ave & Kreischer St.)
LENGTH
10,000 ft.
12,000 ft.
12,000 ft.
9,380 ft.
-
START
4/88*
4/89
4/90
9/91
2/87
COMPLETE
4/90
4/91
4/92
4/92
2/91
'      *Assumes commencement of design activities in Fall 1986.
CO

-------
                              TABLE 11-12
                            COST COMPARISON
                     SHALLOW AND DEEP ALTERNATIVES
                          (Cost in Millions)

                          Construction Costs

                                             Prt&tftt Worth*
          Alternative    Capital Costs           Values

          Shallow           $117.15               $.148.20
          Deep              $129.70               $120,99
Source:    NYCDEP Alternative Study and February, 1986 Revisions.
*Present worth may be thought of as the amount of money
 which, if invested now at a given rate, would provide the
 funds required to make all  the necessary expenditures
 during the life of the project (40 years).   This includes
 the initial  capital  costs,  as well as the annual operation
 and maintenance costs, and the salvage value.
                           11-44

-------
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

-------
                         III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
 This  chapter describes
 existing conditions
 in the  study area.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe  the  exist-
ing environmental conditions  in  the  study area which
may be  affected  by  this project.  In  order to make
this description comprehensive,  the  affected  environ-
ment will  be addressed  in  terms of  the following
conditions:
                              Existing Conditions

                              .  Setting
                                 Physiography
                              .  Climate
                              .  Earth Resources (Geology)
                              .  Water Resources
                                 Ecosystems
                              .  Air Quality
                                 Noise
                              .  Cultural Resources
                              .  Land Use
                                 Zoning
                              .  Economics
                              .  Schools
                                 Population

                              Constraints to Growth

                              Future Conditions  (Population Development and  Water
                              Use Projections)
Information from
the DEIS,  Chapter 3
is summarized and
updated.
This chapter summarizes  the  information presented in
the DEIS  (Chapter 3 -  Existing Environment  in  the
Planning Area).  Where  appropriate,  the DEIS data is
supplemented and  updated based  on The  Alternative
Study prepared by the NYCDEP, 1980 Census information,
                                                     III-l

-------
                              and other  sources  which became  available since the
                              publication of the DEIS.  This  information will  serve
                              as a  basis  for analyzing the  impacts  which the two
                              alternatives  considered  may  have on  the affected
                              environment.

                              A.   EXISTING CONDITIONS

                                   1.   Setting
The study area,
South Richnond3  is
in southwestern
Staten Island.
         Staten  Island  is one of  the of the  five
         boroughs which comprise New York City and is
         approximately  21  kilometers (k) (13  miles
         (mi) in  length and 11 k  (7 mi) in width.
         The northeastern  portion  of Staten Island,
         known as the St.  George section, is  heavily
         developed  and  is  the  primary  center of
         commerce.  The southwestern portion, which
         includes the study area, is much less devel-
         oped.
                              1
         The study area  includes  the communities of
         Tottenville,  Richmond  Valley,  Pleasant
         Plains., Princes Bay,  Annadale,  Eltingville,
         Great Kills, Fresh Kills, Woodrow, Huguenot,
         Rossville,  Charleston,  and  Portions  of
         Richmond, Oakwood, and Oakwood Beach  and is
         known generally  as South Richmond  (Figure
         ES-1).  This area  is designated as the South
         Richmond Special Development  District by the
         New York City Department of City Planning

These communities are shown on the 1981 USGS
"Arthur Kill" Quadrangle map.  They are not
legally defined municipalities and may appear
differently on other maps.
                                                     III-2

-------
                                        (NYCDCP)  and is covered by  Community  Plan-
                                        ning  Board  #3.

                                        Physiography

                                        The two  characteristics  of the study area's
                                        physiographic  setting  that warrant  consider-
                                        ation in this  section are  topography  and
                                        flood prone areas.

                                        (a)   Topography
South Richmond -Is
characterized by
gently  sloping
terrain.
South Richmond's topography is domina-
ted by gently sloping terrain, although
sleep slopes (over 15 percent) occur in
places bordering the coast, streams and
ponds.  The  highest  elevation in  the
study area, a hilltop just northwest of
the Woodrow Road-Huguenot Avenue  inter-
section, is approximately 48 m (100 ft)
above mean sea level.
                                             A ridge bisects  the  area, forming  a
                                             northern and  a  southern  drainage  basin.
                                             The  ridge  extends east-northeast  from
                                             the  Outerbridge  Crossing  toll plaza
                                             area  along portions  of  the Drumgoole
                                             Boulevard  and  Staten  Island  Rapid
                                             Transit Operating Authority  (SIRTOA)
                                             right-of-way.   Surface  water on  the
                                             northern side of  this ridge flows into
                                             the  Arthur Kill,  Great  Fresh  Kills,
                                             Fresh  Kills,  or Richmond  Creek,  while
                                             surface water  on  the southern side
                                             flows  into Princes  or  Raritan Bays.
                                             The service area  for  both  alternatives
                                                     III-3

-------
                                              is  almost entirely  in  the southern
                                              drainage basin.

                                         (b)  Flood Prone Areas

                                              Flood prone  areas are  defined as all
                                              lands located within  the 100 year flood
                                              boundary   as  shown   on  the Federal
                                              Emergency  Management  Agency  (FEMA)
                                              Flood  Insurance  Rate  Maps.   Figure
                                              III-l  shows where  these flood  prone
                                              areas occur in the  study area,  based
                                              upon  FEMA maps.

                                              Many  of the  flood  prone areas  occur
                                              along  the  coast.    In  places,  this
                                              coastal  100 year  flood  zone rises  to an
Most flood prone                              elevation  of  4 m (12  ft.)  above mean
areas are along the
coast.                                        sea level.  Other  large flood  prone
                                              areas occur around  streams and  ponds
                                              near  the  coast, such  as  Richmond Creek,
                                              Mill  Creek,  Lemon Creek,  and  Wolfe's
                                              Pond.

                                              It  is not uncommon  for existing  devel-
                                              opment  to occur  within  flood prone
                                              areas  in  the  study  area.   Over 150
                                              structures in  the   study  area  are
                                              located  in,  or abutting,  flood  prone
                                              areas.
                        A 100 year flood is a flood of  the magnitude  which  is
                        likely to occur once in 100 years.
                                                      III-4

-------
  OAKWOOD BEACH WATER POLLUTION
     CONTROL  PROJECT FINAL EIS
      STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK
  Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
       CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
           FLOOD PRONE AREAS

             (100 YEAR FLOOD)
8owe«; FEMA.FIRM, I983
Bate* A/86
             sc«tos As Shown

-------
                                   3.    Geology
                                        Much of the following discussion is based on
                                        the Geotechnical  Report  prepared  for  the
                                        NYCDEP .   This  discussion  is  presented  in
                                        terms of  bedrock,  surficial geology,  and
                                        soils.
                                        (a)   Bedrock
The bedrock is over-
lain by  thick glacial
deposits.
     The bedrock which underlies  the  study
     area is characterized mainly  by  meta-
     morphic and igneous rocks of  the  Pre-
     cambrian and Paleozoic age.   There is  no
     evidence of major  faults or  seismic
     activity in the area.   Bedrock is not
     likely to be affected  by this project  as
     it is  overlain  by  thick glacial  and
     Cretaceous deposits.

(b)   Surficial  Geology
                         1
                                             The study area's surficial  geology  is
                                             characterized  primarily  by glacial
                                             deposits left  when  the Wisconsin ice
                                             sheet retreated over 50,000 years ago.
                                             The major glacial  deposits are  a termi-
                                             nal moraine,  ground moraine, and outwash
                          Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc., 1985.
                                                    III-5

-------
The terminal moraine
marks the southern-
most advance of the
Wisconsin Glacier.
deposits.   The  terminal  moraine is a
ridge  of  till  (unsorted sediments)
deposited  by  the  Wisconsin  glacier  at
the line  of its southernmost  advance.
This deposit cuts across  the study  area
(Figure 111-2)  and may  be up to 23 m (75
ft) thick  in  places.   A ground moraine
is  located north of  the  Outerbridge
Crossing  bridge.  This  moraine is also
composed  of unsorted  glacial till,  but
is generally shallower  and has  much  less
pronounced relief than  the terminal  mor-
aine.  Outwash  deposits formed  by the
runoff of  the melting glacier are also
located in the  study  area.
Cretaceous deposits
often underlie the
glacial deposits.
Coastal deposits  formed in the Cretac-
eous age (generally 50-150 million years
ago) account for another  type  of surfi-
cial geology in the  study area.   These
deposits  (the  Raritan/Magothy Fai?raa-
tions) consist mainly  of  sand  and  clay
and are generally  much deeper  than the
glacial  deposits.   Other  surficial
geology  features   in  the  study  area
include beaches, dunes, marshes, swamps,
and artificial fill.
                                         (c)   Soils
                                              The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
                                              has not  conducted a  soil  survey for
                                              Richmond County.   The most recent and
                                              extensive source of information on soils
                                                     III-6

-------
Qt   TILL OVERLYING BEDROCK
    (Ground Moraine1
Oto  TILL OVERLYING SAND & GRAVEL     ,  ,
    '	   over Outwash)    / /
(Ground Moraine
ne   TILL GRADING LONGITUDINALLY TO   /!
"   ci n iiri o 
-------
                                             in the study area is  the  Geotechnical
                                             Report prepared for NYCDEP and some of
                                             the findings of  that  report are sum-
                                             marized in this subsection.

                                             Soils  in  the  study area  are either
                                             derived from the erosion or decomposi-
                                             tion of glacial,  Cretaceous,  or  organic
                                             material.   Most of this soil is sandy,
                                             though some is  of a  more clayey,  silty,
                                             or gravelly texture.  The depth of the
Sandy soils cover                             Soi1 ra     from Qf3m  (1  ft)  if) scwe
most of the study
                                             places to  12.0m  (40  ft)  in others.
                                             Permeability of the  glacial  and  Cretac-
                                             eous soil  varies, but is generally low
                                             where  clay and  fine particles are pre-
                                             sent.   The Clay  Pit  Ponds  State Park
                                             area,  once  the source  of  commercial
                                             brick-making operations, is covered by
                                             clayey soils.   Extensive organic  depos-
                                             its surround Lemon  Creek and Mill  Creek.
                                             These  deposits  consist  mainly of  dark
                                             clay or silt and contain  intermittent
                                             pockets of  sand  and  fibrous  organic
                                             fragments.  The permeability of  these
                                             soils  is  generally  low.

                                   4.    Hater Resources

                                        The study area's water resources consist of
                                        groundwater, surface water,  coastal  marine
                                        waters, and the  public  water supply.  The
                                        interrelationship between  these  water re-
                                        sources  is  fundamental  to planning  water
                                        pollution control  projects.
                                                    III-7

-------
                                         (a)  Groundwater
Salt water has in-
truded into the
groundwater in some
areas.
Groundwater  conditions  in  the  study
area  are  affected by marine water and
several other  parameters.  The elevation
of the  groundwater level  (known as the
water table)  in  areas  near the shore is
highly  dependent on  the level of coastal
marine  water.   Data from a nearby US
Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey  (USCGS)
station  indicate  that  the  level  of
coastal marine water varies up to 1.4m
(4.68 ft)  from mean low  to mean high
water elevation.   It  is likely that sea
water has  intruded into the groundwater
to some extent, elevating  the ground-
water's salt  (chloride) content.   Other
parameters which  influence the elevation
and quality of groundwater are rainfall
arid  other meteorological conditions,
discharge  or  application  of water or
wastewater on  land,  and  leaking utili-
ties or septic systems.  Each of these
features  is  a  potential  source  of
groundwater contamination.  The NYCDEP
Geotechnical  Report  indicated that the
water table ranges from elevation 0  to
14m (47 ft) above mean sea  level (msl)
along the  proposed mainline interceptor
route.  This  report  also  indicates that
contaminated  groundwater was  found in
the vicinity  of  several  gas  stations
along the interceptor  route and near
the Mount Loretto Cemetery.  Ground-
water near the gas stations contained
benzene,  toulene  and xylene (BTX)  while
                                                     III-8

-------
The water table
generally follows
•the topography.
that in the vicinity of the cemetery was
found to be very alkaline with a  pH  of
up to 12.5.

Because  the water  table  generally
follows topography, groundwater  levels
would  be   proportionately  higher  in
inland  portions  of the  study area.
There are  no active wells  for potable
water use  in the  study area.   Ground-
water flows readily through sandy soils
and  unconsolidated  material,   but is
confined by soils consisting of clay and
consolidated  fine  particles.   The
presence of these relatively impermeable
layers  (lenses)  occasionally  causes
"artesian" conditions  in which ground-
water is forced under  pressure to rise
above the normal  water table.   Artesian
conditions have been  noted  in several
locations  along  the  proposed Hylan
Boulevard  mainline  interceptor route.
Some low-lying portions of Hylan Boule-
vard may  be  at the same level  as or
below the water table.
                                        (b)  Surface Water

                                             Surface water resources  in  and around
                                             the study area include Richmond  Creek,
                                             Fresh Kills  Creek,  Great Fresh  Kills
                                             Creek, the  Arthur Kill,  Mill  Creek,
                                             Lemon Creek, Wolfes Pond, Arbutus Lake,
                                             and numerous small freshwater ponds and
                                             wetlands (Figure III-3).
                                                    III-9

-------

                    OAKWOOD BEACH WATER POLLUTION
                        CONTROL  PROJECT FINAL EIS
                        STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK
WOLFE'S POND
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
    CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
                        SURFACE WATER FEATURES
                    Soured: USGS.I98I

-------
The Arthur  Kill  is 3  major shipping
channel which  separates  Staten Island
from the Perth Amboy,  New Jersey  area.
This channel is approximately  0.5-1  km
(0.3 - 0.6  mi)  in  width.   The smaller
channels of Fresh Kills and Great Fresh
Kills Creek and the estuarine  Richmond
Creek form the northern boundary of the
study area.  Each of these surface water
resources is polluted  from  industrial
contaminants as well as wastewater and
runoff from sanitary   landfills.  The
Arthur Kill is classified by the  State
of New York as fish survival  waters.
This is the State's lowest  classifica-
tion for  marine waters  and is  not
suitable for recreation,  shellfishing or
fishing.

Mill Creek  and Lemon   Creek  are  much
smaller streams which  drain the western
and southern portions  of the study area.
The water  quality of  Mill  Creek is
degraded primarily by industrial contam-
inants  (including  oil,  metals,  and
hydrocarbons), and that of  Lemon  Creek
by contaminants from surface runoff and
leaking or overflowing septic systems.

Wolfe's  Pond   and  Arbutus  Lake  are
fresh- water  ponds on the  southern
shore of the study area.   Berms of sand
at their southern  ends separate these
ponds  from  Raritan Bay.   The  major
source of pollution in all  the surface
waters in the  area  is  probably due to

      111-10

-------
                                              minor  contamination from surface runoff
                                              and  from leaking or overflowing  septic
                                              systems.
 There  are numerous
 ponds  and small
 wetlands along Hylan
 Boulevard.
The  ponds  and  inland  wetlands  are
contained  freshwater resources.  Their
water  levels are  primarily  constant
(equal to  the water  table  elevation) but
can be influenced  by periods  of  heavy
rain  or  drought.   The  water  level  of
Wolfe's  Pond,  Arbutus  Lake,  and the
coastal ponds may also  be  influenced by
high  seas,  as these  are located within
the 100 year flood zone.
                                         (c)  Co a stal  Mar ine  Waters
Near-shore marine
waters are used
for recreation.
The southern coast of  the  study  area is
bounded by Ran'tan and Princes Bays and
Great  Kills  Harbor.   The  Harbor  is
separated  from  Raritan Bay  by Crookes
Points which  is  part  of  the Gateway
National Recreation  Area.   This  harbor
is a popular boating basin as evidenced
by the presence  of a  dredged channel,
two yacht clubs,  a boat docking  facility
for the  National  Recreation Area, and
several wharves.  The  harbor is  subject
to  potential  pollution from boating
activities and other services, but tidal
flushing probably reduces  serious pollu-
tion problems.
                                              Water  quality in Raritan Bay  is  gener-
                                              ally better than near-shore water due  to
                                              flushing  from currents and the dilution
                                                     III-ll

-------
                                             capabilities of such a  large water  body.
                                             Near-shore waters,  less than 610 m  (2000
                                             ft) offshore, are classified as bathing
                                             waters  and  offshore waters  are  clas-
                                             sified  as shellfish waters.  However, no
                                             active  shellfishing  occurs  in  the
                                             vicinity  of  the  study  area, because
                                             these waters are designated by the  State
                                             of New  York as uncertified.

                                         (d)  Water Supply and Use
New York City's
water supply is
limited at times.
Water for public use is brought  to  the
study area by the Richmond Tunnel, part
of New York City's public water  supply
system.  Water is piped from reservoirs
north of  the  City,  treated, and  then
distributed through a system of tunnels
and  pipes.   Although the tunnel  has
sufficient  capacity  to  meet  Staten
Island's water use needs  for at least
the near future, the limited source  of
this water supply affected the City as a
whole during a recent (1985) drought.
Average residential
water use is 120
gallons per person
per day.
Residents consume an average of  0.5  cu
m (120 gal) per capita per day.  During
periods  of  drought,  residents  are
requested to conserve water and the per
capita usage is reduced.

The public  water supply  is  discussed
further  in  Section  B (Constraints  to
Growth) of this chapter.
                                                    111-12

-------
Urban, forest and
disturbed are the
three major terres-
trial ecosystems.
                                    5.   Ecosystems

                                         The primary  purpose  of this section  is  to
                                         describe the  plants  and animals (flora and
                                         fauna) in the  study  area  with  the focus on
                                         endangered or  threatened  species  and  signi-
                                         ficant habitat.   The  ecosystems  in which
                                         these species occur are categorized as either
                                         terrestrial, wetland,  or marine.  Ecosystems
                                         are interrelationships between organisms and
                                         the environments  in  which they exist.  The
                                         population, distribution,  and  diversity of
                                         species  in  an  ecosystem  depends  on  the
                                         ecological  balance of many features, includ-
                                         ing climatic conditions, geologic conditions,
                                         and water resources.
                                         (a)  Terrestrial Ecosystems
                                                                          .1
An  ecological  investigation   of the
study area  conducted as  part of the
geotechnical  study  identified  three
major  terrestrial  vegetation types:
Urban or  suburban,  forest,  and dis-
turbed.  The first  type consists mainly
of  grass  lawns  and ornamental plants,
and the third  type consists mainly of
weeds which take  over disturbed  areas.

The second  type  (forest), includes  the
following communities:

     Oak Woodland (dominant species are
     red oak, black oak,  and  white oak.)
                       1
                        Geotechnical  Report, Woodward-Clyde, 1985, Appendix  D.
                                                    111-13

-------
                                                  Wet Oak Woodland (dominant species
                                                  are red maple,  elm,  pin  oak,  and
                                                  swamp white oak.)

                                                  Sandy  Oak  Barrens   (dominant
                                                  species are black oak, white oak,
                                                  and chestnut oak.)

                                             Although these  forests are  not exten-
                                             sive, they  are  ecologically valuable
                                             because they cover the only area of  New
                                             York City which remains  largely urdevel
                                             oped.  Species of fauna  which  are found
                                             in the study area's terrestrial ecosys-
                                             tems  (particularly  in the  oak wood-
                                             lands)  include  the opposum, raccoon,
                                             rabbits, and other mammals  and a wide
                                             variety of birds.

                                        (b)  Wetland Ecosystems
Both Freshwater
and tidal wetlands
exist in the study
area.
Freshwater or "inland" wetlands in the
study area are characterized by several
small, generally  less  than  2 hectares
(5 acres), permanently  or  temporarily
flooded low areas.  Dominant species  of
vegetation in  these wetlands  are a
canopy of deciduous  trees   such  as
cotton-wood and aspen,  shrubs  such as
elder and willow,  robust emergents such
as  cattail,   bulrush,  and  floating
emergents  such  as  pickerelweed  and
arrow-arum.  Dominant species  of  fauna
found  in  freshwater wetlands  include
snapping   turtles,  painted   turtles,
carp, and  black bullhead  (fish).  Some
of the mammalian  species  found in the
      111-14

-------
                                              terrestrial  ecosystems  may  also  be
                                              found in these wetlands.

                                              Tidal wetlands are  characterized prima*-
                                              rily  by periodically flooded  flats
                                              bordering   estuaries,   particularly
                                              Richmond Creek,  Mill  Creek,  and Lemon
                                              Creek.  Dominant  species of vegetation
                                              in the wetlands include  Spartina alter'
                                              niflora, Spartina  patens,  Distich!is
                                              spicata, Salicornia europea,  and  (at
                                              the border of the wetlands) lya frute*-
                                              sj:ejis.   Dominant  species  of  fauna
                                              include fiddler  crabs, oysters, and a
                                              wide variety of shorebirds.
 Wetlands are
 ecologically
 valuable ...
Wetlands  are sensitive  and  valuable
ecosystems because they are  transition-
al  zones  between land  and  water,
support  a  great variety of  flora  and
fauna, reduce runoff and mitigate storm
surges.  Protection  of wetlands is of
vital  importance  to  the  ecological
health of  the  study area.   Filling of
wetlands  is  regulated  under the New
York  State  Tidal  Wetlands  Act and
Freshwater Wetlands  Act,  the federal
Clean Water  Act,  and other regulations.
...  and filling ^s
regulated by state
Wetlands  are  discussed  further  in
Section  B  (Constraints  to  Growth) of
this chapter.
                                                    111-15

-------
                                        (c)  Marine Ecosystems
Raritan Bay  shell-
fishing beds are
closed due to
pollution.
Marine ecosystems which may be affected
by  this  project are  characterized
mainly by  shellfish  beds.   The waters
of  Raritan  Bay  are  designated  as
shellfishing waters, but  this  area is
currently closed to shellfishing due to
pollution.
                                        (d)  Significant Habitat
The Lemon Creek est-
uary is a. state
designated signi-
ficant habitat.
The Lemon  Creek  estuary is designated
as  significant  habitat by  NYSDEC1
because of its unique ecological  value
and sensitivity  as  an  urban wildlife
habitat.   The  estuary  serves  as  a
nesting  and  feeding  habitat for  a
variety of birds  and supports  a  high
diversity  of  vegetation and wildlife
species.  Although  Lemon Creek  is the
only  designated  significant  habitat
                                   2
directly  affected   by  the   project ,
other wetlands in the  study area have
similar ecological  value.   Impacts to
these  wetlands should  therefore  be
avoided if possible, or minimized.
                      1
                       An area's designation as significant habitat does not
                       necessarily mean that it is protected via regulations.
                      "Clay Pit Ponds State Park and Preserve is also designated
                       as significant habitat, but it is not affected by this
                       project.
                                                   111-16

-------
                                      (e)   Endangered  or  Threatened Species
An endangered bul-
rush may be found
in the area's wet-
lands.
     No species  of plants or  animals  which
     are  listed  (State or  Federal)  as en-
     dangered or  threatened  have been docu-
     mented as occurring  in  the study area.
     However, the bulrush  (Scirpus  a.ncls-
     trochaetus)  which  is  proposed  for
     inclusion in the federal endangered list
     may be found  in  some  of the area's wet-
     lands.
                                6.   Air Quality
Air quality in the
study area is pri-
marily impacted
by automobile
traffic.
The study  area  has lower concentrations  of
industry  and traffic  than  the  northern
portion  of Staten  Island.   However, odors
from  industry  to  the  west  in  New Jersey
occasionally affect the  South  Richmond  area.
The major  sources of air  pollution in the
study area  are  carbon monoxide  and hydro-
carbons  from automobile  traffic which  is
related  to  the  population  increase of the
area.
                                      NYSDEC  and  EPA have  designated  the  New
                                      York-New  Jersey   Interstate  Area  (which
                                      includes  Staten Island) as the  Metropolitan
                                      Air  Quality Control  Region and the New York-
                                      New  Jersey  Interstate  Air  Quality Maintenance
                                      Area (AQMA).

                                      New  York  State has an  approved  State  Imple-
                                      mentation  Plan  (SIP)   which  provides  for
                                      attainment  of  air quality standards.   The
                                      standards for ozone and carbon  monoxide  are
                                      not  being attained in  the  study area.
                                                    111-17

-------
                                7.   Noise
Noise affects sec-
luded residences3
health care faci-
lities and schools.
Major sources of noise in the study  area  are
automobile traffic, low flying  aircraft  from
nearby Newark, LaGuardia, and John F. Kennedy
Airports, and the  SIRTOA  trains.   Sensitive
noise receptors include secluded  residences,
health care  facilities,  and  schools.  Along
the proposed Hylan Boulevard mainline  inter-
ceptor route, several health care  facilities
and schools are subject to noise from automo-
bile traffic.
                                     Cultural Resources

                                     A Stage  1A cultural  resource survey  report
                                     (literature review) was prepared  in  1977  and
                                     is discussed  in  Chapter 3 of the DEIS (p.
                                     3-16) along with  a map  of identified sites.
                                     A Stage IB survey (preliminary field investi-
                                     gation) was  conducted  during the summer  of
                                     1984 by the  Center for  Building  Conservation
                                     at the  same  time  that  field work was  being
                                     conducted for the Geotechnical Report.
Fourteen cultural
resource sites  have
been unidentified.
The Stage IB survey was carried out along the
proposed route of the  interceptor,  laterals,
and the  general  location of  the  pump sta-
tions.   Of  the  377  manual  tests  and  20
archaeological borings completed, 59 revealed
indications of prehistoric activity.  Analys-
es of the test results indicated that archaeo-
logical  sites  are  present in  fourteen  (14)
areas.   Five  (5) historic  structures were
identified that are either in, or potentially
                                                   111-18

-------
eligible for  listing in,  the  National Re-
gister of Historic Places.  The archaeologic-
al sites and  historic structures are  listed
below:

Mainline Interceptor

     Hylan #1  -  west of  Holdridge Avenue,
     south of Hylan Blvd.; one area

     Hylan #2  -  east  of  Huguenot  Avenue,
     south of Hylan Blvd.; one area

     Hylan #3  -  west  of  Sharrott  Avenue,
     south of Hylan Blvd.; one area

     Hylan #4 - east of Page Avenue, north of
     Hylan Blvd.; one area

     Hylan #5 - west of Bedell Avenue, south
     of Hylan Blvd.; one area

     Satterlee Street - three areas;

     Hopping Avenue  -  north of Amboy  Road;
     one area

     Arthur Kill  Road - near Nassau  Place;
     one area

Lateral Interceptors

     Arbutus Avenue - along Arbutus, south of
     Hylan Blvd.; two areas
              111-19

-------
                                          Hoi ton Avenue  -  along Hoi ton  south  of
                                          Hylan Blvd.; one area

                                     Kreischerville Street Pump Station

                                          Kreischer Street - along Kreischer, west
                                          of Arthur  Kill;  site of Anderson Brick
                                          Works (19th - early 20th century).

                                     Structures
Five historic
structures  have
also been identified.
The  Sequine House,  Kreischer  House  and
Conference  House are  listed  in  the National
Register of Historic Places, while the Manee
- Sequine Homestead and the S.S. White Dental
Manufacturing  Plant  may  be  potentially
eligible  for nomination  to  the  National
Register of Historic Places.
                                     Of the  14  archaeological  sites, eight will
                                     require additional study.  The  following  six
                                     are outside the routing of the  deep alterna-
                                     tive:

                                          On Satterlee Street three  sites will  be
                                          avoided, because the routing now follows
                                          Craig Avenue; and
Eight of the  14  sites
will require  addi-
tional study.
     On Arbutus  and Helton  Avenues,  three
     sites will  be  avoided,  because lateral
     interceptors are  not  part of  the  deep
     alternative.
                                     Of the  five  historic structures, only  one,
                                     the Kreischer House,  may  be affected by the
                                     deep alternative  as  a result of  the  visual
                                     impacts of the Kreischer Street Pump Station.
                                                   111-20

-------
                                     The other  four would have  been  impacted by
                                     construction of  the  pump stations associated
                                     with the  lateral  interceptors.  Since these
                                     pump stations  are  not  part  of  the  deep
                                     alternative, there  will  be no  impacts.   In
                                     addition,  one  other archaeologically sensi-
                                     tive area  north  of Ellis Street  and  not on
                                     the route was  identified for additional  study
                                     because  its  proximity to  the construction
                                     route makes it a prime site for  a staging  or
                                     storage area.

                                     Cultural Resources  are  discussed further in
                                     Section  B,  Constraints  to  Growth,  of this
                                     chapter.
                                9.   Land Use
The major land use
in the area is
residential.
The major type of  land  use  in  the study  area
is residential.   Most of the  homes in the
study  area  are one-  or  two-family houses,,
although condominiums  and garden apartments
are present in some areas.

Much of  the  land  in the  study  area remains
vacant.  Vacant lands include woodlands (some
of which are slated for clearing  and develop-
ment) and designated open space.
                                     Other types of land use are:

                                          Landfill  -   large  municipal  sanitary
                                          landfills surrounding  Richmond Creek and
                                          Fresh Kills,
                                                   111-21

-------
                                          Institutional - particularly  religious,
                                          cemeteries and a children's home,

                                          recreational - including large municipal
                                          parks and a state park,

                                          industrial  -  including petroleum  tank
                                          farms and several different  industries,
                                          and

                                          commercial - including small  clusters of
                                          stores and marinas.

                                     Significant  land use  along the  proposed
                                     interceptor route  includes  Conference House
                                     Park, the  Mount  Loretto  Home for  Children,
                                     several  small  parks, cemeteries,  schools,  a
                                     hospital, marinas, and many residences.
There  -Is  no offi-
cial land use  plan
for South Richmond.
The New York City Department of City Planning
(NYCDCP) prepared  a  land use  map  for the
South Richmond  area  as  part of a  land  use
plan in 1973, but the plan was not  officially
accepted, and therefore, there is  no official
land use plan  for this  area.   NYCDCP did,
however, develop  and adopt  South  Richmond
Special  Development  District  regulations  in
1975.  These regulations provide some speci-
fic land use regulations.
                               10.   Zoning
                                     In  place  of strong  land use  regulations,
                                     existing zoning  ordinances  are the  primary
                                     means of controlling development in the study
                                     area.  The area's zoning districts  are  shown
                                                   111-22

-------
 Most  of the area is
 zoned for residen-
 tial  use.
in Figures 3-9 of the DEIS.  According  to the
Staten  Island  office of  the  New York  City
Department of  Planning,  zoning in the  study
area has not changed significantly since the
DEIS was issued in 1980.  Most of the area is
zoned for residential use (R 1-2, R 3-1, or R
3-2).  Other portions  of the  study area are
zoned for industrial  (Ml, M2,  or M3").,  park-
land (P), or  commercial   (C3,  C4,  C8)   use.
Zoning variances are governed by the New York
City Uniform Land Use  Review  (ULURP)   proce-
dure.
                                     Zoning  is discussed  further in  Section  B
                                     (Constraints  to  Growth)  of this  chapter.

                                11.   Economic  Characteristics
The 1980 median
income for Staten
Island was sub-
stantially higher
than for NYC as
a whole.
Few  economic  statistics are  available for
South  Richmond  as  a  separate  area,  and
therefore,  economic  factors  for  States
Island* as  a  whole  are  used to  give  some
sense of  the  study area.  The median  income
in 1980 for Staten Island  (Richmond County)
was  $23,842 which is 41.8% higher  than  the
median for New York  City as  a whole for  that
year.  Of all families  on Staten  Island,
14.2% had incomes  of less  than  $10,000.   For
New  York  City as  a  whole, this  category  is
29.5%.  The median age  is  30.7  years and  10%
of the county's  population is over  65 years
of age, which is  the lowest  percentage  for
that age group of  all the  five  boroughs.
                      *NYC  Department  of  Commerce,  1980
                                                    111-23

-------
                                     Staten Island has the largest average house-
                                     hold  size  (3.0  persons)  and the  largest
                                     percentage of owner occupied housing (58.7%)
                                     of any of the five boroughs.   Almost one-half
                                     (48.3%) of the year round  housing  units  are
                                     single family units.   Although the  median
                                     value of an owner occupied unit  (in 1980) was
                                     $61,700,  over  half  (57.0%)  were  in the
                                     $50,000 to $79,999 bracket.
                               12.    Schools
                                     An important regulation  concerning  develop-
                                     ment in the study area  is  the  school  certi-
                                     fication clause of the South Richmond  Special
                                     Development District law.  This clause allows
                                     development to occur  in  a  district  only to
                                     the extent that  the  public schools  serving
                                     that district have sufficient capacity.
Currently, South
Richmond schools
have adequate
capacity.
The DEIS showed that many of the study area's
schools were  at  or near capacity.  Updated
information shows  that  only the Tottenville
High  School   is  slightly  over  capacity.
School populations  and  capacities are dis-
cussed further in the "Constraints To Growth"
section of this chapter.
                               13.    Population
                      1
                                     The 1980 US Census identified the population
                                     of the study area as  91,419 .   This  repre-
                       This  number is the total  population in 1980 Census tracts
                       132.02,  146.01, 146.02, 156.01, 156.02, 156.03, 170.01,
                       170.02,  176,  196,  208.01, 108.02, 226, 236, 244 and 248.
                                                   111-24

-------
The 1980 census pop-
ulation for the study
area was about 91 ,,500,
     sents approximately  26 percent of  the  I960
     Census  population  of  Richmond   County
     (352,121).   No  information is available to,
     indicate  the existing (1986) population of
     either the  study area or  Richmond County,
     Table III-l  summarizes the population trends
     of the study area and county.
                                         Before the 1960's, approximately  14  percent
                                         of the County's  population was located  in
                                         South Richmond.   The  completion   of the,
                                         Verrazano Narrows Bridge  in  1964  brought a
                                         surge in  growth to the now easily accessible
                                         study area.  The  study area's growth  rate
                                         was more  than  twice the  County's between
                                         1960 and  1970  and again  between  1970 and
                                         1980.
South Richmond grew
significantly
during the I960's.
     The surge  of growth which  occurred  in  the
     1960's has  slowed somewhat, but  the study
     area  continues  to be  the fastest growing
     part  of  the County, due  primarily to the
     availability of developable  land.
                               B.    CONSTRAINTS TO GROWTH
Consideration of
constraints is
included in growth.
projections.
Some of the  existing conditions of the affected
environment are likely to serve  as constraints to
future growth  in  the study area.  The DEIS pre-
sented a quantitative  analysis of land capacity
constraints.   This  section  of  the  FEIS will
address these and  other constraints in general to
establish a  basis for projecting  future  condi-
tions.
                                                      111-25

-------
                                     TABLE III-l

                                POPULATION 1950-1980
	'                       T%0"           T960           T9TO          T980

Study Area
(South Richmond)              25,363         32,108          59,132          91,419*

.  Growth Rate (between
    intervals shown)            -      26.6%         84.2%           54.6%
Richmond County               192,000       222,000         292,000         352,121
 (Staten Island)

.  Growth Rate                  -      15.6%         31.5%           20.6%


% of County Population
 represented by study
 area's population              13             14              20             26


Sources:   1950, 1960, 1970, 1980:  US Census.


*1980 population for South Richmond based on total of  1980  Census Tracts.
                                                    111-26

-------
                                   The  conditions which  have been  considered as
                                   potential  constraints  include steep slopes, flood
                                   prone  areas,  densely developed areas,  wetlands,
                                   zoning,  designated  open space, designated  signi-
                                   ficant habitat, cultural  resources, public  school
                                   capacity,  public water  supply,  public  sewer
                                   system,  power  supply,  and other  aspects  of the
                                   infrastructure.   While each of these  conditions
                                   is likely  to  have an  influence on  growth,  some
                                   are  likely to  have  a more direct influence than
                                   others.  Wetlands,  public zoning,  open space»
                                   cultural resources,  public school  capacity, the
                                   public water supply, and  the  public sewer system
                                   are  considered the most  direct constraints to
                                   growth,  and will  thus  be  discussed  further.  The
                                   other  conditions  are either  included within the
                                   physical  boundaries of the  more  direct con-
                                   straints or are  not limiting  enough in nature  to
                                   actually constrain  growth in  the  study  area.

                                   1.   Wetlands

                                        Development  in the  tidal and freshwater
                                        wetlands  in the  study  area is regulated
Development in wet-
lands is regulated                      under the New  York State Tidal Wetlands and
                                        Freshwater  Wetlands  Acts.   Permits  may be
                                        obtained  to allow  development  in  these
                                        wetlands  under certain  circumstances.  In
                                        addition  to  state laws  regulating develop-
                                        ment  in  wetlands, the  EPA is   requiring a
                                        condition to  its  funding grant  for  this
                                        project  that also  affects development in
                                        environmentally   sensitive  areas  which
                                        include wetlands.   The  grant  condition is
                                        described further in Chapter V, Section D.7.
                                                      111-27

-------
                                        Zoning
Development -is not
permitted in  land
zoned as  parkland.
Lands in the  study  area  which  are zoned "P"
for parkland  (shown  in DEIS  Figure 3-9) are
reserved for  use as  public  parkland - no
residential, commercial  or industrial devel-
opment  is  permitted.   Zoning variances may
be obtained to  develop  "P"  zoned  land, but
it is very  unlikely that variances would  be
permitted  for  the parklands in  the study
area due to their value  as urban  parks.
                                        Open Space
Development is  also
prohibited in
designated open
space.
Designated  open  space  is  protected  from
development under the South Richmond Special
Development District  regulations.   Some of
the open spaces cover costal waters,  others
cover portions of land zoned "P".
                                   4.   Cultural Resources
National historic
sites  are protected.
Currently,  three  structures  and  their
associated archaeological sites (The Confer-
ence, Kreischer  and  Sequine  Houses) are on
the National Register of Historic Places and
are  in  part  afforded  protection.   They,
therefore, pose a constraint  upon  growth  in
their  immediate  area.   In  addition,  the
Preservation League  of  Staten Island is at
present preparing a  National  Register nomin-
ation for a Staten Island Multiple  Resources
Area.  This  nomination  would consider both
standing  structures  and  archaeological
resources throughout the Borough.  As part
of the Stage IB survey,  the  League reviewed
those structures  in the vicinity  of  the
                                                     111-28

-------
                                         project area  which may  be eligible  for
                                         inclusion  in this nomination.  These  struc-
                                         tures  are  present in three  portions of the
                                         project area:   Prince's Bay, Tottenville and
                                         Kreischerville.   All or  portions of  these
                                         areas  may  be  eligible  for the  National
                                         Register as historic districts,  in  addition
                                         to  individual  structures  which may be eligi-
                                         ble  or are  already  listed in the National
                                         Register of Historic Places.

                                         If  these districts are found eligible, they
                                         would  present  direct constraints  to  growth.

                                         Further discussion of cultural resources is
                                         presented  in Chapter V, Impacts.

                                    5.    Public School  Capacity
Public school capa-
city is not current-
ly a constraint to
growth.
The  school  certification  clause  of the
Special Zoning District Law restricts growth
in the  study  area to  the  capacity of the
area's  public  schools for  the school-age
population.  The DEIS  identified this clause
as a  significant constraint  to growth as
many of the schools  in the study area were
at or  near  capacity.  The construction  of
two new schools  and  an overall decrease in
enrollment  since the  late  1970's  has re-
lieved  this constraint,  as shown  in Table
III-2.  However, the clause will  serve as a
constraint  if  the  school  age  population
again grows to be equal  to  or more than the
school  capacity.  While  this  is  a  very
realistic constraint,  it may  be relieved by
increasing  school  capacity or by  legally
changing this requirement.
                                                      111-29

-------
                                                       TABLE  III-2
                                           PUBLIC  SCHOOL  ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY
I
GO
O


Enrollment
High School
Tottenville

5000
1977-781

Capacity Utilization %

4200

119%

Enrollment

3986
1985-862
Capacity

3799

Utilization %

105%
3
Intermediate Schools
IS 7
IS 24
IS 34
IS 75
Elementary School
PS 1
PS 3.
PS 4J
PS 5
PS 8
PS 32
PS 36
PS 42
PS 53
PS 55
1645
2510
1068
(Opened
s
544
534
367
243
577
1378
1578
1086
727
723
1382
2536
1153
September, 1985)

853
633
276
369
845
1447
1589
1317
1044
903
119%
99%
93%
--

64%
84%
133%
66%
68%
95%
99%
82%
70%
80%
845
1264
660
1320

510
479
1136
170
335
936
1189
939
400
553
1541,
2198^
1054
1800

794
701
1516
348
844
1419J
I486?
115F
868
749
54%
58%
63%
73%

64%
68%
75%
49%
40%
66%
80%
82%
46%
71%
    1  Source:   DEIS,  Pages 3-27
    2  Source:   NYC Board of Education,  1986
    3  The  old  PS 4 was closed in September,  1984  and  the  new  PS 4 was opened.
    4  Includes Annex.

-------
                                    6.    Public Water Supply
Summer water short-
ages may be a slight
constraint.
New York  City frequently experiences water
shortages  during the  summer.   The  tunnel
which conveys water to  Staten Island  has
sufficient  capacity for  projected  future
needs.  During summer  droughts, however, the
pressure  of  water flow is  reportedly very
low by the time  it  reaches  the southwestern
end of the Island.   This seasonal  shortage
is an  inconvenience to  residents  in  the
study area and  may therefore  discourage
future growth in the area to some  extent.
                                         An effort to alleviate New York City's water
                                         supply problem is underway.  A new tunnel  is
                                         being  constructed to  convey  water  from
                                         upstate reservoirs to the City.  Once imple-
                                         mented, this supplemental water supply would
                                         reduce any  constraining  influence  of the
                                         existing water supply on growth in the study
                                         area.
Lack of adequate
sanitary services
is a serious con-
straint.
Public Sewer System

With the exception of  Tottenville,  the study
area is not served by  a  public  sewer  system.
Residences  and  businesses currently use
septic systems  or small  "package" treatment
plants  for  wastewater  treatment.   The
limited success  of these methods in treating
wastewater  has  been  an  important deterrent
to development  in the study area.  The lack
of a  public sewer system  must  therefore be
considered  a  direct  constraint to growth.
It  is important to  note, however,  that
                                                     111-31

-------
                                        implementation of such a system will not in
                                        itself induce growth in the study area.   The
                                        sizing of the interceptor to be constructed
                                        under this project  is  based on  NYS  and  NYC
                                        approved  future population projections, and
                                        therefores does  not  include  additional
                                        capacity  which  could  induce  growth.   In
                                        addition, proper land  use and development
                                        regulations  should  be  implemented  simulta-
                                        neously to guide the growth that has already
                                        been  planned.

                              C.    FUTURE  CONDITIONS

                                   Population projections made in the DEIS  for  the
                                   study area are shown  in  Table III-3  along with
                                   more  recent projections  from the New  York State
                                   Department of  Commerce  (NYSDC)  for  Richmond
                                   County.

                                   The DEIS projections are  based on a comprehensive
                                   analysis of constraints  to  development  and  the
                                   calculated population  saturation  level   (DEIS,
                                   Appendix F).
Growth -in the study
area is expected
to continue to
ooaur vapidly in
the near1 future.
These projections show  that  growth  in the study
area  (South  Richmond)  should continue to  occur
rapidly  in  the  near future  and  gradually slow
down over time.  In contrast, growth  in  Richmond
County as  a whole is  projected  to  occur  at  a
relatively  constant, moderate rate.  This  con-
trast reflects  the  expectation  that,  due prima-
rily to the availability of developable land, the
study area will be the fastest growing portion of
the County in the near future.  However, the
                                                   111-32

-------
                                                    TABLE 111-3
                                              POPULATION PROJECTIONS
                    1985/86
                                  1990
1995
YEAR

 2000
2005
2010
                                                                                              2015
2020
South Richmond
(Study Area)
              1
                    148,000     183,200    204,500     216,900   224,800         230,100      233,900     236,700

 growth rate:               24%         12%         6%         4%          2%             2%           1%

Richmond County2    371,679     394,783    419,706     443,048   465,818         489,111

 growth rate:                6%          6%         6%          5%         5%
% of County
Population
Represented by
Study Area
Population

Sources:
                      40%
                                   46%
   49%
    49%
  48%
  47%
    , Draft EIS for Phase III and Future Phases if the Oakwood Beach Water Pollution Control  Project.  1980
 (Table F-5).

"New York State Department of Commerce, Official  Population Projections  for New York State Counties:   1980-2010,
 April, 1985.

-------
                                  projected  decrease in  the  study area's  growth
                                  rate  as  time  progresses reflects the expectation
                                  that  the constraints discussed  in  Section B of
                                  this  Chapter  will eventually  inhibit  growth in
                                  the area.
Phase III population
projections are con-
sistent with those
for earlier phases.
The 1980 study  area  population  projected in the
DEIS (105,000)  was  higher than the  1980  census
population (91,419).  Therefore,  it is possible
that the DEIS  projections for future years  are
also somewhat  high.   However, the  DEIS  projec-
tions are .considered  to  be within  the range of
reasonable  population growth  levels  and  are
consistent with the projections used to  plan for
Phase I and II of the overall Oakwood Beach Water
Pollution  Control  project.    Therefore,   the
capacity of the conveyance system  for  Phase III
has been planned  according to the  DEIS  projec-
tions.
                                   These  population  projections  assume the presence
                                   of  a  public wastewater collection system in the
                                   study  area.  However, development  is  likely  to
                                   continue  to occur even if such a  system  is  not
                                   present.   The implementation of  this  system  is
                                   not  expected  to  induce  development  to  occur
                                   beyond  the levels that have been  planned for by
                                   the New York  State  Department of  Commerce and the
                                   New York  City Department of City  Planning.  The
                                   development and enforcement of strong  land  use
                                   regulations and  the enforcement  of  existing
                                   zoning  and South  Richmond  Special  Development
                                   District  regulations are recommended  to  assure
                                   that  development will  not  occur  beyond  the
                                   planned limits.
                                                   111-34

-------
                                   Future wastewater  flows  in the  study area are
                                   primarily a function of the area's future popula-
                                   tion.  Other factors typically include industrial
Future wastewater _                 and commerciai  development and per capita water
flows are a function
of future population.              use.  These are not expected to increase signifi-
                                   cantly  and  therefore  will   probably   not
                                   measureably influence future wastewater  flows  in
                                   the study area.
                                                   111-35

-------
IMPACTS

-------
                         CHAPTER IV
                         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                         A.   INTRODUCTION
 This chapter dis-
 cusses  the impacts
 of the  recommended
 alternative.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the environ-
ment of the project area  that  may be affected by the
construction  and  the  operation  of the  recommended
alternative.   This discussion  focuses  on  several
comprehensive  features  of the affected  environment,
namely earth  resources,  water resources, ecosystems
and endangered species, air  quality,  traffic, noise,
cultural  resources, land  use,  and  economy and energy.
The existing  conditions,  environmental  impacts  and
mitigation  measures  related  to  each  feature are
addressed in this chapter.
Impacts  are  categor-
ized as  short or
long-term^ primary
and secondary.
In  general,  environmental impacts  consist of  both
positive  and  negative changes  in the  natural  and
man-made environment which will  occur  as  a result of
project  implementation.   Impacts are categorized  in
regard to duration as either  short-term or long-term.
The impacts are  further  categorized as being either
primary  (direct)  or  secondary (indirect)   in  nature.
Short-term impacts are those  associated with project
construction,  such  as  erosion  and  sedimentation,
construction noise and emissions,  and  the disruption
of traffic patterns.   Long-term  impacts are those that
are associated with  on-going operation of the  com-
pleted wastewater treatment facilities  such  as  change
in the quantity  and  quality  of  surface,  marine,  and
ground waters, alteration of flood  patterns, noise,
odor and increased energy usage.
                                                           IV-1

-------
     Primary  impacts  are  the  physical  effects of  the
     project such  as  excavation along  interceptor routes
     and at  the  pump station  sites.   Secondary impacts,
     such as  inducement of  development, are  indirectly
     related to  the project and  are more  difficult to
     predict and quantify.

     Chapter 4 of  the  DEIS,  Environmental  Impacts of the
     Feasible Alternative  Wastewater Management Systems,
     presented a detailed discussion of impacts relating to
     the feasible  alternatives  described  in that document.
     All these  alternatives  were basically  variations  of
     the shallow  alternative  using the  cut and  coyer
                                                     /
     construction method.  The deep alternative as discuss-
     ed in the DEIS was  not  considered  a  feasible  alterna-
     tive and, therefore,  no impacts  for this alternative
     were discussed.   The  preferred alternative,  the deep
     alternative,  as described  in Chapter HI,  Section  F,
     of  this  document  includes  both  cut and  cover  and
     jacked pipe sections.   Those portions  of Chapter 4  of
     the DEIS dealing with cut and cover or general  Impacts
     will only be  referred to  or summarized, while impacts
     for those  sections  of the deep alternative not pre-
     viously considered, will be discussed  in detail.

     Specific short-term impacts are discussed  by  category
     in  Section  B, long-term  impacts  in Section  C  and
     Mitigation Measures in  Section D below.

B.   SHORT-TERM  IMPACTS

     1.   Earth Resources

          Many of  the impacts  discussed  in  the  DEIS  relat-
          ing to the  construction  of the interceptor no^w
          apply  only  to that  section  of the interceptor
                                  IV-2

-------
 Most soil-related
 impacts will be
 avoided by pipe-
 jacking.
from the Kreischer Street pump station to Hopping
Street and Amboy  Road  which will  be built using
the cut and  cover method.   From that  point  on,
the construction method will involve pipe jacking
which will eliminate most of the adverse  impacts
of construction,  such  as the  reduction  of the
amount of  exposed soil.   Therefore,  potential
soil  erosion, siltation, and structural damage to
buildings along Craig Avenue will  be avoided.
 Evasion may occur
 along the cut and
 cover sections.
For the  cut and cover section,  impacts  can be
reduced  by  keeping the amount  of trench  open at
any one  time  to a minimum, and  by  covering  the
installed pipe  as  soon as possible.   Excavated
soil that is  not  needed  to backfill the  cut and
cover  section or for  jacking  pits  should  be
stockpiled  in non-sensitive areas,  with  standard
procedures  used to eliminate runoff and  erosion.
Most of  the actual  construction  work will  be in
street beds for almost  the  entire  route,  and
therefore,  little or no vegetation or undisturbed
land will be affected, except at  the two pump
station  sites.  However,  staging areas (area  for
storage  of  construction  materials and machines)
must also be  selected so as to  avoid sensitive
sites.
Where  possible3
docking pits will  be
located outside  of
flood-prone areas.
The  interceptor  route  crosses flood prone areas
(see Figure  IV-3) where  it  crosses  streams  (Mill
Creek, Lemon Creek), or  comes in  close proximity
to bodies  of water (Arbutus  Lake,  Wolfe's and
Sequine  Ponds).   These  areas  are  considered
sensitive,  and  construction  methods  have been
chosen to  minimize  impacts in  these  areas.   In
the  case  of Lemon  and  Mill  Creeks,  the  flood
                                                            IV-3

-------
                                    prone  area  includes  tidal  wetlatfds  regulated
                                    under  the NYS  Tidal  Wetlands Act.  Where  possi-
                                    ble, jacking pits will  be  located outside  of the
                                    floodplain in these areas.  A portion  of the site
                                    for the Kreischer Avenue Pump Station  is included
                                    in  the floodplain.   The exact  location of the
                                    station building  is  not yet  known,  but if the
                                    station  is  built  in the  floodplain,   special
                                    attention must  be given in  the design to meet
                                    FEMA  regulations  (see   mitigation  measures).
                                    Additional  information   about   these areas is
                                    included  below,  in  the  section entitled  "Water
                                    Resources".

                                    Water  Resources
Water resource im-
pacts are related
to water quality.
The water  resources which may  be impacted are
Lemon  and  Mill  Creeks,  Wolfe's  Pond,  Arbutus
Lake,  Sequine  Pond,  groundwater,  near-shore
marine waters,  and  other small  unnamed  ponds  and
intermittent  streams along the route.   Each,  of
these  resources is ' dfscussed  in  Chapter JM,
Section ,,4  .of  this  document.   The  potential
impacts to these resources relate mainly  to water
quality and, to some extent, water volume.
Most potential
impacts to surface
waters will be
avoided by tunnel-
ing.
As described  in Chapter III, special considera-
tion  of the  non-marine  surface waters in  the
project area  led  to  the  selection  of the  special
construction  methods for environmentally sensi-
tive  areas  along the  interceptor  route  (i.e.,
pipe jacking  under Mill  Creek  and  compressed air
tunneling under Lemon Creek and in  the Wolfe's
Pond area).  Therefore, most construction impacts
to these  sensitive water resource areas will  be
avoided.  As  already mentioned,
                                                            IV-4

-------
                                   jacking  pits  and those  pits  required for  the
                                   compressed  air  tunneling will  be  located away
                                   from the actual  waterway, and  standard construc-
                                   tion methods  will  be used to  prevent  runoff of
                                   sediment or other  pollutants  into  the waterway.
                                   Construction  of  the two pump  stations will  not-
                                   create any significant water resource  impacts.
Cape must be taken
to avoid erosion
and water pollution
from dewatering
activities.
Because of  the  high water table,  dewatering  of
the cut and cover section, the jacking  pits,  and
the jecked pipe sections may be necessary.  Water
from dewatering operations could cause sedimenta-
tion and  pollution  if discharged  directly  into
existing  surface waters.   In  addition,  the
Geotechnical  Report prepared  for  the  NYCDEP
indicated potentially contaminated groundwater in
the vicinity  of  several  gas stations along the
route,  the  AT&T/Nassau Recycling  Company near
Arthur  Kill Road, and in the vicinity of Mount
L<>retto Cemetery.   Groundwater  from these areas
will have to  be  carefully monitored  to  determine
what pollutants are present, and  then dealt with
accordingly.  Although dewatering  activities  are
not expected  to  lower the groundwater level  to
any significant  degree,  monitoring  of  adjacent
structures along the route for subsidence will be
required.
There  would be  no
significant ad-
verse  impacts to
marine waters.
The only  impacts that might  affect near-shore
marine waters  would  be  direct discharge  from
dewatering operations.   The  mitigation measures
discussed below  require  that  there be no direct
discharges to  any  surface waters,  fresh  or
marine.   Construction of  the  Kreischer Street
Pump Station,  which  is  proposed  to be located
near the small  tidal  basin, could cause sediments
                                                           IV-5

-------
                                    or other pollutants  to enter  the Arthur Kill.
                                    However,  most of these impacts cadcu-tre" avoided  or
                                    mitigated.

                               3.    Ecosystems  and Endangered Species

                                    Ecosystems  and endangered  species 'are discu-ssed
                                    in Chapter  IV, Section 5.  Since  the  interceptor
                                    sewer will  actually be  installed  in a trench in
                                    the street  bed (cut and cover section), or jacked
                                    or tunneled between pits  in  the  street bed, it
                                    will  have  little  effect on  surrounding  areas.
                                    The only  ecosystem impacts would  result from the
                                    location  of staging areas, dewatering  operations
                                    and other construction-related activities.  These
                                    impacts   can  be minimized through  mitigation
                                    measures, and present  no special  problems.
The proposed project
will not harm wet-
lands or signi-
f-Leant habitats.
Wetland ecosystems which exist around Lemon Creek
and Mill Creek  could  be  affected by construction
activities.  As  already discussed  under "Water
Resources" above,  consideration  of these sensi-
tive areas is reflected  in the choice of construc-
tion method which  avoids most potential  impacts.
Mitigation measures   can  reduce  those  impacts
which are not avoidable.

Of tlhe  two  significant hab/tats in  South! Rich-
mond, Lemon Creek  has already been  discussed, and
the other, Clay  Pit Ponds  State  Park,  is outside
of the  study area  and will not  be  affected.  No
endangered species occur  in  the project area,
although the bulrusjh  (Scirpus ancistrochaetus).
proposed for inclusion  on, the federal  Endangered
                                                            IV-6

-------
Short-term air
quality  impacts  can
be expected from
construction
activities and
equipment.
                                   Species list, may  occur in t-hY wetlands /jrn  the
                                     ''  /    /"  .     /"      / ;  /  /    .'    -"'/
                                     oiect ..area.  As  described  above, efforts ,-wi 11
                                      7   /   /   /    ,'   / /''   I    '  !    ' f
                                     /taken  t'o /avoid1  dispuYba/nce , of  wetlands.
                                     /   '     /  7     '   '  /   1    ''  '•  I  I I
                                     er/f ore/ /t  is jni/gh Yy /jnflik^'ly / twat/, /if the
                                     ,/  .   .//       / /. <[ LI./ .- !./ .//
                                                      it woljid be
        Krush
occur
diitur
4.   Air Quality

     Short-term air  quality impacts associated  with
     construction  can  be  expected.   Construction
     activities would result  in  the generation  of
     airborne particulate  matter  including dust from
     clearing, excavating, and filling activities.   In
     addition,  small  amounts  of  smoke,  odor  and
     exhaust emissions would be generated from diesel-
     powered construction  equipment  including  trucks,
     as well as minor additional  quantities  of carbon
     monoxide (CO),  hydrocarbons  $jp  and oxides  of
     nitrogen (NO ) as a result of interrupted roadway
                 A
     traffic flow patterns.  These  latter  impacts  are
     anticipated to  be  minimal because of the rela-
     tively  short  sections of highway  that  will  be
     affected by construction  at  any one  time.   Air
     quality  impacts  associated  with  pump  station
     construction would affect the immediate neighbor-
     hood for a longer  period  of  time  than for inter-
     ceptor  construction,  and  should be mitigated  to
     the degree possible.
                                                           IV-7

-------
                                5.    Traffic
Excavation of jack-
ing pits and  in the
cut and cover sec-
tion will disrupt
normal traffic
flows.
                                     Both the  cut and  cover and jacked pipe  sections
                                     of the project will be  built  in the road  bed,  and
                                     therefore  will create  short-term  impacts to  the
                                     traffic  using these roads.
                                              )of
                                                    * /
                                                        fjbr/the/ ait
                   kj£ly be'
                 T'h'eVefojpf,  fpr  the
             / /  /  x'/ .--'/   -'*"•'/
             1, 'Road and7 the/othev/ti
                      /' /
             wille  a^e/,
              ffth /''an i y /ptie  Tane
                  f /r    i X
               ?fic".   However,  traffic  impacts  will
  not  be significant because  alternate  routes are
  available, and because  only short  stretches  of
  the  road  will  be affected at  any one  time  for
  short periods.  In those areas where pipe jacking
  is  used,  excavation  impacts will  be less than  in
  the  cut  and  cover sections,
             Ipeai
  // '/   ^      7    ,   " /  /  /./
 '/th-ffse pitS'wil/1  be' in ;!tne ^entei/ of
 / // iJ    A'  / / •••?•>'/  /' .-     // •'/•/ /
//yid/'-be^a^s'e; pf'/the • width  '|yf,. • t|1^" rjd
^/la'neSi and'med'i'an   lus shoulde     at'
                                                                 '
                                                               /Alpng ,hjylan^Boulevard,
                                                                      .-I   -//4. //i „  ,
                                                                                   dw^y,
                                                                                      •
                                   / / *  r <  • / ' i  ''  ' •' ' ' ''  ,'  ,-          £  /  * t'  f f.
                                   lv'/la'ne,^^ and /median plus shoulde^, $i lei
                                   / / / ' .' j  i •'  f / '' ,''.'  -''    '    '' -"    .' '    "'  /'*"\ ^ *•*   /
                                   //h6,t/twp,/ la'nes'' of 'traffic i hi each diYecfTor
                                   i / / / ''' ?  '}/ • f  'f ' •  _>   i-'        ,    V-">
                                     ,bBy;,|riainta:i'n,edv'  .TheseyfactorTs,  pljyis ^he'lmoving of
                                       //  ''  '  •• /"    '''  ••'' "'"      •'     /  •''  /    /
                                     G'ohstpucti'on activities at  fre^aeht /nteryals,
                                    /,"' •-•'  /  /' ::'   '  f  ,'   /    ^ •' '    / /\ '  //'  L
                                    ' W-ill/',help/to/Keep/tr'afflc" impacts a% a minimum.
                                       /{jr^  ')• I*'     ^-'^    '*''      t \    i             ~\
                                     Special/e/ffprt,s  shmild  be/mad^conceyfning /co'n/trol
                                    ;y6,f co,nstru/ctiion/traffic/ a*,d /parkfng/faft/^Aye
                                     Richijion^ Ave^u,e  P|/mp' Sral'i'on/to  avaid  impacts to
                                     "the
                { nei/ghborhdod.
                                                               IV-8

-------
                              6.   Noise
Construction noise
may impost schools
arid a 'hospital.
                                   Noise  impacts  will be  limited  to working hours
                                   (7:00  A.M.  to  6:00 P.M.) and therefore  will  not
                                   affect  nightime  sound  levels.    The  increased
                                   noise  levels  will be  limited  to the  immediate
                                   construction site and  will  be of short duration.
                                     recial ..attention to  .naise  impacts  wilj^be
                                                   v ipi'h i ty  ojflBeptf s ten ri/dunjdr Jffgh
                                                                             /
                                                                  H,i''gh 5tho01  near
                     an Xoul^ard/ancKRiohrpdnd
                   on,'i>eaulne AvenKe
                                                      In  addition  to  theg&_eip.e.ciall
                                   noise-sensitive  facilities,  the residences along
                                   the construction route  tb>jo^^^Ttr^j3V't;l^^a"ri3M-n
                                  J&&~2*2j^^                                     '
                                   will  also  be impacted.  Limiting work  hours as
                                   mentioned  above  and  using  other  techniques
                                   discussed  under  mitigation will  assist in reduc-
                                   ing the construction  noise impacts  that  cannot  be
                                   avoided.
                                   Cultural Resources^
A Stage  II survey of
cultural resources
will be  required
before construction.
Eight  arch-aeological   sites  and^olie  historic
        /                    x^
structure may  be  impacted by/construction of the
deap  alternative.  Priojp/to  construction,  a
/                      s                     /
cwo-phased  Stage  II  ctfltural  resources  surl/ey
will be required. yAs  described  in detail in the
                /                    ^
Cultural  Resounees  Management  Plan_,-fAppendix 2),
the first pj^lse will  determine^fcffe boundaries or
viewshedyOT  each  resource so^hat  an  assessment
       /                   /               /
of poj^ntial  constructio^'or visual  impacts  can
be/made.  For  those re^slDurces  where it/is deter-
mined  from  the fipsl  phase  data  that impacts
                                                            IV-9

-------
cannot be avoided,  the second phase will  deter-
mine  the integrity  and  significance  of  the
resource  and its  potential   National  Register
eligibility.  A  draft  eligibility synopsis,  pre-
pared in  accordance  with Department of  Interior
guidelines,  will  be prepared for  each impacted
resource  meeting National Register  eligibility
criteria.   If impacts  to a  National  Register
eligible  resource  are  anticipated, a  mitigation
plan must be prepared.  Mitigation often includes
avoidance  through   cost-effective  redesign,
reduction of direct  impacts  and/or data recovery
prior to construction.

Evaluation and  protection of cultural  resources
impacted  by  this project must be  in  accordance
with the President's Advisory Council  on Historic
Preservation  (ACHP),  the  National   Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA),  and the National Envi-
ronmental  Policy Act  (NEPA).  Other  cultural
resources  were   identified  that  will   not  bt
impacted  by  the  deep alternative, including the
resources  identified  along  the  route of the
lateral   interceptors.   In addition,  still other
resources were  identified in the South  Richmond
area that would  not  be affected  by either alter-
native discussed in  this  document.  However, some
of these  resources,  and  others not yet identi-
fied, may be impacted  by future collector sewer
construction.  They  are subject  to both the New
York State  Historic Preservation Act  (SHPA) and
the  New  York City Environmental  Quality Review
Act  (CEQR),  and, therefore,  must  be   identified
and  protected from  construction  or developmental
impacts.   Adherence to  these state  and local
regulations  concerning the protection  of cultural

                         IV-10

-------
                                   resources related  to  future sewer  construction
                                   associated with this  interceptor  project by the
                                   NYCDEP will  be a condition  of  the funding grant
                                   agreement.
Boundary  identifi-
cation of culture
resources should
be completed dur-
ing the design
phase.
It is desirable to  complete  the Stage II survey
and subsequent  mitigation during design.   How-
ever, the  location  of  jacking  pits and  other
relevant construction  details may not be avail-
able until  later  in the design,  or  in  pre-con-
struction contract  negotiations.  If  this  is  the
case, it is recommended  that  at least the first
phase, boundary identification,  of  the Stage II
survey be completed early in the design  phase.
The details of  scheduling must  be  developed  by
NYCDEP,  NYSDEC  and  EPA in accordance  with  the
Cultural   Resource  Management  Plan   guidelines
(Appendix 2).
                              8.   Land Use
Construction of the
interceptor and ti)o
pump stations will
have little impact
on land use.
As discussed in Section 9, Chapter  IV,  there  are
a wide  variety  of land uses  along  the  route  of
the deep alternative.  Since the interceptor will
be installed in the  bed  of existing streets, no
additional land will  be  taken  for  construction.
Also, as required by  New York  City  Department Of
Transportation (NYCDOT) regulations,  the  streets
will  be  restored  to  their  original condition,
including surface repaving of  the entire width.
The two pump stations  required for  this alterna-
tive, at  Kreischer  Street  and  Richmond Avenue,
will  be  constructed  on city-owned  land.   These
stations will be built according to New York  City
building codes  and  their designs will  have  to
conform to  Uniform  Land Use  Review Procedures
(ULURP), CEQR and review by the City  Art Commis-
sion.   The  Kreischer  Street  Station  is  in  a
                        IV-11

-------
                                    relatively  undeveloped  area,  and  its  con-
                                    struction  should have  little  impact  on the
                                    surrounding land uses.  The  Richmond Avenue Pump
                                    Station  is  located  in  a  developed  residential
                                    area with stores and service  business ^f^^
                                   }xfyx$t$e%f  However, since  the city owns a much
                                    larger piece of  land than  required for the pump
                                    station,  staging  areas and  other construction
                                    related uses should all be on  city owned  land.
                               9.    Economy and Energy
Construction acti-
vities will have
both positive and
negative impacts
on the local
economy.
Construction  activities  will  have  primarily
positive  impacts on the economy;  local  suppliers
will  have new markets for a variety  of  construc-
tion  related  goods,  local  restaurants  and other
service stores  should have increased business as
the  construction activities  pass through  their
areas, and several  jobs related to the  construc-
tion  activities will  probably be  available  to
local  residents.  At the same time,  construction
activities may  negatively  affect some  small
businesses in the  immediate construction areas by
limiting   access  and  parking,  and  generally
reducing  the  traffic flow  for short periods  of
time.   Many  of the  negative  impacts will  be
mitigated by a  variety of methods, but some
disruption to normal traffic  patterns  may still
affect businesses  along the route.   These  should
be  of short  duration,  however,  since  the con-
struction activity will  progress along the route.
    ''")          "}   • •' )•   •'"',<      -0   ^' J
^Impacts;,,;  bpth • positive  and? negative,  fromtil
//   / ••• - ,.•'/  /' /',-'•    ;   ••'  /'
construction  of the -Richmond  Avenue  p-ump
   "" -  •' •'   '  ••''  ';          "  - "N  /f    /
are  expected to continue/for, a T^
because/ the/activ-ities Xher^: will//bex of Iqriger
tj
-------
                                  Since  there will be  little use of  the public
                                  power  supply  for construction activities,  there
                                  will  be  no short-term impacts to  the supply of
                                  energy.
                        C.   LONG-TERM  IMPACTS
                              1.   Long-Term  Primary  Impacts
Overall long-term
primary impacts
will be positive.
Overall,  implementation  of  the   recommended
alternative will have several positive  long-term
primary impacts on  the  South  Richmond area.  It
will provide the first major step in the elimina-
tion of flows from malfunctioning septic systems;
it is expected to reduce the user costs to  indi-
vidual  homeowners  after  private   wastewater
treatment systems are phased out by connecting to
the  interceptor  systems; and it  will help  to
reduce  the  pollution  of the surrounding marine
waters  by  eliminating  the  discharges  of  raw
sewage.  Because the emergency discharge outfalls
discussed  in  the  DEIS will not be  included in
this revised alternative, all  negative impacts of
such  discharges  discussed  in Chapter  4 of the
DEIS  (p.4-9}  are,  therefore,  not applicable  to
the preferred alternative.
Potential  pump
station odors will
be controlled.
The  deep  alternative  only requires  two  pump
stations, and will use the existing Oakwood Beach
STP.  Therefore,  comments  in the DEIS  (p.4-12)
pertaining to long-term impacts associated with a
proposed Tottenville  STP  or the use  of  private.-'
lands for the construction of 13 pump stations do
not  apply.   It  should be  noted,  however5 that
odor control equipment is  included  in the costs
for  the  two pump  stations required  for this
alternative to prevent odor problems  from causing
                        IV-13

-------
                                     sig
                                     n/ig
            cant
           o£flt>ods.
2.   Long-Term Secondary Impacts

 ->   Most 0y the  potential  -long^terni secon
         •"//'/ /''  /  /  /'.-•'<••"/•''//// /--'
     that Wfi'r^xlis.cu^'se.d ih^'tKe'' pwS/fp'./
    /apply'  tey thV re^6mtaeh'de/d  ^dtenia^i'
                                                                               These
                                     include impacts  associated with  increased  resi-
                                         :^.~^
                                     dential development in the project area, such as
                                     the  impacts on land use, surface  and  groundwater,
                                     and  air quality.   These  impacts  are  expected  to
                                     occur,  attributable  to  growth in  the project
                                     area,  whether or  not  this  phase  of the Oakwood
                                     Beach  water pollution  control project  is  imple-
                                     mented.
Schools are not
overcrowded at
present.
                                    f^  whietf7no
                                                                                    er
 Two  long-term/secondary
            //' /  /"   7   ,•''   /   ,"   / /1/ I
 apply  are  £he /impacts/on population  /ai^  school
                (./      tx     LX     ^
 growth.  The  proposed interceptor a%dj/fVnicvipjjns
 will  be sized  to provide  capacity for  future
 flows  based  on certified population  projections.
 These  projections do not  account for induced
 growth  which  might occur due to the  implementa-
 tion  of -public  sewer  service.   That is, the
 projections  account only for what may be called
 "natural"  growth.

 The-,other  majo''r7factor that  has  changed  from the
  "'  /'    -X  •'"''   /             •""'  N>
 predic^To.ns  ip the DEIS, A's limitations on growth
 d^^Tp''overcrowded  s,e'fiools. / As  indica-tetl by/
 fabl^  IV-2,  the   on/Ty  school/ currejrtly  over/
 capacity/is  the  Hjgh  School/and ;tnat by  onl;
 /       /        /'               /          /
/Therefore,  it would  appear/thatrbecause tjaere has
 been  r)4w school  construction/and improvements  to
 existing  facilities, scnool  overc/owding  is no
      [   /•              I  /       I
 longer-aT'real  constrain/t/to growth.
                                                              IV-14

-------
The -recommended
project uses  pipe
sizes based on
certified popu-
lation project-
ions; therefore^
secondary im-
pacts will be
minimal.
          The deep scheme discussed  in the  DEIS  suggested a
          tunnel of  approximately 2m (7  ft)  in  diameter,
          which raised  the  issue of  induced  growth.   The
          issue of inducement  to growth by oversizing  the
          interceptor has been  eliminated by  the reduction
          in the capacity  of the interceptor  in the deep
          alternative to that  required  by the design year
          (2020) population.   The recommended alternative
          uses  the  same sizing as  the  shallow scheme
          discussed both in  the DEIS and in this document
          (up to 1.2 m  (4 ft)  in diameter), except  for the
          short segments  of compressed  air tunnel  which
          require a  diameter of 3m   (10  ft)  tunnel for
          sewer.  This  is the smallest diameter  tunnel  that
          can be constructed using  this method,  and  will
          provide-a tunnel  of  2m (7  ft.) diameter  for  the
          conveyance  of wastewater.   Therefore,  this
          alternative uses pipe  sizes based on certificable
          populations  from   the  208   Areawide  Wastewater
          Treatment Facility Plan.
Mitigation mea-
sures are suggested
to minimize unavoid-
able adverse impacts.
D.   Mitigation Measures

     M*>st/ of ,the relevant mitigation measures  to-xreduee, the
     /adv,er$.£ impacts vhicri cai|ino,t be a\vcn'dedWereXti|scusS|ed
     in/t/ie DEIjy(p.4-23) and h&ve beery revised as raecessa-
            surparized/below, i /
                     I/      (I

     Plans, specifications,  and  contract documents  should
     include specifics,  items  fo^/controlling  noise,  dust,
     and erosion.  The\ppHcfant will be required to confer
     with the regulatory/ag^ncies during the  preparation of
     contract documents.  The TW.SDEC Regional  Office should
     provide coordinated  program  frrp.ut  for developing  the
     controls/and required permit condiirens.  The regional
     offic/e should  also establish necessary  on-site pre-
                                                           IV-15

-------
                              contract information meetings, monitoring,  and follow-
                              up to  assure  compliance with th£  contract  specifica-
                              tions and permit reqciiremej;

                              Certain conditions sffouYd  be  required  in  the construc-
                              tion  specifications,  including  but not  limited to
                                            jr             \
                              those  listed/below.
                              1,
Air Quality
Controlling dust
and equipment
emissions will
reduce air quality
impacts.
Dust will  be  controlled by water sprinkling and
sweeping of paved areas, and water  sprinkling and
mulching on  unpaved areas.  The  use  of calcium
chloride or  petroleum  products for dust control
will be prohibited.  Equipment shall  be provided
with the proper exhaust emission  control devices.
The contractor will  be responsible  for observing
local and federal anti-pollution  ordinances.
                                   Noise
Equipment mufflers
and careful sched-
uling of con-
struction activi-
ties will mitigate
noise impacts.
The construction will be  required  to comply with
the New York  City  Noise Control Code {Jfod&A^
>7]).  Provisions will  be made  to  monitor  noise
and vibration  levels.   In the  event that  noise
levels are exceeded,  the resident engineer will
direct  the  contractor  to take immediate   and
appropriate measures  to reduce noise to accept-
able levels.
                                   Increased  noise levels  which may  result from
                                   construction activities  will  be  of  short duration
                                   and will  be limited to  the  daylight hours.   If
                                   possible, work  in  the vicinity of schools should
                                   be  done  during  non-school  hours or  vacations.
                                                 w^^^
                                                            IV-16

-------
                                  construction  activities  should  be  undertaken.
                                  Informational meetings with  neighborhood groups
                                  in the area  of  the Richmond  pump station sho'u-ld
                                  also be considered.

                                  Erosion
A variety of erosion-
aontvol measures
should be used.
The objective  of  this provision  is  to control
soil erosion  to the  maximum  extent  practical.
The work may  include  the installation of water
diversion  structures, diversion  ditches,   hay
bales,  sedimentation  basins,  seeding,  mulching,
or sodding areas to provide temporary protection,
and covering  stockpiled  soil  with  netting or
mulch.
                                  The contractor  shall  schedule and  conduct  his
                                  operations to minimize  erosion  of soils and  to
                                  prevent silting of streams, rivers, impoundments,
                                  and lands adjacent to,  or  affected by the work.
                                  Construction of drainage facilities and  perform-
                                  ance of other work which will  contribute to the
                                  control of  erosion  and sedimentation  shall  be
                                  carried out as  soon as  practicable.   The  area  of
                                  soil exposed  at any  one  time by  construction
                                  operations shall  be  kept to  a  minimum.   These
                                  conditions apply  to  staging,  storage  and other
                                  areas  related  to  construction,  in  addition to
                                  actual  construction sites.

                                  Dewatering Activities

                                  The contractor  shall  riot discharge  water from
                                  dewatering operations directly  into any stream,
                                  channel, wetland, surface water,  storm sewer  or
                                  street.  Water  from  dewatering  operations shall
                                                          IV-17

-------
Discharges from
dewatering opera-
tions should not
enter surface or
marine waters
directly.
A traffic manage-
ment plan should
be prepared to
reduce traffic
impacts.
be sufficiently  treated by filtration,  settling
basins, or  other approved methods to  reduce  the
amount  of sediment  contained  in  the  water to
allowable levels, ffl/fyti£tyui$j^JXfa.  These
                           // (/     LX-
methods may include installing  water diversion
structures,  diversion  ditches, hay  bales,  sedi-
mentation basins,  seeding, mulching,  or  sodding
areas  to  provide  temporary   protection,  and
covering  stockpiled  soils  with netting or mulch.
      er-  simifican.t/
      / /  -^ /  /-'  '''' 'f'
   Qe//mp
-------
Areas cleared for
construction should
be restored as soon
as possible.
     for construction, and  should  be performed within
     thirty days of  the  commencement of construction.
     In environmentally  sensitive  areas "Such-;as >tbe'
     f^ofd-ptaTn' a-t/Kre4scher- Street, clearing  should
      Xj."'5'" «*"'   '- -'   •**.-"""  ,^,-'
     commence within  seven  days of  construction and
     temporary soil  stabilization  measures should  be
     employed.
                                   Restoration  should  begin  as  soon as an area is no
                                   longer  needed  for  construction,  staging or
                                   access.   All  areas must be  restored  to at least
                                   as good a  condition as  existed prior to construc-
                                   tion.  The restored areas should  be  reinspected
                                   one year  after  project  completion to measure the
                                   success of this mitigation.   Any seeding,  plant-
                                   ing,  or  stabilization  which has not  succeeded
                                                      /  ,'<---
                                   should be  redone. /Restoration and  resurfacing '-of"
                                                    :>•','' ;'      '       '         '- •  J
                                   reads') shoiil d  be  in  accordance -,wi th • "NY-COOT reguTa-
Two special grant
conditions are
recommended:
7.   Special Grant Conditions

     If an  EPA  grant is awarded  f of  construction of
     this project,  two  special  conditions will  be
     attached to  the grant  for  construction of  the
     proposed  interceptor:    one  to  protect envi-
     ronmentally  sensitive   areas (floodplains  and
     wetlands), the other to ensure  the investigation
     of all  cultural  resources  in  the project  area
     that have been identified and may be impacted by
     the construction of this alternative.
                                   a.   Environmentally Sensitive Areas  (ESA)  Grant
                                        Condition
                                                            IV-19

-------
Sewer  hook-ups
in  environ-
mentally  sensi-
tive areas will
be  regulated;
and
     This  grant  conditiefft was  d^scussed^Jn  the
     DEIS  (p.4*29).   The I condition requires the
            /   \     /   t    '   \     I     \
     grantee  to  restrictfsewe-f  hpokups from new
     structures  in wistlari'ds a/nd Ijloodplains for a
     period  of 50 /years ifrqrn  thjb  djate of  the
     grant.


b.   Cultural  Resources Grant Conditions
protection of
cultural res-
ources must be
in accordance
with a manage-
ment plan.
                      i        / \
This grant  condition/was  discussed/in  the
DEIS (pi Of-27).   It  i/equir/s tl/at/che condi-
      /(  '  /        I
tions /axfdressed in  the
                       It  i/equire's ttfat
                                I tuna I/ Resources
     Manag^me/t  Plan  (Ap^end/x 2) Aj/e  adhered  to
JuV
                                       durincr the construct!'o/i of this alternative.
                                                          IV-20

-------
COORDINATION

-------
                         CHAPTER  V
                         COORDINATION
Several public
meetings were
'held since the
DEIS public
hearing.
As a  result  of the Public  Hearing  held on  February  26,
1981 at the  Tottenville  High School on  the  Draft EIS,  a
"Responsiveness Summary" dated July 29,  1981 was prepared
to answer questions raised  at the  public hearing.  It was
distributed to those who  commented on the DEIS  either in
person at  the hearing or  in writing.   A copy  of  the
Responsiveness Summary is included as Appendix 3.

In addition, during preparation  of  the Alternative  Study,
the NYCDEP  has held two  public meetings  and a  public
hearing on the project at  Tottenville High School on  the
dates listed below:
                        March 28,  1984 and
                        November 28,  1984
                         Public meetings before and after
                         completion  of the  geotechnical
                         and archaeological  studies  along
                         the proposed interceptor route.
                        June  13,  1985
                         Public Hearing  on  NYCDEP1s Draft
                         Final  Project  Report  (referred
                         to  in this   document  as  The
                         Alternative Study),  the  2-volume
                         Archaeology  Report,  and   the
                         3-volume  Geotechnical Report.
                        Responsiveness  Summaries  were prepared for each  of  these
                        meetings  and  distributed  to all  interested parties by the
                        NYCDEP.
                                                          V-l

-------
EPA and CE Mag-
uire have coord-
inated their
OJ3t-iviti.es with
several federal,
state and city
agencies.
Since the time of  the  public  hearing,  EPA and CE Maguire,
Inc.  have  met with  NYCDEP and  NYSDEC  regarding this
project.  In addition, EPA has coordinated its work efforts
with the following agencies:

Federal Agencies

     Department of Agriculture
     Soil Conservation Service
     Department of Interior
     Fish and Wildlife Service

State Agencies

     Department of Environmental  Conservation
     Division of  Construction  Management
     Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

City Agencies

     Department of Environmental  Protection
     Bureau of Sewers
     Bureau of Water Pollution Control
     Office of Public Participation
     Department of City Planning
     Staten Island Office
     Manhattan Office

Institutions/Private Agencies

     Staten Island Chamber of  Commerce
     Staten Island Institute of Arts and Sciences
                                                           V-2

-------
LIST OF PREPARERS

-------
 CHAPTER  VI

 LIST OF  PREPARERS

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II

 Barbara Pastalove        Chief, Environmental Impacts
                          Branch (EIB)

William P. Lawler, P.E.  Chief, Environmental Analysis
                          Section, EIB

Carol  A.  Stein           Project Monitor, EIB

John Vetter              Cultural Resources Consultant,
                          EIB

Daniel  B. Forger, P.E.   Chief, New York Construction
                          Grants Section

David Hung, P.E.         Environmental Engineer,
                          New York Construction Grants
                          Section
New York State Department of Environmental  Conservation

Louise Basa              Chief,  Cultural  Resources Section

Frank Schieppati          Environmental  Specialist, Cultural
                          Resources Section
                                 VI-1

-------
CE Maguire, Inc.:
Robert H. Wardwell
Project Administrator
Richard E. Galantowicz   Project Manager, Project Coordina-
                         tion, Principal EIS Writer
Dean A. Slocum
Richard M. Berlandy,
P.E.

William Moy, P.E.
Albert Boldrighini,
P.E.

Frances T. Lyss

Andrew DeBoer

Tracy Borusiewicz

Karen B. Cruanes

Michael Garafalo

Frank Jam's

Lorraine Kelly

Paulaine Dupervil
Planner, Principal  EIS  Writer  and
Report Preparation Coordinator

Principal Project Engineer
Engineer, Cost Analyses Review
(Pump Stations)

Engineer, Cost Analyses Review
(Tunnel)

Typing, Project Coordination

Report Graphics, CADD

Report Graphics, CADD

Report Graphics

Report Graphics

Report Graphics

Word Processing

Word Processing
                                 VI-2

-------
Philip F. Pallotti       Document Reproduction,
                          Distribution

James Mathews            Document Reproduction
                                 VI-3

-------
REFERENCES

-------
 CHAPTER VII

 REFERENCES

 Because  the  DEIS  is  understood  to be part of  this  Final
 document, all references included in Chapter 8 of the DEIS
 were used for preparation of  this  document.   In  addition,
 the  following sources  or references  were used  in  the
 preparation  of this Final  EIS:

The Center for Building Conservation, Woodward-Clyde  Con-
sultants, Oakwood Beach Water Pollution  Control  Project,
Phase I Cultural  Resources Survey,  October 19,  1984.

Harris, Frank, Ground  Engineering  Equipment  and Methods,
McGraw-Hill,  New York,  1983.

New York State Department of Commerce, Official Population
 Projections  for  New York State Counties:   1980-2010, April
 1985.

 New York State Department  of Commerce, Division of Economic
 Research and Statistics, Profile of People,  Jobs  & Housing.
 1980, undated.

 New  York  City,  Department  of Environmental  Protection,
 WP-136. Oakwood  Beach water  Pollution Control Project, West
 Branch Intercepting Sewer, Alternative Study, undated.

 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc.,  N.Y. City  Department of
 Environmental Protection, Bureau of  Sewers, Geotechnical
 Report for Oakwood Beach  Water  Pollution Control  Project,
 West  Branch  Interceptor,  Capital   Project  No. WP-136;
 C-36-392-11-0, January, 1985.

 US  Census Bureau, 1970 and  1980 Census  Data for  the New
 York City Metropolitan Area.
                                 VII-1

-------
APPENDICES

-------
                     APPENDIX 1



                     COST DATA




           FEBRUARY 1986  SUBMISSION BY







 THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION



                       TO THE



THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

-------
II.
                        QAKWOOD BEACH W.P.C.P.
                    WEST BRANCH lOTERCEPTING SEWER
                      i REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES
 Alternatives
 A. Deep Scheme
    - 43,380 feet of gravity interceptor
    -  2,500 feet of force main
    - two pumping stations
B.  Shallow Scheme
    - 29,000 feet of gravity interceptor
    - 27,000 feet of force main
    - fourteen pumping stations
 Implementation Constraints
 A. Wetlands (Tidal/Freshwater)
    - Arbutus Lake and Hylan Blvd.  P.S.    (Shallow
    - Lemon Creek and Hylan Blvd.  P.S.     (Shallow
        - Sharrott Avenue and Hylan Blvd. P.S.  (Shallow
        - Arbutus Avenue  (South Shore) P.S.     (Shallow
        - Bayview Avenue  (South Shore) P.S.     (Shallow
        - Carteret Street  (South Shore) P.S.    (Shallow
    B.  Floodplains
        - Lipsett Avenue  (South Shore) P.S.     (Shallow
        - Poillon Avenue  (South Shore) P.S.     (Shallow
        - Arbutus Avenue  (South Shore) P.S.     (Shallow
        - Hoiten Avenue (South Shore) P.S.      (Shallow
        - Bayview Avenue  (South Shore) P.S.     (Shallow
        - Carteret Street (South Shore) P.S.    (Shallow
    C.  Open Space
        - Lipsett Avenue  (South Shore) P.S.     (Shallow
        - Poillon Avenue  (South Shore) P.S.     (Shallow
        - Lemon Creek and Hylan Blvd. P.S.      (Shallow
                             >
    D.  Park Land
        - Wolfe's Pond and Hylan Blvd. P.S.     (Shallow
        - Hoiten Avenue (South Shore)  P.S.      (Shallow
       -Carteret Street (South Street) P.S.     (Shallow
 Scheme)
 Scheme)
 Scheme)
 Scheme)
 Scheme)
 Scheme)

 Scheme)
 Scheme)
 Scheme)
 Scheme)
 Scheme)
 Scheme)

 Scheme)
 Scheme)
 Scheme)

 Scheme)
Scheme)
Scheme)
                                 - con't -

-------
                                  - 2 -
      E.  Significant Habitat
          - Lemon Creek and Hylan Blvd. P.S.          (Shallow Scheme)
          - All pump Stations, with the exception of Kreischer
            Street lie within residential zoned areas.
      G.  Archaeology (Historic District)
          - Hoiten Avenue (South Shore)  P.S.         (Shallow Scheme)
          - Bayview Avenue (South Shore)  P.S.        (Shallow Scheme)
      H.  Art Carmission
          - 'All pump stations will require approval of the Art
            Commission.
      I.  Privately Owned Land
          - Arbutus Avenue and Hylan Blvd.  P.S.       (Shallow Scheme)
          - Wolfe's Pond and  Hylan Blvd.              (Shallow Scheme)
          - Lemon Creek  and Hylan Blvd. P.S.          (Shallow Scheme)
          - Sharrott Avenue and Hylan Blvd.  P.S.      (Shallow Scheme)
          - Finlay Street and Hylan Blvd. P.S.        (Shallow Scheme)
          - Arbutus Avenue (South Shore) P.S.         (Shallow Scheme)
          - Holten Avenue (South Shore) P.S.          (Shallow Scheme)
          - Bayview Avenue (South Shore) P.S.         (Shallow Scheme)
          - Careret Street (South Shore) P.S.         (Shallow Scheme)
           As outlined above,  the constraints affecting the  imple-
           mentation of  the various  pump stations required in the
            shallow scheme are numerous.  The inability to satisfy
           requirements  to remove these constraints is certainly a
           possibility and as such poses a high degree of risk to
           the ultimate implementation of the system.  As an example,
           the inability to implement the construction of a main line
           pumping station such as Lemon Creek would leave more than
           half of the drainage system unserved.
Ill.   Environmental Considerations
      The possible environmental effects of the alternative schemes
      have been discussed at  length in the Alternatives Study Report.
      In short,  the alternative that entails the minimum amount of
      surface disruption and  has the least effect on sub-surface con-
      ditions will be the most environmentally sound.
                               - con't -

-------
                                  - 3 -
      The construction of pump stations and their necessary ancillary
      appurtenances, such as force mains and access roads will alter
      the characteristics of wetlands, open spaces, park lands and
      significant habitats as well as affecting the aesthetic  char-
      acter of the surrounding environment.

      Whereas the shallow scheme has significant implications and
      effects on these characteristics, the deep scheme eliminates
      or mitigates the effects on many of these considerations.

      Apart fron the effects of pump station construction, the
      shallow scheme requires extensive open cut construction which
      will exarcebate effects on wetland areas, historic and arch-
      aeological sites, structures adjacent to the route, existing
      utilities and drainage systems, characteristics of the ground-
      water 'table, disposal of pumped groundwater, surrounding waters,
      traffic disruption, and air and noise pollution.  The deep
      scheme would virtually eliminate most of these effects.

IV.    Timetable
      In analyzing the timetable for exection of the various components
      of each alternative the following parameters were used:

     a.   Definitive selection of alternative to be completed by end of
         calendar year 1985.
     b.   Commencement of design activities in January, 1986

     c.   Design of intercepting sewer components to be executed by in-
         house forces.

     d.   Design of pump station and force main components to be carried
         out through consultant services.

     For interceptor contracts the following basic timetables are
     being used:

         Final Design       -  9 months

         Grant Approval     - , 3 months

         Advertise & Award  -  7 months

         Constriction       - variable

     For pump station and force main contracts  the following basic
     timetables are being used:

        Consultant Selection                      - 6 months

        Negotiations and Bd.  of Estimate Approval  - 9 months

        Facility Plan/Site Plan Selection         - 8 months

        ULURP Procedure                           - 9 months

        Final Design                              - 12 months

-------
    Grant Approval          -  3  months
    Advertise &  Award      -  7  months
    Construction           -  lfl-24 months
 A.   Peep Scheme
     The intercepting sewer work  in  this scheme would be divided
     into four major  phases:
     Phase 1   -  Richmond Avenue  to  Kingdom Avenue  (10,000 ft.)
     Phase 2   -  Kingdom Avenue to Butler Boulevard  (12,000 ft.)
     Phase 3   -  Butler Boulevard to Hopping Avenue  (12,000 ft.)
     Phase 4   -  Intercepting Sewer  in Open Cut through Tottenville
                to Kreischer Street (9,380 ft.)
     Construction Sequence
     Phase                 Start             Complete
      1                    8/87                  8/89
      2                    8/88                  8/90
      3                    8/89                  8/91
    Coincidentally, the pump stations at Richmond Avenue and Kreischer
    Street would be packaged together with activity commencing in
    January, 1986 and construction complete by mid 1990.
B.  Shallow Scheme
    The intercepting sewer work in this scheme would be divided into
    five major phases:
    Phase 1 - Richmond Avenue to Poillon Avenue (6,700 ft.)
    Phase 2 - Arbutus Avenue to Kingdom Avenue  (1,320 ft.)
            - Wolfe's Pond to Holten Avenue     (   880 ft.)
            - Bayview Avenue to Wooduale Avenue (1,250 ft.)
    Phase 3 - Sharrott Avenue to Yetman Avenue  (8,360 ft.)
    Phase 4 - Finlay Street to Pittsville Avenue(l,765 ft.)
    Phase 5 - Intercepting Sewer in Open Cut through (9,380  ft.)
              Tottenville to Kreischer Street.
    Construction Sequence (Interceptors)
    Phase                  Start             Complete
      1                     8/87                 12/88
      2                     1/89                 1/90
      3                     1/90                 1/92
      4                     1/92                 10/92
      5                     10/92                4/93
                           -  con't  -

-------
                              -  5  -
        Coincidentally,  the pump  stations  would be advanced  in  the
        following  phases:

        Phase  1 -  Arbutus Lake &  Hylan  Boulevard
                -  Lipsett Avenue  (South .Shore)
                -  FoilIon Avenue  (South Shore)
                -  Arbutus Avenue  (South Shore)
        Phase  2 -  Wolfe's Pond &  Hylan  Boulevard
                -  Holten Avenue  (South  Shore)
        Phase  3 -  Lemon  Creek & Hylan Boulevard
                -  Bayview Avenue  (South Shore)

        Phase  4 -  Sharrott Avenue & Hylan  Boulevard

        Phase  5 -  Finlay Street & Hylan Boulevard
                -  Carteret Street (South Shore)
        Phase  6 -  Hopping Avenue  & Amboy Road
                -  Wards  Pt. Avenue & Hopping Avenue
        Phase  7 -  Kreischer Street

        Construction Sequence (Pump Station)

        Phase                 Start              Complete

           1                   7/90                   7/92
           2                   1/91                   1/93

           3                   7/91                   7/93
           4                   1/92                   1/94
           5                   7/92                   7/94

           6                   1/93                   1/95

           7                   7/93                   7/95

V.   Summary

    This review indicates that in  every  aspect,  save direct cost,  the  deep
    scheme  is the favorable alternative.  It would  allow the construc-
    tion of the system with the least possibility of constraint, result
    in  the  minimum  impact to the natural environment, cultural and
    aesthetic qualities of the area and  provide  a complete  system a
    minimum of  three years earlier than what could  optimally be ex-
    ecuted  utilizing the  shallow scheme.

    In  respect  to cost, it must be noted that the cost-effectiveness
    comparison  did  not take into account the following factors:
                               con't -

-------
                       -6-
 Summary  of   Costs  Not  Included  in  the  Cost-Effectiveness
 Analysis of  the Alternative  Study
 A.  Shallow Scheme

 1.  Special  Provisions  to Maintain  Stream  and Culvert  Flow
 in  the  Arbutus Lake,  Wolfe's  Pond,   Lemon  Creek  and  Mill
 Creek Areas
 The vertical alignment of the shallow scheme  in  these areas
 will,  pose direct  physical  interference  to  existing culverts
 and  stream  beds.   In  order  to  properly  safeguard  against
 the environmental impact associated  with  these interferences,
 such  measures as lowering the force main,  providing  special
 supports for existing  culverts  and the  use  of  specialized
 construction  techniques will be required.

 In  the case of  the area near Arbutus Lake, the entire  gravity
 system  from  Richmond Avenue  to  Leola  Place  would have  to
 be  lowered  approximately   3-5  feet  this  would  result  in
 additional' construction  costs of   $200  -  $300  /  L.F.   and
 increase the estimated  cost  of  the  5,360  feet  of  gravity
 interceptor approximately  $1.2 million.

 In  addition,  special construction  techniques  to  construct
 the force main  in  the  Wolfe's  Pond  and Lemon  Creek Areas
 must  be employed in  order to avoid  direct impact to existing
 stream  beds  and wetland  areas.   Force  mains will  have  to
 be  carried  below  stream  bed  bottoms  with  the   resultant
 vertical  displacements   in   alignment  requiring   specially
 jacked segments, additional  manholes  and necessary blow-off
 valves,  restraining   blocks  etc.   the  cost  of this work  is
 estimated  at  $1.5  million   per  location  or  $3.0  million.
 Finally,  at  Mill  Creek,   the   gravity   interceptor   cannot
 be  executed  in an  open  cut trench  method  without   direct
 impact of this   existing  watercourse.  A  jacked section  will
 be  required at a cost of approximately $1.5  million.

 2.  Cost  to   Protect  Residential  Dwellings  and  Utilities,,
 and Restoration of  Street Surfaces
 the   cost   effectiveness  analysis  did   not  consider   the
 ancillary  costs  of   construction  such  as   underpinning  of
 adjacent  structures,  relocation  of  city   owned   utilities
 and full restoration of street surfaces.

 a. Underpinning  of  Adjacent  Structures
 the  main  impact  of   this  consideration  will  occur  in   the
 Tottenville area,  between Hylan  Boulevard  and Ellis   Street
where  open  cuts of  up  to  26 feet in  depth  are anticipated.
 This  construction  would  likely  influence dwellings porches
and  other structures  along  the  route.  The  usual cost  of
performing   pre  and   post  construction    investigations,
designing  support   details,  obtaining   necessary  permits
providing   underpinning   and  monitoring   settlement   and
vibration is approximately $10,000  per unit.  Conservatively,
about  50 dwellings could  be  influenced by this construction,
representing a total  cost of  $0.5  million.

-------
                          -7-
b. Relocation of City Owned Utilities  (Water  Mains)
Open  cut construction  in the  area between  Hylan  Boulevard
and  Main  Street  and  in  Ellis  Street  (5,500ft)  will  most
likely  jeopardize  the  structural integrity  of  the  existing
water  mains and necessitate  their  relocation.  Average  cost
of  this  relocation  is  $100/L.F.,  representing  a total  cost
of $0.55 million.

c. Full Restoration of Street Surfaces
In addition to  trench restoration  of  street surfaces,  which
is included in  the  costs presented in the Alternative  Study,
NYC  DOT  requires  a  2-inch  curb to  curb overlay  in  order
to fully  restore street surfaces which are severely  impacted
by  open-cut  construction  activities.  Of  the   57,000  feet
of  open  cut  construction  in  the  shallow   scheme,   30,000
feet  will  be   executed  in  Hylan  Boulevard   (roadway  width
of 70 feet) while the remaining  27,000 feet would  be  executed
in roadways with  an average width  of  30 feet. Approximately
40,000  tons  of  asphaltic  concrete  would  be   required  at
an  average  cost  of  $75/ton  representing a total  cost  of
$3.0 million.

3. Archaeology
Based  on  the  findings  of   the  cultural resources   survey
performed   in  conjunction  with  the  alternative  study,   10
sites   along   the   route  were  recommended   for   further
archeological   investigation   to  determine  the  impact   of
the  proposed  construction of  these sites. Recent experience
indicates   that  these   further   investigations   and - the
protective  and  mitigating  procedures  emanating  from  them,
result  in  a  cost  of approximately $50,000  per  site,  total
cost therefore being $0.5 million.

4. Site Acquisition
Data  indicates   that  land  would have  to  be acquired for
nine  pumping  station sites.  Based on  the size  of  the  site
required  as well  as  the  recent  trend  in  sale  prices  an
average  cost  of $500,000  per  site  would  result  in a  total
cost of $4.5 million.

5. Mechanical Redundancy at Pump  Stations
While  the  analysis  considered   the  cost  of backup   diesel
power for  each  pump  station,   in  order  to provide  a  system
which is  truly  environmentally  sound,  mechanical redundancy
at each  pump station must  be  provided.  Figuring mechanical
equipment  to  be  worth  approximately  10%   of   total   cost,
an additional cost  of $4.65 million is realized.

6.  Pump  Station  Siting  Within  Wetlands,   Upon  Space and
   Park Land
In order to insure  the shallow alternative is environmentally
sound,   extraordinary  efforts   to   protect  wetlands,   open
space and   parklands  must  be  executed.   This  will  include
restoration  of   vegetation,   protection  of  natural   areas,
and  significant habitats,  acquisition  of   continuous  open
space and parkland,  odor  control, re-zoning  special permits,
conformance of architecture in  registered  historic districts
and  Art   Commission   approval  for  compatibility  with  the
surrounding environment.

-------
 Because  of the  serious impacts  to be  mitigated  with  these
 sites,  costs  associated  with  the  resultant  measures  can
 be  expected to be significant, possibly  5% to  10%  of  ultimate
 construction  cost.  Using  an average  cost  of  7%,  the  total
 resultant  cost would be $3.25 million.

 7.  Engineering Design Fees

 The in-house  design  fees  for   gravity interceptor design
 would  be  relatively similar  for  either alternative;  however
 with  the   shallow  scheme,   seven  separate  consultant design
 contracts  would  be  required  for  pump station   and  force
 main  design  as  opposed to  one  for  the deep  scheme.  Using
 an  average  fee  of 6%  of  construction  cost, design  fees
 for the  shallow  scheme  would be  $5.9  million  as   opposed
 to  1.20  million  for   the  deep  scheme, a  total  resultant
 cost of $4.70 million.

 8.  Operation and Maintenance  (Vehicles)
 While  eight  additional  personnel  were  allocated   in  the
 analysis   for  pump  station  maintenance,  the  vehicles  to
 perform  the  service  and   transport  each  4  man   crew  were
 omitted.  These  vehicles,   which  must  be   able  to   perform
 a   number  of   functions in  order  to  provide  the   required
 service will  cost  approximately  $250,000 each for  a total
 cost of $0.5 million.

 It  should  be  noted that vehicle  cycling should be performed
 on  a  5-7  year  basis,  therefore  even   in  a  shortened  20
 year  planning  period   two  additional  vehicle  purchases  at
 a cost of $1.0 million  would have to be made.

 9 -  Timetable-Construction Costs
 The  fact   that  the  shallow  scheme  will  require   a  minimum
 of  three years longer to execute than the deep scheme  results
 in  a  differential  cost  increase.  Based upon the   derived
 timetables, approximately  $30 million worth  of construction
would be executed in these years.  Using the planning  interest
 rate  of  8 3/8%,  this  represents  a  cost  differential  of
 $7.5 million.

 10.  Construction Supervision Fees
As  with  the   design   fees,   construction  supervision  costs
would  be  relatively similar for  the  sewer  work  in either
 scheme.  However,   the   shallow  scheme  will   require   the
supervision of  six additional pump station contracts.  Fees
for  this work  would be  approximately $2.0 million.

-------
                           -9-


 B. Deep Scheme
 Coincidentally,  the City has  reexamined the  recommendations
 made with  respect  to the deep  alternative.

 1. Compressed Air  Tunneling
 It  is  still the  determination  that  this  methods  must  be
 used  (specifically at  Lemon  Creek and  Wolfe's Pond  Creek).
 However,  recent prices associated  with this method  indicate
 an  average  cost  of  $10,000/L.F.   making  the  total  cost  of
 this work  $30.0 million

 2. Jacking
 Significant  strides  have   been  made  in  this  field within
 the  last   few   years.   As  mentioned  in  the  Analysis,   a
 significant  portion  of  the  Fresh   Kills   Interceptor  was
 constructed  using   an   advanced   jacking  method  at  costs
 comparable  to  open cut construction  ($900  -1,000 per foot).
 Jacking  of  a  30  inch  diameter  sanitary  trunk sewer  in
 Richmond  Avenue is  presently being   executed  at a  cost  of
 $650/L.F.  By  excluding  the  contingency  of   a  slurry  or
 dewatered  tunnel  and   relying  totally  on  a  jacked system
 for  the  remaining  31,000  feet,   construction  costs  would
 be reduced significantly.

 Taking into  account the fact that areas of glacial/cretaceous
 interface  and tight  working areas  in  the Tottenville section
 will  result  in  cost  higher  than  those  mentioned above,
 an  average  cost  of  $2,500   per   linear  foot  would result
 in a total jacking cost of  $77.5 million.

 3. Full Restoration of Street  Surfaces
 This must  be accomplished  in  the alignment from Ellis Street
 back  to  Kreischer  Pump  Station.  Approximately  4.000   tons
 of asphaltic concrete  would  be  required at  an average  cost
 of $75/ton representing a total  cost of $0.3 million.

 4. Restoration of City Owned Utilities  (Water Mains)
 This  would  be  required  for  the  3,500  foot  run in  Ellis
 Street at  an average cost  of  $100/L.F.  representing  a total
 cost of $0.35 million.

 5. Mechanical Redundancy at Pump Stations
 Figuring  mechanical  equipment  to  be  worth   approximately
 20% of  total cost,  an additional  cost  of  $2.4  million  is
 realized.

 6. As  mentioned  in the  shallow  scheme discussion,  a jacked
 section will be  required   at  a   cost  of  approximately   $1.5
million.

-------
                            -10-
 SUMMARY OF COSTS  FOR  A SHALLOW SCHEME

 1.  Maintain  Stream  and  Culvert Flow
 2.  Dwellings,  Utilities,  Restoration
 3.  Archeology
 4.  Site Acquisition
 5.  Mechanical  Redundancy
 6.  Pump Station  Siting  within Sensitive  Areas
 7 .  Design Fees
 8.  0 & M (Vehicles)
 9.  Timetable - Construction Cost Differential
10.   Construction Supervision Fees
$5
4
0
4
4
3
4
1
7
.70M
.05M
.50M
.50M
.65M
.25M
. 70M
.50M
.50M
                                          SUB-TOTAL:
                                   2 .OOM

                                  38 .35M
 Construction Cost of
 from Analys is
Shallow Scheme
                                  79 .OOM
                                              TOTAL:   $117.35M

-------
                           -11-
SUMMARY OF COSTS  FOR DEEP SCHEME

1.   Compressed  Air  Tunneling                      $30.00M
2.   Jacking                                         77 .50M
3.   Full Restoration of Street  Surfaces            0.30M
4.   Restoration of  City Owned Utilities            0.35M
5.   MechanicalRedundancy                           2.40M
6.   Mill Creek  Jacking                              1.50M
7.   Open Cut Gravity Interceptor                    5.20M
8.   Pump Stations  and Force Mains                  12.45M
                                                 $129 .70M

-------
                                    -12-
 Cost-Effectiveness Adjustment
Shallow Scheme
     A. Direct Costs
        1.  Gravity Interceptors
        2.  Force Mains
        3.  Maintain Stream and Culvert  Flow
        4.  Dwellings,  Utilities,  Restoration
        5.  Archaeology
        6.  Site Acquisition
        7.  Mechanical  Redundancy
        8.  Pump Station  Siting within Sensitive Areas
        9.  Design Fees
       10.  Vehicles
       11.  Pump Stations
       12.  Construction  Supervision Fees
   27
    5,
    5,
    4,
10M
20M
70M
05M
    0.50M
    4.50M
    4.65M
    3.25M
    4.70M
    0.50M
   46.50M
    2.00M
  108.65M
     B.  Operation  and Maintenance
        1.  Crew
        2.  Energy
        3.  Vehicles
                       Present Worth= 675 x  11.46  =  $7.7M
     C. Equipment Replacement
            a. From Study
                   46.5M(0.40) x 2  =  37.2M
            b. Mechanical Redundancy
                   4.65M  x  2      =   9.3M
            c. Vehicles
                   0.5M   x  5      =   2.5M
                                       49.OM
$280,000/annum
$375,000/annum
$ 20,OOP/annum
$675,000/annum
    D. Salvage
       1. 50 Year Life
             Gravity Interceptors
             Force Mains
             Stream & Culvert Flow
             Dwellings, Utilities, Restoration
   27.10M
    5.20M
    5.70M
    4.05M
   42.05M
                       Salvage Value = 42.05 x 0.20 = 8.41M

       2. 40 Year Life
             Structures for Pump Station

                       Salvage Value = 0_

       3. Equipment
             a. Placed at 30 year period
                1. (18.6M + 4.65M) x .333  =  7.74M
             b. Vehicles
                2. 0.5M x .50  =  0.25M

-------
                                      -13-
         4.  Full  Salvage at End of  Planning Period
               Archaeology                             -       0.50M
               Site  Acquisition                        -       4.50M
               Siting in Sensitive Areas                -       3.25M
                                                                8.25M

      E.  Construction Cost Differential                  -       7.5M
Total  Present Worth  Value
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
108. 65M
7.70M
49.00M
(24.65M)
7.50M
             148.20M

-------
                                    -14-
 Cost-Effectiveness Adjustment

Deep Scheme
     A. Direct Costs
        1. Compressed Air Tunneling
        2. Jacking
        3. Restoration of Surfaces
        4. Restoration of Utilities
        5. Mechanical Redundancy
        6. Mill Creek Jacking
        7- Open Cut Interceptor
        8. Pump Stations and Force Mains
    30.00M
    77.50M
     0.30M
     0.35M
     2.40M
     1.50M
     5.20M
    12.45M
   129.70M
     B. Operation and Maintenance
        1. Crew
        2. Energy
 $35,000/annum
$170,OOP/annum
$205,000/annum
                         Present Worth = 205 x 11.46 = 2.35M
     C. Equipment Replacement
             a. From Study
                    12.0M(0.40) x 2 = 9.6M
             b. Mechanical Redundancy
                    2.40M x 2       = 4.8M
                                     14.40M
     D. Salvage
        1. 50 Year Life
              Compressed Air Tunneling
              Jacking
              Surface Restoration
              Utility Restoration
              Mill Creek Jacking
              Open Cut Interceptor
              Force Mains
    30.00M
    77.50M
     0.30M
     0.35M
     1.50M
     5.20M
     0.45M
   115.30M
                         Salvage Value = 115.30 x 0.20 = 23.06M
        2. 40 Year Life
              Structures for Pump Station

                        Salvage Value = 0_

        3. Equipment
              a.  Placed at 30 year period
                 (4.80M + 2.40M) x .333 = 2.40M

Total Present Worth Value
A.
B.
C.
D.
129. 70M
2 . 35M
14.40M
(25.46M)
            120.99M

-------
                                     -15-
Summary
A Review of the issues related  to  the  alternatives  for  the  construction  of  the
West  Branch Interceptor,  clearly point out  the  following:

     1. In order  to execute  the shallow alternative,  significant  additional
       costs would be required to  insure that  this  scheme  satisfies  the
       requirement of being environmentally  sound.

     2. By utilizing  the  jacking method of  construction more  exclusively for
       the deep  alternative, significant cost  reductions for this  scheme
       can be realized.  Extraordinary precautions  at  the  Richmond Avenue
       Pump Station  would be incorporated  to preclude  the  possibility of
       system failure.

     3. Execution of  the  deep scheme as presented herein will provide an
       alternative which will  satisfy the  requirements of  being  cost-
       effective and also of optimizing the  satisfaction of  applicable
       water quality, public health and environmental  standards  related to
       the action.

-------
            APPENDIX 2
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

-------
                           Appendix 2



          Cultural Resources Management  Plan for the



         Oakwood Beach Water Pollution Control Project








PURPOSE








The  purpose  of the management plan  described below  is  to  ensure



that  the  proposed  project  is   developed  and  constructed  in



accordance  with  the  procedures  of  the   President's  Advisory



Council  on  Historic   Preservation  (ACHP)  and  the  requirements



of the  National Historic  Preservation Act (NHPA),  the  National



Environmental  Policy  Act  (NEPA),  the  City Environmental Quality



Review  (CEQR), and  the State  Historic  Preservation Act  (SHPA)



with regard to  the  identificiation,  evaluation and  protection



of cultural resources within  the  entire  project  impact   area.



This process proceeds  in a series  of logically progressive  stages



and  consists of the following:








- Stage IA  survey  consists of background and  literature research



  to identify  previously  recorded  cultural resources  and  the



  formulation  of a  strategy for field reconnaissance.   The study



  addresses  the entire  project planning  area  and  is  conducted



  early in the planning stage of the project.








- Stage IB  survey  consists of a  field survey designed to  locate



  all cultural resources  which  may be impacted by  the proposed



  project.     The  study  addresses   all   viable   alternatives



  associated  with  the project  and  is  performed prior  to  the



  project's design stage.

-------
Page 2
  Stage  II  survey  consists  of  a  detailed  evaluation  of  each



  identified  resource  to  provide  adequate  data  to  allow  a



  determination  of  the  resource's  eligibility  for listing  in



  the National  Register of  Historic Places  (NRHP).   The Stage



  II report  includes,  at a  minimum, information  on boundaries,



  integrity  and significance  of  the resources  and  evaluation



  of  the  impact  of  the  proposed  project,  as  well  as  any



  additional  data   necessary  to  evaluate   National   Register



  eligibility.   Submission   of  a  draft  eligibility  synopsis,



  prepared according to  Department  of Interior  guidelines,  will



  be required for  each  impacted resource  meeting  the criteria



  for eligibility.    For eligible  or listed National Register



  properties,  the  Stage  II  survey  consists of  an  assessment



  of impact.    The  study is  performed early in project  design



  so that  if impact  can be  minimized,  the  information  derived



  from the survey can be incorporated with the project design.








  Stage  III   (mitigation)   is  conducted   by  EPA,   with   the



  concurrence   of   ACHP  and   the   New   York   State   Historic



  Preservation  Officer  (NYSHPO),  if  a resource in,  or eligible



  for inclusion in,  the National  Register  of Historic  Places



  is identified and  impacts to  this resource  by  the proposed



  project  are   anticipated.     A   mitigation  plan   based   on

-------
 Page 3








  engineering, environmental, economic, and resource preservation



  concerns is developed for  each resource that will be impacted.



  Mitigation   may   take   the   form   of   avoidance   through



  cost-effective  redesign,   reduction  of  the  direct   impact  on



  the resource and/or data recovery prior to construction.







PROJECT BACKGROUND








Stage  IA  and IB  surveys were  conducted  for  this project  area



(Pickman  and Yamin  1978,   1984).    These  surveys  recorded  21



prehistoric archaeological sites, seven  of which may  be impacted



by  the proposed  deep  alternative.    In  addition,  the  surveys



identified  one   historic  period archaeological  site  and  five



historic period  standing structures  as  resources which may  be



impacted.    The  Stage  IB  field  survey was  limited  to  the  area



immediately  adjacent  to  the routing  of  the  interceptor  and



laterals  and the  proposed  location   of  the  pump stations  for



both  the   deep   and  shallow  alternatives.    Additional  known



resources   (both  archaeological  sites  and historic  structures)



are  identified  for  the  South   Richmond  area  within   the  Stage



IA survey area.  While  all cultural resources  within  the project



planning area will require consideration under future government



funded  or  permitted  actions,   this   management  plan  addresses



in detail  only the required  additional survey for the EPA funded



construction project along the routing for the deep alternative.



To assess the project's  impact  on  these  cultural resources and



to provide  the  information  necessary  to avoid  impacts,  a Stage



II survey  is required.

-------
Page 4







STAGE II CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY







For  the deep  alternative  interceptor  construction project,  a



two-phased  Stage II  survey will  be  conducted.    This approach



is considered  both practical and  cost effective.   In  the first



phase,  the  boundaries  of  the  archaeological  sites  and  the



viewsheds  of  the National  Register  listed or  eligible historic



structures  will  be  determined  to  a  degree  that  is  sufficient



to assess  construction impact.    For  those resources  to  which,



based  on  this  information,  no impact  will  occur, no  further



survey will be required.   However, for  those  resources to which



impact cannot  be avoided,  the  second phase  of  the  survey will



be required.   This  phase  will be  designed  to  gather information



on the  integrity,  cultural  affiliation  and significance  of  the



sites or structures.   The  work  will  also include the preparation



of a draft  NRHP eligibility  synopsis  and  mitigation plan  for



review by  EPA  and NYSHPO  and eligibility determination by DOI.



The  EPA  will  submit the finalized documents to  ACHP  for  review



and  comment.    All  required data recovery/mitigation will  be



performed prior to construction in the affected areas.







The  required  Stage  II  survey  work   for  each  of  the  cultural



resources identified by the Stage IA/IB survey along the selected



interceptor route is outlined below.

-------
Page 5
Interceptor








Seven Archaeological Sites:








1.  Hylan  #1  -  The site  is  located  west  of Holdridge  Avenue



    on the south  side  of Hylan  Boulevard.   The site may  extend



    beneath Hylan  Boulevard and  the  1-1.3 m  (3-4  ft.) of  fill



    upon which Hylan Boulevard is constructed.   A Stage  II  survey



    will  be  required  if  a  tunnelling  shaft will  be  located



    between Bennett  Place  and  Peare  Place.   The  first phase



    will consist  of subsurface  testing  in the  road  to a depth



    below fill to  determine if  the  site  extends into  the road.



    If it  does,  the second phase  of  the  Stage  II survey  will



    be required.








2.  Hylan #2 - The site is  located east  of Huguenot Avenue  and



    south  of  Hylan   Boulevard.    Since   subsurface   features



    associated with  the site  may  be  intact  beneath   the Hylan



    Boulevard  pavement,  a  Stage  II survey will  be required  if



    a  tunnelling   shaft  will  be  located  between  Pierre Place



    and  Irvington  Street.    The  first   phase will  consist  of



    subsurface testing  in  the  road to determine  the  extent  of



    disturbance caused  by initial road  construction  and  to  locate



    subsurface features  associated with  the  site.   The  second



    phase of  the  survey should  only be  undertaken if  there  is



    direct evidence of  intact features  or  cultural strata beneath



    Hylan Boulevard.

-------
Page 6
3.  Hylan #3  -  The site  is located west  of Sharrott  Avenue on



    the south  side of Hylan  Boulevard.   The road  cuts  through



    a  low knoll  upon which  the  site  was  originally  located,



    however,   truncated  features  may  be  present  beneath  the



    roadway.   A Stage II  survey  will be required if a tunnelling



    shaft or staging  area will be located within  the midsection



    of the Mount  Loretto  section of Hylan Boulevard.   The first



    phase of  the  survey  will  be designed  to identify the  site



    on the  knoll  and  to  determine  if features associated  with



    the site  extend,  intact,  into  the road.   If the  site  does



    not  extend  beneath   the  road,  no  further  survey  will  be



    performed.







4.  Hylan #4 - The site is  located east of  Page  Avenue and north



    of Hylan Boulevard.    Since  the   artifact  bearing  stratum



    may extend beneath  Hylan  Boulevard,  a  Stage II  survey  will



    be required  if a  tunnelling shaft  will be located  between



    Page  Avenue and a point 100  m  (325 ft.)  east of Page  Avenue.



    The first  phase will  consist  of  subsurface testing  in  the



    road   to  determine  if  the  artifact  bearing  soil  stratum



    extends beneath Hylan Boulevard and if  this  stratum contains



    artifacts  or   archaeological  features   associated  with  the



    site.   If  it  is determined  that  this soil  stratum does  not



    extend beneath the road, no further work will be performed.

-------
Page 7
5.  Hylan #5  - The  site is  located  west  of  Bedell Avenue  and



    south of   Hylan  Boulevard.    Artifact  bearing  strata  and



    archaeological features  may  be  intact  below the  pavement.



    A Stage  II survey  will be  required if  a tunnelling  shaft



    will be  located  between  Bedell  and  Joline  Avenues.    The



    first phase  of  the survey  will  be  conducted  as  described



    for Hylan  #4,  above.








6.  Hopping  Avenue  -  The  site  is located approximately  north



    of Amboy  Road on  the  west  side  of  Hopping  Avenue.    Since



    archaeological features  may  exist  intact  beneath  the road



    surface,  a Stage II survey will be required  if  a tunnelling



    shaft will  be located  between 65  and  107 Hopping  Avenue.



    The  first  phase  of the  survey will  consist of subsurface



    testing  in the road  to determine if  the site  extends  beneath



    Hopping  Avenue.   If this  is the case,  the second phase  of



    the survey will be  performed.








7.  Arthur  Kill Road  - The site  is  located at the  intersection



    of  Arthur  Kill   Road   and  Nassau  Place  and   consists   of



    prehistoric ceramic material recovered  from a boring  beneath



    the  roadway.   A  Stage II survey will be required  if  the



    interceptor trench  will exceeds  3  m  (10  ft.)  in  depth  in



    this area.    A  full  Stage  II  survey consisting  of deep



    trenching  in the area of  the find will be  conducted.   Since

-------
Page 8







these excavations may be as deep as 3 or 4 meters, shoring



and dewatering may be necessary.







Kreischerville Pump Station Area







Anderson  brick works  - This  historic period  site  consists of



both surface  and subsurface remains  which were  recorded  in the



vicinity  of the  proposed  Kreischerville  pump  station.   Prior



to Stage II testing, a more intensive literature search including



examination  of  Sanborn maps,  deeds  and historic   context  for



significance  of  the  brick  works  property   will be conducted.



The  results  of  this  research  will  determine  the extent  and



location  of any  Stage  II  field  testing.   Should  field testing



be required,  power equipment will  be necessary  to  remove fill,



overburden,   and   demolition   debris,   followed   by   manual



excavations.








The  visual impact  of  the  proposed Kreischerville  Pump Station



on the  Kreisher House  will be evaluated.   The  viewshed  of the



Kreischer  House  and  the  elevations,  design,   and   location of



the  pump  station will  be  submitted  by the  City for  review by



EPA,  in consultation with  the NYSHPO.  Based on this assessment



of impact,  EPA,  NYSHPO  and the  City of  New York  will develop



mitigation measures, as appropriate.

-------
Page 9
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS








Considerations  must  be  made  during  project  design  to  ensure



that no construction  staging or storage areas are on, or adjacent



to,  the  sites and  structures described  above.   In  this regard,



those  cultural resources  which were previously identified,  and



subsequently  listed  in  the  Stage  IA  and  IB reports, must  also



be avoided.   In  addition,  changes  in  project design  must  be



reviewed  as  they  may   require  additional  cultural  resources



surveys.








For  resources  located  outside  of  the  immediate  construction



related  impact  of  the  EPA  funded  project,  EPA will  require  the



City  of  New  York  to protect these  sites  from future impact  as



a result   of  New  York  City  authorized   construction.     The



protection  should be  provided under the mechanisms  of appropriate



State/City  statutes  and/or  federal  statutes  if  other  federal



assistance,  approval  or permits  are  required.   For  resources



not yet identified, New  York City  will require cultural resources



surveys in  these  areas in conformance  with  the  process described



above  (Purpose).   Since  additional cultural  resources have been



identified  in the South  Richmond and Hylan Boulevard area through



other  programs  and subsequent  to  the  surveys conducted  for this



project,  supplemental  background  research  must  be  integrated



into  any  additional  surveys.   For  those  projects  and  programs

-------
Page 10







which may impact National Register eligible or listed properties,



and  are  the  result  of  the  EPA  sponsored  sewering  program,



consultation must  take place with  EPA,  NYSDEC, NYSHPO  and ACHP



at the appropriate times during the cultural resources management



process.

-------
0 NEW YORK STATE
  Orin Lehman
  Commissioner
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238
518-474-0456
                                                      August 1, 1986
     Barbara Pastalove
     Chief
     Environmental  Impact  Branch
     US Environmental Protection Agecny
     Region II -  26 Federal Plaza
     New York, New  York 10278

     Dear Ms. Pastalove:
          Re: EPA
              Oakwood  Beach Water Pollution Control
              C-36-392-11
              Staten Island, Richmond County

          The New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has reviewed
    Appendix 2 and  relevant sections of the FEIS  submitted for the above
    referenced project.  All review has been  conducted in accordance with the
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations,  "Protection of
    Historic and Cultural  Resources," 36 CFR  800.

          Based upon a review of this information, it  is the  opinion of the
    SHPO that the measures outlined to further evaluate the eight archeological
    sites are appropriate  to address the potential importance of these
    resources.  At  the conclusions of these site  evaluation efforts, the SHPO
    will offer comments  regarding site eligibilities  to the National Register
    of Historic Places and opinions related to potential project impacts.

         'If you have  any  questions, please contact Robert Ewing of our
    Project Review  Staff at 518/474-3176.
    JSS/RLE:vr

    cc: Louise Basa
                                               Julia S.  Stoke?
                                              /Deputy Commissioner for
                                             / /Historic Preservation

                                             \J

-------
              APPENDIX 3



       RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY



                FOR THE



        PUBLIC HEARING ON THE



DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT



              HELD ON



         FEBRUARY 26, 1981

-------
      'f

S ^•T?  3   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ AA1/Z.  .'
 \. ~ ' ~ ,,/                              REGION II
                                 26 FEDERAL PLAZA
                             NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
    2 9 JUL 1981

  To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups:
  On February 26,  1981,  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  held a public
  hearing at the Tottenville High School, Staten  Island,  New York on the Draft
  Environmental Impact  Statement  (EIS)   for  Phase III and Future  Phases of the
  Oakwood Beach Water Pollution Control  Project.  The purpose of the hearing was
  to receive public comment on the issues addressed in the draft EIS.

  The major public  concerns  expressed focused on the  environmental  impacts of
  the proposed project  on  ground and surface water and  the  temporary impacts
  that the proposed construction  will  have  on  traffic  in Hylan  Boulevard.

  The attached "Responsiveness  Summary" has been prepared in order to  answer
  questions raised at the public hearing.  The responses to some questions will
  require the completion of further environmental and cost analyses and will be
  provided in the final  EIS.   The cost  data  will be supplied by  the  New York
  City Department  of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP).  Once this task is com-
  pleted by NYCDEP,  EPA can issue the final EIS.

  You will be notified upon availability of  the final EIS.  Thank you for your
  interest in the  project.

  Sincerely yours,
  Richard T.  Dewling,  Pft.D.
  Acting Regional Administrator

-------
                            Responsiveness Summary
Project Name:                          Environmental Impact Statement for
                                       Phase III and Future Phases of the
                                       Oakwood Beach  Water  Pollution  Control
                                       Project, Staten Island, New York

Project Number:                        C-36-392

Applicant:                             New York City Department of Environmental
                                       Protection

As a result of the February 26, 1981 public hearing on the Oakwood Beach EIS at
Tottenville High  School,  the  Environmental Protection  Agency  (EPA)  received
numerous comments from  local  residents, elected  and appointed  officials,  and
public and private  organizations  (see Attachments  A and B).  The  written and
oral comments received, fell  into  a number of  fairly well  defined categories.
To avoid  repetition  EPA has  grouped the  comments and  responded accordingly.

Issues Raised at the Public Hearing

       Procedural Questions
       Treatment Levels
    -  Step 1 Grant Action
    -  Step 2 Grant Action
   . -  Land Use
    -  Coastal Waters
       Traffic and Public Services
    -  Cultural Resources
       Construction Methods
       Capacity at Port Richmond
       Public Participation Program

Procedural Questions

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)  requested that
the Notice of Intent and draft EIS issued by EPA  be rescinded and that a find-
ing of  no significant impact/environmental assessment  (FNSI/EA)  be issued for
the proposed  facilities.   The draft EIS issued received much comment  and  re-
sponse by the public, interest groups and state and local government officials.
To proceed to  issue a  FNSI/EA  would move  the  project  ahead  and would ignore
the comments and  questions  regarding the project.  In order  to  respond to the
the comments, EPA will complete the final EIS process.

-------
Someone asked for a description of how the handout (Attachment C) distributed
at the public hearing differed in content from the  draft EIS.  The changes made
included correction of the title of Figure S-l from "Approved Plan" to Recom-
mended Plan."  Also, although the text of the draft EIS was correct in describ-
ing the location of the proposd pumping station, the facility was incorrectly
located at Yetman Avenue  on Figure S-l of the draft  EIS.  The  Figure  S-l of
the handout indicates the correct location of the proposed pumping station at
Carteret Avenue as described by the draft EIS text.

Treatment Levels

A resident asked why the Oakwood Beach STP is not required to provide tertiary
treatment.  This is  because  state and  federal  regulations allow  secondary
treatment of  municipal  wastewater and  discharge  into the waters  off  Staten
Island.

Step 1 Grant Action

At the public hearing,  NYCDEP recommended that EPA  award a Step  1  grant to
allow further study  of  the gravity system and to  resolve which construction
methods will  be least environmentally  damaging.  The  NYCDEP  also recommended
that a  Step 2  grant for the  extension of  the  existing interceptor  to  the
vicinity of Harold Avenue should  be  given so that"facility planning can pro-
ceed for this area.  Discussions are presently being held between EPA,  NYSDEC
and NYCDEP regarding both the Step 1 and Step 2 grants recommended by NYCDEP.

Land Use

Questions arose regarding the effects of the proposed project on land use.  The
sequence and timetable  for  construction and hook-up  of the interceptor sewer
will be determined by the  City  of New York.  The city has indicated that the
existing combined sewer in Tottenville will  become  a  separate sewer for storm-
water runoff following the proposed provision of new sewers for this area.  New
residential development may occur in parallel sequence with the completion of
functional sections of the interceptor sewer.

As discussed by the draft EIS, the grant for the proposed facilities will in-
clude sewer hook-up  restrictions  of new development  located on wetlands and
floodplains to the proposed facilities.

The recommended project presented in the draft EIS will not, by itself, result
in the widening of  streets, nor  will it solve any  of the existing flooding
problems in the  area.   However, as a.  result  of  this project,  septic seepage
will no longer be part of  the  surface ponding.  NYCDEP indicated at the public
hearing held  February 26,  1981 that during  the construction of the sanitary
sewers, storm  sewers would be constructed to alleviate  flooding problems.
Storm sewers are ineligible for grant funding by EPA and  are not considered as
part of the proposed project.

-------
                                     3.


It is not anticipated that the LNG tanks in Rossville will adversely affect the
recommended interceptor route  because  the tanks  are located  over  a mile from
the facilities proposed by  the draft EIS.  The LNG  tanks are in closer proxi-
mity to the proposed Fresh  Kills  facilities  located along Arthur Kill Road.  A
FNSI/EA for these Fresh Kills  facilities (Appendix  A  of the draft EIS), known
as contract FK 24/25,  was issued June 25, 1980  and the proposed plan for this
area is not one of the  issues addressed by the draft  EIS.  It  is not anticipated
that the LNG  tanks  in  Rossville will  adversely affect the  FK 24/25 facilities
under normal operating conditions.

Coastal Waters

Many questions were  asked regarding the  proposed emergency bypasses associated
with the proposed  pumping  stations.  The  proposed bypasses will  be 10-inch
diameter emergency  overflows  discharging into  Princes  Bay  and  Raritan Bay.
The exact location,  lengths and impacts of these  small diameter bypasses will
be included in the  final  EIS.   Each proposed pumping  station will be equipped
with a  complete  back-up  system in  the event of failure  of  the primary equip-
ment.  This  includes  a   complete  back-up   system  for  electrical power,  an
independent pumping  unit, telemetering  devices,  and  electronic  monitoring at
central locations.    Given  adequate  operation and  maintenance of  the pumping
stations, it  is  highly  unlikely  that   an  emergency  situation   requiring  a
discharge of  sewage into the  bay will  occur.  The  final EIS will provide an
environmental evaluation  of each  alternative construction  method  under con-
sideration including:  shallow open-cut  with pumping station, with and without
bypasses, tunnel with  pumping  station  and  bypass,  and  tunnel  with in-ground
retention capacity  in  lieu  of a pumping station with  a  bypass.   In the event
of an emergency  discharge,  nearby beaches might have  to  be  closed for several
tidal cycles  (days)  and  shellfish  grounds might  be closed  for months.  There
is no established procedure by which shellfish  depuration operations currently
allowed in the  bay would  receive compensation for  their economic loss in the
event of an emergency  bypass  operation.  The  bay area in the vicinity  of the
proposed facilities  is closed to  commercial  shellfishing  an'd  there  are  no
procedures for  compensation should  the  area be  open  for shellfishing  in the
future.  Locations  for the proposed emergency  outfalls  be  recommended in the
final EIS.

Traffic and Public Services

Questions were  asked  regarding the impacts of  construction  on  traffic and
public services.  Construction would be staged so that traffic impacts at any
one location  would  be  of very short duration.  According to "Analysis:  WP-136
Oakwood Beach WPCP,  West Branch Interceptor Along  Hylan Boulevard, Borough of
Staten Island,"  prepared  by NYCDEP,  September 1979,  the construction process
associated with  the shallow  open-cut  construction  along Hylan  Boulevard and
pressurized sewers  from the south shore  "would necessitate  the closing of two
of the  six lanes in Hylan  Boulevard,  resulting in  some disruption of traffic
in the  area."   Deep open-cut  construction  would include the  closure  of three
of the  six lanes in Hylan  Boulevard.    Tunnel construction  .along Hylan  Boule-
vard is  not  identified  by the  NYCDEP  report as  requiring  closure  of any
traffic lanes.   However,  tunnel construction may  cause closure of one traffic
lane for  short  distances as tunnel construction would require access points.

-------
Amboy Road is the principal alternative  route to Hylan Boulevard available for
redirecting thru-traffic.  Because only short segments of Hylan Boulevard would
be affected at any one time, and no  segment would be closed, local traffic and
emergency services could continue to  use Hylan Boulevard.  Construction activ-
ities and noise  will not  significantly  disrupt schools or  hospitals because
they are  set  back far  from the  construction area.   As construction  will  be
staged in segments, any  impacts  will be  of  short duration.   Pedestrian cross-
ings and school crossings  along  Hylan Boulevard would be available  at or very
near their present locations  during  construction.   Deliveries  to  businesses
along the construction route might be slightly more inconvenient due to traffic
constriction.   It  probably will  not  be   necessary  for police to  assign  addi-
tional personnel to direct traffic.   Construction crews  and road signs should
be adequate to direct motorists.

Cultural Resources

A resident requested a copy of the Stage  IB archaeological survey of the inter-
ceptor routes.  The  stage  IB  survey  is a  field  investigation  that  will  be
conducted by the City of New York as  part of the Step 1 grant and results will
be provided in the final EIS.

Construction Methods

Questions arose regarding  the  recommendation  of the draft  EIS to use shallow
open-cut construction methods  and  to provide  emergency bypasses.   The  final
EIS will provide a further evaluation of each of the alternative plans for the
proposed South Richmond  facilities.   A decision as to the recommended pla"h can
be made only after completion  by the  NYCDEP under a Step 1 grant of additional
cost and engineering analyses of  the  alternatives.  Wapora, Inc. (the consulting
firm to EPA)  will provide  environmental analyses to  respond to  questions and
comments and to provide any further environmental analysis.   A decision regard-
ing the construction  method and feasibility  of eliminating emergency bypasses
will be made based on these evaluations.

A question  was asked regarding  the  definition of  slurry  shield tunneling.
Slurry shield tunneling  is a method  for  tunnel construction which uses a pro-
cedure where a  circular  shield is moved  forward into the sediments.  Normally
a slurry tunnel machine  is used  for soft ground tunneling and uses pressurized
bentonite to  stabilize  the  ground water pressure in  the  excavation process.
The slurry shield  method is used for tunneling in areas where there is ground
water present.  The compressed air  tunneling method could also be used in this
type of  ground water  situation  but is  a more  costly method and presents  a
greater risk to the workers.

Capacity at Port Richmond

The draft EIS  stated that  "At this time, utilization of existing excess capac-
ity at the Port Richmond Plant is recommended once  the  existing design capacity
of the Oakwood  Beach plant is  reached.   However, further consideration will  be

-------
                                        r

given to the  alternative  plan to provide  expanded capacity  for  the Oakwood
Beach Plant when the need  for  additional capacity is apparent."  When capacity
at Oakwood Beach plant  is reached,  alternatives considered  to  provide addi-
tional capacity will  include  alternatives in addition to  the two described.
This may include an alternative identified by NYCDEP to construct a sewer line
from Richmond Hill  pump  station to the existing Port Richmond sewage treatment
plant.

Public Participation

A resident asked why the public hearing of February 26, 1981 was not scheduled
for an earlier time rather than 7:30 PM.   It  is the opinion of EPA that public
meetings should be  scheduled for weekdays at times when most residents are not
working, sleeping,  or having  dinner.   The scheduled meeting  time  of  7:30  PM
met these criteria.

A public participation program  has been part of the NEPA process  culminating
in this final EIS.   This program included:

    1. formation of  a Citizens  Advisory  Committee in 1977,  Mr.  Harry Leed,
       Chairman;

    2. three public participation meetings:

       a. December 8, 1977, 7:45 PM - Princes Bay Reform Church
       b. March 16, 1978,  7:30 PM - Princes Bay Reform Church
       c. February 26, 1981, 7s30 PM - Tottenville High School
          (Attachment D provides a copy of the public hearing sign-in sheet)

    3. mail distribution of four newsletters

       Volume 1, No. 1:   December 1977
                     2:   February 1978
                     3:   March  1978
                     4:   April  1978

    4. development of a mailing list.

A comment was made  that the public was not  informed  of the public hearing.  EPA
advertised the scheduled public hearing in the following way:

    o the Notice of Availability of the draft EIS was published in the Federal
      Register, December 12, 1980?

    o a press release was made to local radio stations;

    o legal notices were placed in the Staten Island Advance and the Daily News
      on January 11, 1981 and February 12, 1981 (Attachment E);

    o quarter page advertisements were placed in the Staten Island Advance on
      February 11 and 15,  1981  (Attachment F);

-------
                                      6.


o copies of the  draft  EIS were mailed to  235 persons  on the mailing list.
  The mailing list includes  members  of the public,  interest groups,  state
  and local government officials,  several  of  the local elected representa-
  tives (Mayor of New York City and the Borough President of Staten Island),
  members of  the  U.S.  Senate, the  House  of  Representatives and  the  City
  Council;

o copies of the draft EIS were available for  review at the following loca-
  tions.  A flyer advertising the  draft  EIS  and  the public hearing  was
  provided to each location for display on a bulletin board.

  - Staten Island Planning Commission      - New Dorp Regional Branch
    56 Bay Street                             Library,  309 New Dorp Lane

  - Tottenville Library                     - Community Board #3,  Prince's
    7430 Amboy Road                           Bay, 100  Johnston Terrace

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT A
Presentations were made at the public hearing held February 26, 1981 by members
of the public, organizations and city and state government offices.  The follow-
ing is a list of the speakers in order of their presentation:

    o Mr. Philip Iskowitz - Chairman of Community Board III, President of the
                            Civic Congress

    o Mr. Richard Lynch  -  Naturalist, Associate Botanist with the High Rock
                            Conservation Center, Staten Island

    o Rose Eabricatore   -  Resident of Tottenville, Staten Island
    o Bruce Geidel

    o Jeremiah Walsh


    o Robert Adamski



    o Lou Figurelli


    o Rita Wangenstein

    o Ellen Pratt


    o Terry Agriss


    o Robert Machado
-  Resident of Tottenville, Staten Island

   Representative of General Contractors Association
   of New York

-  Assistant to the Director of the Bureau of Water
   Pollution Control of New York City Department of
   Environmental Protection.

-  President of Natural Resources Protective Associ-
   ation of Staten Island, New York City, Inc.

   Resident of Staten Island, New York

-  President of Southeast Annadale Woodlands
   Association

   Regional Director, New York State Department of
   Environmental Conservation

   Representative of Tottenville Improvement Council
    o Virginia Buonviaggio - Resident of Tottenville,  Staten Island,  Represent-
                            ative of Committee on Sewers and the Environment of
                            the Tottenville Improvement council
    o Janice .Rose
    o Frank Vaccaro
   Housewife, Member of Community Board III, President
   of Tottenville Improvement Council

   Professional Engineer, Chairman of Community
   Development Committee for the Staten Island Chamber
   of Commerce

-------
o Gabe Genovese     -  Resident of Staten Island, New York

o Tony Borowiec      -  Resident of Staten Island, New York

o Gilbert Quintan   -  Engineer, Member of Civic Association:   Concord
                       Homes, Wilshire Park

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT B
Correspondence responding to the draft EIS was received from the following
parties, listed in chronological order:
    1.  Richard T. Lynch
        High Rock Conservation Center
        200 Nevada Avenue
        Staten Island, New York  10306

    2.  Paul A. Dodd
        State Conservationist
        U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building
        100 South Clinton Street, Room 771
        Syracuse, New York  13260

    3. t Dames M. Rossi, Resident
        Staten Island, New York

    4.  Lou Figurelli, President
        Natural Resources Protective
          Association of Staten Island, Inc.
        P.O.-Box 306, Gt. Kills
        Staten Island, New York  10308

    5.  William C. Finneran, Jr., General Council
          and Director of Labor Relations
        The General Contractors Association
          of New York, Inc.
        60 East 42nd Street
        New York, New York  10017
(two letters, undated
  received December 1980,
 January 1981)
(January 22,  1981)
(February 26,  1981)
(undated received March 5,
 1981)
(March 5,  1981)
    6.  Louis M. Concra, Jr.,  Director
        Division of Regulatory Affairs
        New York State Department of
          Environmental Conservation
        50 Wolf Road
        Albany, New York  12233

    7.  Francis X.  McArdle, Commissioner
        City of New York Department of
          Environmental Protection
        2358 Municipal Building
        New York, New York  10007
(March 16,  1981)
(March 26,  1981)

-------
    8.   Rita Wangenstein,  Resident               (undated,  received March 30,
        Staten Island,  New York                   1981)

    9.   William Patterson
        Regional Environmental Officer
        U.S. Department of the Interior
        Office of the Secretary                  (April  14, 1981)
        Northeast Region
        15 State Street
        Boston, Massachusetts  02109

Copies of correspondence from the public and government  offices is on file and
available for review  at EPA, Room 400, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,  NY  10278.

-------
             APPENDIX 4
CORRESPONDENCE RESPONDING TO THE DEIS

-------
                                                                   ey.s
                                        C f R.cG"£cT O/-J SPCTg/vJ ££Cft
                   ,     i^E-sgf, ROWAJ
A                                         .
        R)(^ "TW£ P/35>T V£P^ s: /^AU£ 6££AJ STX>£»9/-/UKtc/li/£ . A  0&^ PA ^CVPPiPP^ tj/vi
                                                     VAfc. &C&A) . THg
                                               £7g§
                                              ,
   UftV tAVC(S.-(£A(fcb VfOULT^^tA ^XXfip
  ^r^/VifrKgn
-------
                        A OK&S SP«A6AJCW £06, is
                    606,
                 ^ A/h 3opf^CTKA 8? TM£ SX.
                             a.

-------
                 r> ST
                  TTS ...of :           ^.        ^
                    Td ?0^_LiST/AJ
-------
                       CL£ST/O/J' ^y B£ fso/^ QAJ
                                     cs>F
A
                                                         TH£
OP srrs
^> Sf&£
                               ? Xit/c . ^ QAJ TT^S.
                                       Rft&CTRQA.

                                                      O
                 v* &ECO££S.
                 _
                     CO^S.
   o/jLV (yfiooo AT 'THS EOS-
                                                   .pEC/££» TKo^.
                                     QF '
                               ..oDgrr^^s ACT), THS

-------
                         AS
                         t
               TK£ CD/H/UCWTT^ . MATVRAC RE u ZG-EXKUO/J /-s
                           ££ TO TS>C
             CO^fCH
                                              THEiR
                            £Xf£gfAf£AJtS, AT C^V fi/T
           THFTT ATcEA^T -Hoo JSPHO£^ op
                  SA (poRPCE
PLATE USAt6l^^;Aj£^ga3   spfictgs co^/
-------
                       w
                       ^Jigi?steSM^

                       ^^^^s^^w*
                       2^M?<^$r ^ n ZiVm r^JC x
A^T^'^ / W&^*%?


                              ^     '


'  '  *

—,


-------
                                      U. S. Courthous.   .id Federal Building
                    Soil               10Q
 - .                  Conservation                                 ,
 Agriculture            Service             Syracuse, New York 13260

                                                    Janua^y22, 1981

Mr. Charles S.  Warren
Regional Administrator
U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278

Dear Mr. Warren:

This is in response to a draft environmental impact statement received directly
from your office and another which was transmitted to this office by the Soil
Conservation Service in Washington,  D. C.

We  have reviewed this  draft environmental impact statement which is for Phase
III and Future Phases  of the Oakwood Beach Water Pollution Control Project,
Staten Island,  New York, dated December 1980, and prepared by the U.  S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

No statement is made  regarding the impact of the project on prime farmland, nor
is there any statement  made  about the absence or presence of farm activities in
the  project area.  As you acknowledge on page 3-3,  the Soil Conservation Service
has not made a soil survey in Richmond County.  It may be appropriate to recog-
nize that soil survey information is essential in classifying prime  farmland.  The
EIS could be further improved by making a statement about the small amount and
absence of agriculture  in the project area.

We  appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this  project.

Sincerely,
Paul A. Dodd
State Conservationist

cc:  Office of Federal Activities (OFA),  New York, New York
    Norman A.  Berg, Chief, USDA,  SCS, Washington, D. C.
    Homer R. Hilner, Director, NETSC, SCS, Broomall, Pa.
                                                                 o
                                                                 z
                                                                 -H
                                                                 .*>
The Soil Conservation Service                                                             SCS-AS-1
is an agency of the                                                                   10-79
Department of Agriculture

-------
         /   /   / X"
~<W*it>*s4e<&/  ^^
                                                                       /I    //
                                          ^            "

-------
                                       RESOURCES PROTECTIVE ASSN

                                      OF STATEN ISLAND, INC.
                                          P.O. BOX 306 GT. KILLS
                                        STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. 10308
                                           PRES. L. FIGURELLI
                                           TEL. (212)967-0410

                                          Mr.  Charles Warden
                                          Regional Administrator
                                          E.P.A. Region II
                                          26  Federal Plaza
                                          Room 400 N.Y.C
                                          N.Y. 10278
                                          Tel. (212) 264-8676
 Dear Mr Warren
 Att. Ms.  Christine Yost

     On Feb. 26,  1981 a public hearing was held at Tottenville High
 School in Staten  Island, inviting all interested government agencies,
 public groups,  and citizens to provide public input and participation,
 to provide pertinant information on the decision of the environmental
 impact statement  for phase III and future phases of the Oakwood Beach,
 water pollution control project Staten Island NY Draft 1980.
     I,  Lou Figurelli, President of the Natural Resources Protective
 Assn. of Staten Island, and other members of our 9»000 member Assn,
 who attended this meeting were surprised and annoyed at the absence of
 our elected officials or representatives.  Were the elected officials
 notified?  Also I woiild like a copy of the attendence record of. this
 meeting.
     On registering at the door of the meeting I was asked would I make
 a speech to which I replied yes.  As the meeting progressed, after in-
 formative and comprehensive presentations by Phil Iskowitz of Community
 Board III,  Terri  Agris, Diector of Region 2 NY D.E.C.. the NYC E.P.A.,
 Ellen Prattof Pine Oaks, qualified City Engineers, representatives of
 major construction corporations and other groups and citizens, it would
 have been useless and time consuming to repeat my objections which
 would be  the same as theirs,  The few minutes I did spend was spent to
 voice my  objections and record my presence, and would be followed by
 this letter before March 15 to be recorded in your files.
     It  has been  the policy of the N.R.P.A. to primarily protect the salt
-**t»r marine environment of Staten Island not from use, but from abuse.
 Satan Island is truly an island completely surrounded by salt water.
 Very much of our  social, economic and recreational stability depends upon
 the protection  of this vital resource from abuse and pollution to sustain
 our .survi-vpal.                                           -
    The  environmental impact statement for Phase III and "future phases
 of the Oakwood  Beach waterr pollution ojpenly contridicts and violates many
 of our existing city, state, federal and common sense laws, as stated by
 the qualiried speakers before me.  For many years the N.R.P.A. and many
 other concerned citizens and organizations have fought and made laws
 through legislation to hat the discharge of untreated sewage and pollut-
ants to our wetlands and waterways. The Federal Coastal Zone r/lanagemant
Program forbids any sewage or dumping within 500 feet of our waterways.
The Army  Corps, of Engineers imposes a $2,500 fine to any offender who
dumps  or  pollutes our inland waterways.  The NY D.E.C. has many laws that

                                   9.

-------
 forbid the pollution    ->ur habitat by dumpin/    w sewage.   The U.S.
"Coast Guard has implim   .d laws  which restrict   .1 water going vessels
 to' the use of federally approved toilet facilities to holding tanks or
 chemically treated. No dumping of raw sewage, from all vessels within 3
'miles off shore.   Any discharge  is  punishable  by fines,  imprisonment or
 both.
      With all of  these laws and  possibly many more  of which  I am not
 aware, how can this E.I.S.  for ph&se III be  accepted or  considered when
 it is in violation of all the previously mentioned  laws.
      Any discharge from the proposed pumping stations wether deliberate,
 intentional,  by accident or by pump safety control or failure would be
 illegal by law.   Any connection  of  our sewer system directly to our
 waterways and flood plains,  even  if  used'only as  an emergency procedure,
 would clearly indicate the intent to discharge raw sewage-into these  ar-
 eas.   By our laws this is  illegal.   There shall  be no discharge of un-
 treated raw sewage into these areas.   We will  do what ever  is necessary
 to insure this statement,  including legal action  if needed.
      In conclusion,  as stated previoulsy, the  N.R.P.A. is primarily
 concerned with the saltwater marine environment  in relation to project-
 ing the area from abuse and promoting the sensible use of our shell-
 fishing,  sportfishing,  commercial fishing, and saltwater recreation and
 related industries in ,  on and around Staten Island.  We could not
 possibly estimate the damage that would be done to  our social,  economic
 and recreational  structure  if we allowed the resumption  or  relaxation of
 our laws prohibiting the  discharge of untreated raw sewage into Raritan
 Bay or other surrounding waters.  Any amount regardless  of  how small
 would be a backward step and could  very well defeat our  many years of
 hard work in acheiving our protective laws.
      After careful consideration and examination we of the  N.R.P.A.
 will support alternative No.  1 (the  slurry shield  tunnel) proposal.   We
 need the sewage system and  we need  it now, but we  must not  be pressured
 into accepting a  system which will  cost us millions of dollars,  of our
 tax money to pay  for future maintainance of  the  proposed E.P.A.  system.
 The slurry shield tunnel will provide less maintainance  cost,  an enclosed
 system with underground retention and afford greater protection to our
 environment.   I do not believe the  figures presented by  the E.P.A.surveys
 are correct to the differences of costs and  should be reevaluated.
      The E.P.A. stresses the amount of money to  be saved by utilizing
 an inferior system but does not  address the  costs  to Staten Island resi-
 dents to maintain this system for ever into  the  future.   The cost  we
 all should really be concerned sbout is the  destruction  of  the environ-
 ment,  should raw  sewage again be allowed to  legally enter our waterways.
                                                        you
Copies  sent;

Senator John f.'archi
Congressman Guy Molinari
Mike  Turusio wy £ PA
Steve Gallo  ny A-H/B
Assemblywoman Elizabeth Comely
Assemblyman Bob Straniere
Don Costle, E.P.A. Wash.
Terri Agriss,  NY D.E.C.
Comm. Kooert i-'lacke  NY D.E.C.
Staten  Island Advance
NY Dailey  News   7 6 My U*
Comm. Board III  Phil  Iskowitz
                                                           relli
                                                           'R.P.A.  of  S.I
Eof'o Pres. Tony  Gaeta
Channel 5 News   Ben Foti
Newark Star Ledger  *c>9 oot-'
Fisherman  A u  ftiVToM
Angler's News Mickey Cooper
N.J. D.E.P.   Dave Kinsey
                                      16.

-------
                       THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK, INC.
WILLIAM C. FINNERAN, JR.
General Counsel and Director of Labor Relations
                                           March 5, 1981
      Ms. Christine
      Environmental
      United States
      Region II, 26
      New York, New

      Dear Ms.  Yost:
Yost, Environmental Scientist
Impacts Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Plaza, Room 400
York  10278
          The following  written  statement  is submitted for inclu-
      sion  in the  public  hearing  record  with  respect  to  the
      hearing  on the  draft  Environmental  Impact Statement on
      Waste-Water Treatment  Facilities Construction Grants, Phase
      III and Future  Phases of  the  Oakwood  Beach Water Pollution
      Control Project,  Staten Island,  New York.
                                   representative  at  the
                                               on February
                                        public
                                       26, the
    As  was  stated  by  our
hearing held in  Tottenville  High  School
General Contractors  Association  is  the  organization  which
represents over 600 firms in the Heavy Construction Industry,
waste water  treatment  facilities, including  plants,  struc-
tures, sewers  and  interceptors, are a  major  portion  of our
work .
          It is important that the record clearly indicate that we
      are keenly  aware of  the problem  that  exists  in  the South
      Richmond  area  with  respect  to  waste  water  collection  and
      treatment and appreciate the need for an expeditious program
      to solve  this  problem.   We  are  not  opposing  the particular
      solution  contained  in  the  draft EIS,  but neither  can we
      support  it  due  to  the  many issues which we  feel  must be
      addressed but were not or were covered too sparsely.  It has
      been  our experience that unless all the important issues are
      considered and  properly resolved  in the  initial  stages of
      development,  they  will  only  serve to be  major impediments
      later  on, and  will  severly  hamper attempts to  expeditiously
      move  the  construction  process  forward.   This  will result in
      delays which  will increase the cost of the work and unneces-
      sarily deprive the people of the South Richmond community of
      the waste water treatment system which is needed.
                        60 EAST 42nd STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 • TELEPHONE (212) 687-3131

-------
    The questions which we feel must be answered  in  the  EIS
in proper,  complete  detail  are  as  follows:

    1.    How many schools  are  located  along  the  interceptor
         route?    How  far  are  the  schools  located from  the
         proposed construction?  What  measures  will be  taken
         to ensure that construction noise does  not interrupt
         teaching?  What safety measures  will  be taken  for
         children crossing  the  street  to reach  those  schools?

    2.    Does the interceptor  route  pass by  any  emergency
         facilities  such as police  stations,  fire stations
         or first aid  squad facilities?  Will the  construction
         affect  their  response  time?

    3.    What steps  will be taken  to protect residents  from
         the dust when the  sewer construction passes  through
         residential  areas?

    4.    What is the  effect on  businesses  along  the intercep-
         tor route?   To what degree?   What kinds  of businesses
         are located  along  the  route?

    5.    How many cars will be  affected by any  congestion  or
         traffic  jams  on  the  interceptor  routes  by the
         construction?

    6.    Has the Community  Board been  consulted  regarding
         the interceptor   alignments  or  the siting  of the
         pumping stations?

    7.    How much more energy  usage  will result  from  the
         selected  alternative  due to  the  need  for  more
         pumping stations?

    8.    Are there any concentrations  of elderly  persons
         along  or near the  interceptor route?

    9.    What sub-surface  conditions do you  expect to
         encounter along the interceptor route?

    10.  How many people and residences will be  affected by
         the long-term impact of  the  pumping  stations?

    11.  How much impact will  there  be due to the  daily
         maintenance  traffic to  each of the  pumping stations?

    12.  What ^measures will be  undertaken  to prevent  long-
         term odor impact  of the pumping station?

    13.  Has the exact alignment of  the interceptor been
         determined?

-------
                              - 3


     14.   What kinds of trees and how many are located
          along the interceptor route which would be hurt
          by the construction?

     15.   How will the construction affect bus service on
          Hylan Boulevard?

     16.   What is the estimated construction period?

     As you can see, we are genuinely concerned and have given
extensive thought and consideration to this proposal.  We feel
very strongly that the above issues must be properly and
thoroughly considered in order for any proposed construction to
be viable aim acceptable.

     We also strongly urge that the construction alternative of
a gravity flow, deep tunnel be included in the evaluation process
and that  an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of such
a tunnel  be carefully weighed as part of the process to arrive at
a final decision.

     Let  me restate that the Heavy Construction Industry is aware
of the need for a waste water collection and treatment system and
recognizes the urgency of the problem.  We want a system to be
installed in the quickest possible manner, but, equally important,
we want a system installed that will be the best possible to
accomplish the goal of improving the existing situation, while
taking into account all possible short-range and long-range impacts
on the South Richmond area and its people.

                                       Sincerely yours,

                                      /.
                                       William C.  Finneran,  Jr.

-------
New York State  Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
                                                                          Robert F. Flacke
                                                                           Commissioner^
                                                 March 16, 1981
   Mr. Stephen Arella, Chief
   Environmental Impacts Branch - Rm 400
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   26 Federal Plaza
   New York, New York  10278

   Dear Mr. Arella:

        This Department has reviewed the Oakwood Beach Phase III Draft
   Environmental Impact Statement dated December, 1980.

        The attached memorandum includes all our technical  and environmental
   comments and recommendations resulting from DEC Central  Office and regional reviews,
                                                 Very truly yours ,
                                                 Louis M.  Concra, Jr'., Director
                                                 Division  of Regulatory Affairs
   LMC:JLS:db
   Attachments:  Cultural  Resource memo-Jan.  16, 1981
                 Review comment memo-March 11, 1981
                 Figures 5-1, 2-l(existing sewered areas)
                 2-l(Land use), 2-4, 2-5, Freshwater Wetlands map,
                 3-7, 3-11, South Richmond Shellfishing areas.
                 Table 2-1

-------
 IS(12/75)

               New York  State  Department of  Environmental Conservation

                                   MEMORANDUM

Td       Ernest Trad,  Director,  Division of Construction Management,  NYSDEC
FROM:   \M.ouis M.  Concra,  Jr.,  Director, Division of Regulatory Affairs,  NYSDEC
SUBJECT, W OAKWOOD BEACH EIS,  C-36-392-07

OATB.      March 11, 1981


         The regional  office and central office have reviewed  the Draft Environmental
         Impact Statement  (DEIS) for Phase III  of the Oakwood  Beach Project,  dated
         ppremhpr 19805  and  offer the following environmental  and technical  comments:

              Summary

         1.   Page iii  -  Implementation schedule as well  as  collection  system  will
             be subject  to EPA  review and presented in final EIS.   We  concur  in
             the need  for  an implementation plan.   However,  we  have recommended
             that no final EIS  be prepared.  We recommend that  the implementation
             schedule  be developed during Step  II, as interceptor design  informa-
             tion is required to plan the collection system.   This will also  reduce
             further delay in beginning work on the interceptor.

         2.   Page i  -  DEIS states that implementation of the proposed  project will
             permit abandonment  of approximately 6 package  treatment  plants not
             meeting effluent requirements.  DEC files indicate that,  while there
             are more  package plants in South Richmond than  shown in  the  DEIS,  fewer
             are out of  compliance.

         3.   Figure S-l  -  Inconsistencies exist between  the  description of the
             recommended route  and that shown in this figure.

         4.   Page vi - The summary of environmental  impacts  neglects  the  impacts
             associated  with pump station construction,  the  emergency  outfalls  from
             the pump  stations which would discharge to  Raritan and Princess  Bay,
             and the construction impacts to freshwater  wetlands along proposed
             route.

              Alternatives

         1.   Figure 2-1  -  This draft acknowledges  that additional  package treatment
             plants  have been proposed and constructed since the map  in  Figure  2-1
             was developed in 1975.  The map should have been  updated  to  reflect
             these changes.   We  have attached an updated Figure 2-1.

         2.   Page 2-4    This draft incorrectly  states that  sludge generated at  the
             Oakwood Beach Plant will  be conveyed to the Port  Richmond Treatment
             Plant via force main for processing and ultimate  disposal.   Under  New
             York City's Accelerated Interim Sludge Management  Plan,  sludge from
             the Port  Richmond STP will  be pumped to the Oakwood Beach STP via
             force main  where it will  undergo conditioning  and  dewatering. An
             pxtpnHprl  static-pile composting method will  be  used to process sludge
             from both plants.   Since the EPA intends to issue  a FNSI/EA  for  the
             design of the Oakwood Beach composting facility,  this should have  been
             incorporated  in the draft.

         LMC:JLS:lmp
         cc:  j.  corr                            /f.

-------
                                   -2-
3.  Page 2-6 - In the discussion of unsewered areas,  the data presented
    is both inadequate and out-of-date.   Has the percentage of septic
    system failures increased?

4.  Page 2-15 - Discussion of West Branch Interceptor/Force Main Routing
    along the shore - DEIS provides an inadequate and inaccurate descrip-
    tion of the aquatic systems (i.e., Raritan Bay, Lemon Creek, Wolfes
    Pond, and Arbutus Lake).   A few examples of these deficiencies in-
    clude the following:  the material dredged from Lemon Creek is more
    likely to be sand or silty sand thap  organic silt;  the likelihood
    of damage to the Wolfes Pond berm must be described;  a description
    of Arbutus Lake has been  omitted.   If construction  activities may
    impact these ecosystems,  a detailed description is  required in
    order to evaluate the possible damage to these resources.

    It was previously noted that the routing through  the  "critical  ero-
    sion area" can be viewed  as having a  positive as  well  as  negative
    effect.   In order to protect the investment in interceptors, steps
    may be taken to stabilize the area, thereby affording some protec-
    tion from erosion.   If such erosion protection is required, the cost
    of the shoreline alternative would increase.

5.  Page 2-17 - With regard to the routing in Hylan Boulevard, I draw
    your attention to the comments submitted by our staff (October 20,
    1978 and April 29,  1980)  on the previous draft.   Staff concern relates
    to the emergency outfalls which would be constructed  to discharge
    to Raritan and Princess Bays.   Again, we believe  that the  impacts
    should have been addressed in the DEIS.   As previously pointed out,
    while routing of the interceptor/force main system  in Hylan Boulevard
    may eliminate significant problems associated with  the shoreline route,
    this does not preclude the obligation tocaddress  the  comparative con-
    struction and operational  impacts of  emergency overflows.   Such alter-
    natives  include elimination of emergency overflows,  design to Class I
    reliability requirements, etc.   Furthermore,  maps showing  specific
    locations evaluate  impacts to Lemon Creek Park, Wolfes Pond Park and
    Arbutus  Lake.  Any  emergency discharges of raw sanitary wastes would
    require  restriction of all shellfish  harvesting.  Moreover, repeated
    emergency discharges may  result in removal  of shellfish harvest certifi-
    cation from additional nearshore areas, which are the most productive
    portions of the shellfish beds.  Attached is  a map  delineating area
    designated as a shellfish harvest area under the  Bureau of Shellfisheries
    shellfish purification program.

6.  Page 2-18 - Table 2-3, Preliminary Cost Estimates for Hylan Boulevard
    Construction Alternatives - Why have  land costs not been  considered?
    The availability of land  would effect both the design and implementation
    of alternative 3.  Moreover, greater  reliability  and elimination of pump
    station  bypass capability may be required.   We can  only assume that the
    cost of  pump station has  been severely underestimated.

7.  Page 2-19 - The two additional  methods of construction for routing in
    Hylan Boulevard were dismissed because "these alternatives do not pro-
    vide additional environmental  benefits".  This statement is clearly not
    true.  In addition, inline storage capacity under the tunnel alternative
    eliminates the requirements of an emergency bypass  at the Wiman Avenue
    Pump Station.

-------
                                   -3-


8.  Page 2-20 - The Fresh Kills system (FK-19, 24, 25, etc.) was funded
    because issues, including population development in ESA's, associated
    with the project have been resolved, and no significant environmental
    impacts are associated with its construction.  We believe that the
    impacts are no more significant for the South Richmond service area.
    The need for preparation of an FEIS is questionable.


Existing Environment in Planning Area  '

1.  Page 3-6 - A discussion of near shore water quality for Raritan Bay
    should include discussion of beach classification.  (Attached - figure
    showing discharge sites and beach recommendations).

2.  Page 3-8 - The section on aquatic ecosystems is not presented in enough
    detail to enable an adequate evaluation of the impacts of the proposed
    project on these environmentally sensitive areas.

3.  Page 3-9 - The wetland section should include a map of the freshwater
    wetlands located in the Phase III area (see attached map).  This section
    neglects to discuss extensive Tidal  Wetlands classified littoral zone.
    This environmentally sensitive area will be impacted by the emergency
    overflows of the proposed plan.

4.  Figure 3-7 - General Development Trends in South Richmond - The 1977
    reference for housing trends is out of date.  Previous comments submitted
    by the department requested an update of this section.  We have attached
    an updated copy of this figure incorporating a detailed record of pro-
    jects requiring DEC approval.  Other concerned agencies can provide
    information on additional projects which are not subject to our review.

5.  Page 3-21  - Land Use data is provided using a 1973 source.  What is the
    present situation?  The enclosed land use map was developed for a SEQR
    EIS which evaluates the cumulative impacts of housing developments and
    package treatment plants on Raritan Bay.  An update of the DEIS data
    might produce different conclusions.

6.  Page 3-9 - The reference to "protection of freshwater wetlands under
    the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act" is inaccurate.  Only those
    freshwater wetlands larger than 5 hectares (12.4 acres) or those wet-
    lands designated as having unique or local significance will be regulated.
    The majority of the small freshwater wetlands (under 5 ha) in South
    Richmond will  not be regulated or protected.  This consideration should
    be taken into account during evaluation of alternative sewer alignments.

7.  Figure 3-9 - Should be amended to reflect present zoning and land use.
    It is doubtful that Ml designation is appropriate for Clay Pits Park.
    An area along Poillon Avenue north of Hylan Boulevard is being proposed
    for acquisition as City parkland.  Similar revisions are required for
    Figure 3-10.

8.  Figure 3-11 - Is presented as a representation of the environmental
    constraints to development.  A consideration of freshwater wetlands
    has been omitted.  The analysis that follows assumes that all steep
                                     17.

-------
                                    -4-


     slopes and wetland areas are excluded from development.   This in
     incorrect and we enclose a copy of Figure 3-11  (with our modifications)
     which shows developments approved in these areas since this analysis
     was completed.  As we pointed out in previous comments,  development
     of land in South Richmond is less a function of environmental constraints
     than the economic climate and the particular developer's situation.
     Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that all environmentally sensitive
     areas will not be developed and to include such an assumption in popula-
     tion projections.

 9.  Page 3-41 - The effects on the growth pattern of new development should
     be updated to reflect changes which would be incorporated in Figure 3-7.

10.  Page 3-49 - The section on sewage sludge and solid waste disposal  con-
     straints is dated.  We suggest that EPA consult with NYC Dept.  of
     Sanitation for an update on the likelihood of resource recovery facili-
     ties being on line by 1985.  It should also be  noted that under a
     recent Consent Order between the City and the Department, an EIS is
     being prepared on the operation of Fresh Kills  Landfill  and its rela-
     tionship to the city-wide solid waste management program.


 Environmental Impacts of the Feasible Alternative Wastewater Management
    Systems

 1.  Page 4-23 - Again, we point out that the environmental  impacts  of  the
     alternative construction methods are not compared.   This comparative
     evaluation of the environmental  impacts should  be presented in  enough
     detail for reviewers to independently judge the relative desirability
     of each feasible alternative.   The discussion of the Hylan Boulevard
     route oversimplifies construction impacts and inadequately addresses
     the impacts on wetlands.  This section chooses  only to discuss  three
     wetland systems.  What are the temporary effects expected as a  result
     of crossing the headwaters of Wolfes Pond?  Can they be  avoided?

 2.  Page 4-3 - Provide data to support the statement that Mill  Creek is
     presently adversely affected by industrial  contaminants, oils and
     heavy metals.  In addition, this draft fails to recognize the exten-
     sive wetlands that exist along Mill  Creek.   The impacts  to wetlands
     from construction of the pump station should be evaluated at this  point.

 3.  Page 4-4 - No adverse short-term impacts are anticipated by the construc-
     tion of the Fresh Kills interceptors on local  drainage patterns as the
     routing avoids wetlands and water courses and is placed  in Arthur  Kill
     Road to diminish the impacts.   This discussion  of the pollution of the
     Arthur Kill and the following section on terrestrial  ecosystems has
     nothing to do with the project in question.

 4.  Page 4-6 - How will the discharge from dewatering operations be mitigated?
     This impact is ignored.   Will  dewatering operations significantly  lower
     surface waters adjacent to the sewer routes and what are the potential
     impacts?

-------
                                   -5-


     Page  4-9  - A  concern of the  Department's Division of Marine Resources
     relates to the  fact that the emergency bypasses would be constructed
     to  bypass to  areas in  Raritan and Princess Bays.  There should be a
     discussion of not only the emergency situations but the frequency of
     failure and possible abuses.  Since all pump stations are provided with
     substantial additional pumping capacity (redundancy), alternate generators
     and high level  alarms, it seems difficult to justify the need for these
     overflows.  A determination  of costs resulting from the closure of
     beaches and shellfishing areas should be provided.  See also comment
     No. 5 under Alternatives.

     Page 4-14 - Under Land Use section, the conclusion is reached that under
     the implementation of  this project in the Phase III area an additional
     65  hectares will be developed.  While residential densities are assumed
     to  be lower as  a result of the 1968 Sewer Tank Law, the no action alter-
     native may result in the developer's choice of private package treatment
     plants.  This would induce residential development at higher densities.
Other Environmental and Technical Concerns
 1 .   The original  environmental  constraints analysis  is incomplete as it
     does  not  show all  freshwater  wetlands delineated on New York State
     freshwater  regulatory maps  or New  York State Fish and Wildlife wetland
     inventory maps.  Any new  cultural  resources (found.after the preparation
     of the  original  constraints analysis) on or eligible for the National
     Register  of Historic Places should also be included in the revised constraints
     analysis.


 2.   The chosen  alternative of forcemains and pump stations along Hylan
     Boulevard will be  energy-intensive  and expensive.  Combinations of
     shallow trenching, deep trenching,  and tunneling should be explored
     to determine  if  some pump stations  could be eliminated.  This could
     reduce operation and maintenance costs.


 3.   The regional office has expressed some concern regarding the use of
     grant conditions to protect wetlands and floodplains.   It is their
     contention  that New York State's wetland regulations and the federal
     flood insurance program will  provide an adequate regulatory framework
     to restrict development in wetlands and floodplains.   Moreover, it is
     their opinion that the absence of municipal  sewers has not prevented
     wetland/floodplain development on Staten Island and that grant conditions
     restricting sewer hook-ups may actually encourage the use of septics
     in these areas.

 4.   Attached is a memo dated January 16, 1981, from Ms. Basa regarding
     cultural resources.  Since  she is recommending a Stage IB (Field
     Investigation), the costs associated with this study and any possible
     mitigating  plans must be addressed  in the EIS and selected alternatives.

-------
                                   -6-


5.  The tunnel alternative is eliminated based on cost only.  Other para-
    meters for evaluation should be used as well.  Location plan and
    profiles are missing.

6.  Page 2-19, the statement that the tunnel wi11 require an emergency
    outfall for the Wiman Avenue pump station is  incorrect, since the
    tunnel itself has approximately a ten- (10) day storage capacity and,
    therefore, no outfall is required. ,

7.  The total impacts created by ten (10) additional  pump stations has
    not been considered.  Is land available?  Can the pump station plan
    be implemented?  Emergency overflows must meet Reliability Requirements
    Glass 1; therefore, holding basins are required.   Is land available
    for these?

8.  The Recommended Tottenville Interceptor/Force Main routing Alternative
    la, (routing around Conference House Park) and the selected West Branch
    Interceptor/Force Main routing alternative 2b (Hylan Boulevard route)
    are not shown correctly on the recommended plan (Figure S-l).

9.  Pumping stations located in flood hazard areas must be protected from
    damage from the 100-year flood and be fully operational during the 25-
    year flood.  No discussion in the report of this  or if the costs asso-
    ciated with this protection were included.

     Recommendations

1.  EPA and DEC issue to New York City a limited  Step I grant to complete
    limited Facility Planning measures not included in the DEIS.  Such
    measures include establishment of pump station design criteria and
    locations, preparation of updated detailed cost estimates for construc-
    tion alternatives, and cultural resources IB  surveys.

2.  Following completion of the limited Step I work,  standard EPA NEPA
    review would proceed based on population projections, and alignment
    from the DEIS and cost estimates from the limited Step I.  A decision
    on construction method would then be made, and the agencies could pro-
    ceed to Step II preparation of plans and specifications.

In our view, these recommendations are the most expeditious means of proceeding
with the construction of this long-delayed and much needed project.  The
Department is not necessarily opposed to final completion of the EIS to
comply with NEPA if there will be no delays to the project and if, at the
same time, limited facility planning can be undertaken to answer the out-
standing questions and comments on the proposed project.
                                  2.Q.

-------
 is
                New York  State Department of Environmental  Conservation

                                    MEMORANDUM

TOi      Al Rockmore, Region 1 Section Chief, Division of Construction Management
FROM:    Louise Basa, Bureau of Program Services (Cultural Resources) $j-
SUBJECT: Cultural Resource Review Comments on Draft EIS              \^

DATE.-    January 16, 1981
        Pro.lect;  Oakwood Beach Water Pollution Control Project
                  Staten Island
                  Richmond County
                  C-36-392


        Rec ommendation;

             A Stage IB (field investigation) is needed for the proposed project
        addressed in the December 1980 Draft EES.  The survey should evaluate the
        potential impact of both shallow open cut and deep tunnels methods of con-
        struction.  The archaeological consultant should design the Stage IB survey
        according to the February 1978 EIS Background Document,  Prei-inrinary Cultural
        Resource Assessment;  Literature Search and Windshield Survey.  The "Gon-
        clusions and Recommendations" (page IV 1-12) in this report should be followed
        unless the archaeological consultant can substantiate using alternative
        methodologies.


        Comment on Draft EES;

             The mapping showing the approved plan is inaccurate.  Also, the dis-
        crepancies in the report between the enclosed map for the Tottenville
        Interceptor/Force Main (Figure 2-/tb) and the description of the routing
        (page 2-26) do not give us a clear concept of the proposed project.

             The following information is needed by us to continue our review of the
        project:


             1.  Accurate description and map of the recommened approved
                 plan.

             2.  Accurate description and map of the tunnel alternative.

             3-  Two complete copies of Wapora's February 1978 EIS
                 Background Document referenced above.  These documents
                 must include all the referenced exhibits.

-------
                CITY OF NEW YORK
                DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                2358 MUNICIPAL BUILDING, NEW YORK, N.r. 10007'         (212) 566-4124/5
                                         f

FRANCIS X. McARDLE, Commi«ion«r

                                        MAR 2 61981


      Mr. Stephen Arella, Chief
      Environmental Impacts Branch
      U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
      26 Federal Plaza
      New York, N.Y.  10007
                                   RE:  Oakwood Beach Draft EIS
      Dear Mr.  Arella:
           As we stated at your Public Hearing held on February 26th
      at Tottemrille H.S., Staten Island, New York, we cannot support
      the recommended alternative of the above-mentioned report. (See
      attached text.)

          We told your predecessor, Mr. Sullivan, this in a letter
      dated June 24, 1980.  We said then that we cannot endorse pro-
      ceeding with the building of eleven (11) pumping stations,
      their resultant force mains and overflows and shallow open cut
      interceptors in Hylan  Blvd.  Our position is unchanged.

          This proposal, with its overflows, would jeopardize waters
      which have been classified by New York State as being suitable
      for shellfishing and bathing.  The N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental
      Conservation has expressly stated its opposition to emergency
      overflows from pumping stations and interceptors.  As stated in
      their May 27,  1980 letter to Mr. Sullivan, "While this office
      approved an emergency overflow in conjunction with contract FK-19
      which was probably in error, that error should not be compounded
      by additional overflows in future projects."  The series installa-
      tion of the pumping stations compounds the problem.  If any one
      of the pumping stations along Hylan  Boulevard should fail, the
      entire drainage area upstream of that pumping station would be
      subject to sewer backups or overflows.  This overflow of raw
      sewage from the entire drainage area was addressed by the EIS in
      the passage, "It might become necessary to close beaches to bathing
      and the bay waters to all shellfishing until these effects have
      been mitigated by tidal flushing and storm surges."  And yet, you

-------
                               - 2 -
have ruled out the gravity system alternatives because they do
not provide additional environmental benefits even though they
would have no bypasses.  The pumping stations were proposed
even though the cost of energy is sharply increasing.  The
pumping stations' standby generators have a high energy cost
and are a source of air pollution.

    The cost comparisons presented at the hearing are from,
"N.Y.C. Dept. of Environmental Protection 1979 - Analysis,
WP- 136 Oakwood Beach WPCP, West Branch Interceptor Along Hylan
Boulevard, Borough of Staten Island, New York, New York" which
you list in your References.  From this:

    Total Present Worth of Alternate 3  (shallow open-cut Force
Mains and Pumping Stations) $286,000,000 which includes the
present worth of the annual O&M cost of $6,125,000.  Compared
to your values of $57,000,000 capital and $864,000 O&M per year
respectively.

    Present worth cost gravity tunnel:

        Slurry Shield from Wiman to Sequine Ave.     $ 68,000,000
        Compressed air from Sequine to Craig Ave.     100,650,000
        Insurance for compressed air                  	4,500,000

                                                     $173,150,000

compared to your $118,000,000, the gravity system is still cost-
effective. .

    As we stated in this report, "It must be pointed out that
these recommendations are based on preliminary boring information.
A detailed boring program must be undertaken to determine the
geological profile of the soils to be encountered in order to
insure the proper selection of the construction method."  This
was the basis for our recommending that you award us a Step 1 grant.
Towards this we are submitting a Step 1 grant application through
the State for the scope of services attached.  Nevertheless, we
reiterate what we said in our June 24th letter, "We endorse the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's May 27th
letter which states that the proposals should be evaluated based
on our estimate of environmental effect, monetary cost., feasibility,
resources and energy use, reliability, and implementation," not
just cost.

-------
                              - 3 -
     In addition, since S-l, the approved plan doesn't show how
to go from the existing interceptor 6C at Wiman Ave. and
Tennysen Drive to Hylan Blvd., we are submitting a Step 2 grant
application for the next section of interceptor, 6B-1, to the
vicinity of Richmond Avenue.  A pumping station site has been
tentatively identified at Richmond Avenue and Hylan Boulevard
and so no alternatives for the remaining system will be fore-
closed.  Other omissions, inconsistencies and errors in the DEIS
are:

    i.    Six package sewage treatment plants are mentioned,
          as a minimum, a list of them should be provided.

    Figures S-l the Pittsville Avenue and Tottenville Pump
          Stations are shown in the wrong locations.  The
          emergency outfalls are not shown.  The existing
          interceptor is not shown ending at Wiman Avenue
          and Tennysen Drive.  The proposed interceptor
          doesn't meet the existing.

    iii.  The 1975 date of the EIS is not mentioned.

    viii. The feasibility and desirability of anchoring a
          force main to the overpass at Lemon Creek is not
          possible.

    ix.   The EIS recommends constructing a force main
          between the Eltingville Pumping Station and the
          Port Richmond Plant to eliminate the need for
          expanding the Oakwood Beach Plant.  It would
          make more sense to redirect the flow from the
          Richmond Hill Road Pumping Station to Port
          Richmond if this alternative is needed.

          No evaluation of the impact of the increased dis-
          charge from Port Richmond or the force main is
          given.

    x.    Recommendation 4 states that emergency outfalls
          from the proposed Ellen, Luten/ and Hogan Avenue
          Pumping Stations should not discharge to Lemon
          Creek.  Instead, you say their outfalls should
          flow back and use the outfalls from the Bayview,
          Holton, and Arbutus Avenue Pumping Stations.  All
          of these outfalls would be directed into Raritan
          or Princes Bays.  These recommendations are
          astounding since they call for overflows into
          designated shellfish beds and bathing beaches.

-------
                           - 4 -
      NYC DEP policy on overflows is not as broad as
      stated.  While overflows are desirable on pump-
      ing stations, their location is important.  As
      stated at the hearing, protecting beaches has
      been our policy since 1904.  For example, the
      pumping station at Beach 9th Street in Rockaway
      has no overflow because it would have impacted
      bathing waters.  Therefore, none would be needed
      by the system of gravity and internal relief
      proposed by the City-

xii.  Recommendation 6 is completely unacceptable to the
      City.  This is because it is proposed that the
      USEPA Step 2 and Step 3 grants should contain
      conditions which prohibit sewer hook-ups to the
      City's system.

      While the concept of preserving wetlands and pro-
      hibiting floodplain development is commendable,
      the legality of this method needs to be explored.

xiii. "A plan and schedule for construction of lateral
      sewer lines and emergency outfalls...will be
      included in the EIS."  This schedule is hard to
      develop since it depends heavily on the inter-
      ceptor system.  If a Step 2 grant is given for
      6B-1 and a commitment for a Step 3 grant to
      Richmond Avenue is given by USEPA, then a schedule
      for this area would be developed.

2-1.  Again, 12 pumping stations and private treatment
      areas are mentioned but are not listed.  The list-
      ing should be provided to identify those facilities
      shown in Figure 2-1.

2-4.  It is stated that when the President's Water Policy
      is implemented, a significant reduction in existing
      per capita usage can be expected at the plant.  This
      may not be true since the water usage in the area
      may be in the inelastic demand portion of the curve.
      The current drought information appears to indicate
      this.

      It is stated that Oakwood Beach is scheduled for
      another modification by the year 1990 to achieve an
      ultimate 60 MGD secondary capacity.  This should be
      80 MGD.

-------
                           - 5 -
2-5.  "Sewage treatment provided by private package
      treatment plants incurs proportionately high
   (   costs to the users"... should be backed-up with
      cost data.

      The Victory Boulevard area is incorrectly identi-
      fied as part of the Fresh Kills drainage area.

2-6.  It is incorrectly stated that New York City water
      is treated several times before distribution.

2-8.  The report states that the continuation of private
      treatment systems would result in greater user
      costs than comparable costs in other areas of the
      City where treatment is provided as municipal
      services.  Back-up information should be provided
      to verify this statement.  Also, there is no
      analysis of the primary or secondary impacts of the
      no-action alternative such as degradation of sur-
      face waters.

2-10.  Table 2-1 Note 1 states costs based on USEPA bid
      data with scaling for lower flows is questionable
      since,  as we have shown in the past, capital costs
      are not proportional to sizes.

      In addition, the methodology used is faulty. Assum-
      ing a 40 year life and a salvage value is not borne
      out by N.Y.C. experience, a 100 year life is
      expected for interceptors.  Also, as stated above,
      the expected O&M costs are severely understated.

      Fig. 2-4 a and b - Show different sites for the
      Tottenville P.S. and T.P.

2-14.  The report states that smaller than a 54 inch
      diameter tunnel is not cost-effective to construct.
      Our experience has shown this to be true.

2-13.  The cost-effective analysis in Table 2-2 is incom-
      plete since Note 1 states that land acquisition costs
      are excluded.  In addition, the costs of routing
      around Conference House Park have been significantly
      understated:

      1.  The Pittsville Avenue P.S. could not be built
          for $125,000.

-------
                           - 6 -
      2.   Why is there no O&M for Pittsville Avenue
          P. S. ?

      3.   What  does the first line, Pumping Station/
          Force Main Addition mean?  If it refers to
          the Tottenville Pump Station and Force Main,
          the capital cost of $478,000 and the O&M
          cost  of $6,000/year are too low.

      4.   For the interceptor required in Surf Avenue,
          the distance should be 7,160 feet (see page
          2-22) not 500 feet.

      5.   There is no cost given for the interceptor
          in Hylan Boulevard.

      6.   As with all the cost estimates in this DEIS,
          no costs were assigned for the emergency over-
          flows .

      7.   Do the costs include equipment replacement for
          the pump stations?

      8.   The cost of the diesel back-up as well as the
          associated O&M costs and the equipment replace-
          ment costs have not been included nor has the
          land costs.

2-16.  We concur with dropping the shore route from further
      consideration.

2-18.  As with the preceding cost comparison, the figures
      are significantly understated for the shallow open-
      cut method:

      1.   No cost has been assigned for the more than
          13,000 feet of emergency overflows.

      2.   O&M costs are understated at $864,000.

      3.   Has equipment replacement been considered in
          the cost analysis of the pump stations?

      4.   The cost analysis does not include back-up
          diesel generators and the associated costs of
          O&M and equipment replacement.
                             2.7.

-------
                          - 7 -



2-19. The impacts of emergency outfalls on the receiving
      water from the eight pumping stations in the West
      Branch System are not presented in the report.

      The tunnel alternate does provide additional
      environmental benefits and is not required to have
      any emergency overflow except for Kreischer Street
      P.S.  The reason that EPA said that this alternative
      was priced at twice the shallow cut alternative was
      because the cost analysis omitted certain components
      (emergency overflows, equipment replacement, etc.)
      and significantly underestimated O&M costs.  As
      shown previously, the gravity system is cost-
      effective.

2-22. The usual voluminus facility report that EPA
      requires from NYC is accomplished in one paragraph
      for the Tottenville Plant.

2-23. The sizes of sewers and pump stations listed for
      the FK-24 and 25 system do not agree with those given
      in the FONSI (App. A) and Table B-l.

2-26. The assimilative capacity of the Kill Van Kull has
      not been analyzed to allow the recommendation of
      discharging additional flow through the Port Richmond
      Plant rather than to Lower Bay, through the Oakwood
      Beach Plant.

2-27. The impacts of reopening the force main route
      through local streets  has not been addressed.

2-28. The population cannot be assumed to be spread pro-
      portionately by area.

3-34. The population for South Richmond has been backed
      into by taking the total figure for Staten Island
      and subtracting the Port Richmond population and
      the existing populations in Heartlands and the East
      Branch area.  Nowhere in the report are these new
      populations broken down into drainage areas and
      applied to the design of the pipe system.

4-8.   The statement "The Amboy Road north & south arterial
      should provide a satisfactory alternate route during
      construction" shows that the preparer has never
      driven on Amboy Road.

-------
     4-9.    Stating that a proposed Tottenville treatment
            facility would not adversely affe'ct the estur
            arine ecosystems because of the adequacy  of
            the secondary treatment levels, disinfection
            methods, and dilution rates is inadequate since
            no water quality analyses have been done.

     4-10.  "An emergency discharge...would have adverse
            effects on the shallow waters and sediment...
            and on the tidal flats."  If so, then why
            recommend additional discharges?

     4-12.  Land-use - this section cannot be finalized
            until detailed site selection and damage map
            surveys are completed.  The City's Uniform Land
            Use Review Procedure will be a problem for the
            pump station sites because their impact has not
            been evaluated.

     4-17.  The statement "it is apparent, however, that
            the flooding and runoff problems in the area
            will continue whether or not the proposed
            Oakwood Beach project is implemented" is nieve
            and it disregards the common knowledge of the
            relationship between the construction of storm
            and sanitary drainage systems and their dependence
            on interceptors.

     4-29.  "Grant conditions will be used to restrict sewer
            hook-ups...."  As stated earlier, this might not
            be possible legally since this could be viewed
            as a taking.


Appendix F. is a population forecast which again is extremely
            detailed and we leave it to the planning officials
            to comment on it except for the statement on
            Page F-15 "the zoning changes upon which the
            New York City DWR projection is based are not in
            accordance with the planned growth in the area nor
            are they likely in the opinion of planning officials
            and professionals."  Ask those same officials about
            the Waterside, Battery Park City, Starrett City, and
            Co-op City developments which took place in other
            parts of the City.

-------
                              — 9 —
    In summary, this EIS covers some of the areas of concern
raised by EPA when they reviewed our original EAS.   However,
new areas of environmental impact such as the affect of 13
pumping stations being constructed in private property, the
affect of their outfalls into shellfish waters, and the affects
of open cut interceptors construction in Hylan Boulevard have
been raised.  This proposed plan appears to be neither environ-
mentally sound nor cost-effective.  In addition, it places a
burden upon the City to operate pumping stations in perpetuity
rather than gravity systems which we would recommend.

    We therefore request a Final EIS within 60 days and grant
approvals as soon as possible so that the issues raised can be
resolved.

                                     Very truly yours,
                                     FRANCIS X.  McARDLl
                                        Commissioner
                                3o.

-------
        The preparation of a document of the size of this draft dated December



1980, takes full time and must be put together with haste.  This document has



been drawn out over at least a two year period.  There are many proposals that



are indeed a "faire accomplai".




        Slight increases of poor air quality is not a bargin.  We now have



very poor air quality, to decrease this any more would effect many lives.




        There are no to date impact studies.  The proposed draft states (page



iii) "This action could lightly increase the estimated annual charge of the




new facilities".  This is prejudicial, since there are commercial customers  in



the area.  The impacts of the floodplains, wetlands and costal area's are pi-



ecemeal.  There is a problem with building a pumping station in any portion  of



a wetland or near one.



        There is no problem with a one plant system, providing the inceptors



are stratigically placed and so not hinder our coastal or wetland areas.   Ar-




thur Kill indeed needs an inceptor, but you seem to be putting the horse  be-




fore the cart here.



        Sewers are indeed a necissity to eliminate the constant, more than nor-



mal over saturation causing more ground water.  The price of decreases in air




quality, pond and stream levels decreasing, even drying up totally, leaves a




poor plan look even weaker.  To have water carried off safely to a treatment



plant with no adverse environmental effects on wetlands and natural waterways




is satisfactory.



        Oakwood treatment plant has been expanded and upgraded once.  To expand




and upgrade it again and still maintain it as secondart treatment, leaves me a




little unsatisfied.  If we again plan on more expansion and upgrade it to great




capacities for more gallons per diem, we must consider tertiary treatment, there-



by utilizing the effluent for one fertilizer and two, the outflow - water for em-

-------
ergency usage to wa.   our grasslands.  The private trt  ^ent plants, leave



the water - potable, therefore it changes the coloreform balance in wet-



lands, that is why we must be careful where these plants discharge.



        The new force main following the path of the sludge line and not



providing sewers for the area in Richmondtown along Clarke Avenue area, is



a waste.  There is an alternate route for this, as has been proposed by Phil



Iskowitz.  However, if either plan doesn't provide the much needed sewers



for the Richmondtown area, a block for either plan could be formulated.



        Outfalls near existing waterways to be used in a power failure or



breakdown, is not acceptable.  It would not be something we could be assured



wouldn't upset the balance of the controlled food chain now present in these



waterways.  There is no way we could allow an inbalance to take place.   Our



waters have begun to be clean enough for bathers, and chemically balanced for



the food chain to continue to feed fishes, hatcheries and migratory birds.



Pumping stations near any outlet wetland, stream or floodplain, is instant



disaster for our environment.



        (page Xiii) There are no provisions or guarentees for surviliance.



Building is a necessary factor on S.I., especially in the South Shore.   How-



ever, there are many who build disregarding the wetland designation and needs



and when caught and fined "will be sorry", but, all after, the damage is done,



so it cannot be undone.  Therefore, if building is to go on, there must be a



watchdog to ensure and govern the proper building of sewage disposal.  Until



this is guarenteed, we must protect the environment as best we can.



        Since there are no rules or regulations set aside to ensure proper



building of schools by private builders, we must build to satisfy the present



available school seats or the city, state and federal governments must get to-



gether to: A) provide more schools or school seats or, B) set guidelines for a



builder/developer to build a school whereby the government will take over to



operate it as a public educational facility when the project is finished.



Therefore, this will give the builder/developer some abatement for his coop-

-------
eration.  This will also create building with family's  in mind.  This type of



building will highlight the South Richmond Plan.   The maintainence would be



up to the builder not the city or the state,  but  they would have to  go by



city (and or) state regulations.



        The complexity of a builder building  a school to satisfy city and



state regulation will be costly and require experts  in  that field.   Your av-



erage builder is looking for financial gain/return,  not charitable grants to



apease and appeal to the general public.  To  assist  the builder tax  abatements



could be scheduled on a scale to decrease each year  until governmental take-



over.  This could satisfy the builder, the public and the city/state.

-------
        Water Tunnel ft-6 is an almost complete project.  Again this  document has

a proposed Tunnel #3» where it is a fact that we should be  talking  about  pre-

sent and future 2000 proposals and not 1980-1982 proposals  that  are realities.

        Water pressure on the South Shore has been in the past a hazard,  and

now in the future, we must be careful to insure that this doesn't happen.   The

entire South Richmond could be demolished, or better yet, abolished if water

pressure sees a low as it did in 1963-196!*.

        There have been impact studies done throughout  the  state on how chem-

icals, gases and bacteria travel.  We have yet to trace our garbage dump  effect

on:  A) Our water quality
     B) Our air quality
     C) Our wetlands and foodchains
     D) Our sewer systems

        It has been proven that certain gases have followed sewer lines and cr-

eated residential problems in air quality.  We must find out what impact  the city

dump has on the surrounding area and what the chemical  and  gaseous  effect  it has

on the area and what it will do environmentally.

        The topography is always in a changing status and there  has been  no re-

cent topography reports on any of the South Richmond area where  sewers, incept-

ors or pump stations are going.  You are out dated by four  years.

        There are many private treatment plants spotted all along in the  South

Richmond area.  To continue to allow these would only indinate our  area with

over production under manned facilities.  The N.Y. law  on Septic tanks sought

to eliminate the oversaturation of oversaturated land.  There is however,  no

impact study available to see how many private plants are fully  functioning and

how many septic tanks (in 10,000 sq.ft.) really work to built capacity.

        The Richmond Hill pump station does call some of our past officials liars.

Their claim to why Richmontown couldn't feisably have sewers was that,"They could-

n't pump uphill and they couldn't put a pump station to do  it in this  area".

This seems to be contridicted by the fact that Richmond Hill pump station and

Eltingville pump stations will be constructed to carry  the  waste from the Fresh

-------
Kills inteceptor.  '±, ^se a Gauffer Data outset from tht   .wood treatment pl-

ant would explain how to eliminate dumping at sea.  Especially if Oakwood was

upgraded from secondary to tertiary.

        Figures can and do mislead.  I'm sure you're intent on Page 2-2, was

to show where the wastevater now treated at the Oakwood plant cones from.  But,
   t
in reality, your figures were off.  For a general idea it is acceptable how-

ever factually, to upgrade or expand the treatment plant I feel updated records

of exact figures should be submitted.  I also feel the explanation of domestic,

industrial, commercial and public is hazardous.  Also infiltration.  The explan-

ation of this is necessary.  If you are reffering to ground water, from where

are we getting it?  From the outlying wetlands?  Public does this reference mean

from honey trucks or the general public trucking their waste and if so, who

gave them permits?

        My figures give a difference of 3 to 500 cubic meters daily, under what

is estimated as an average.  The daily flow of unsewered, also is over by 2 to

300 cubic meters daily.  The plants capacity is not mentioned.  However, 1^50

million gallons per day is the plants capacity.  The maximum amount of effluent

handled per day is 25 to 30 million.  Therefore, I feel the possibility of out-

dated figures being placed in this draft leaves a question in my mind as to the

validity of this whole draft. The further upgrading of the plant would depend

on the overall capacity of the plants ability to handle the present amount of

waste water and what the present amount of effluent is.  The excess building of

private treatment plants with the future take over, will generate at least

2,200,000 gallons more per day to the plant if this plan is acceptable.  There-

fore, I feel the overall amount of waste water, treated water and effluent has

not been properly evaluated.

        The second stage expansion if applies, has a potential of 80 million gal-

lons.  The upgrading from secondary to tertiary with a Gauffer Dam, was considered

and the overall costs would be profitable.  I feel, since no update impact study

to date has been done, and since there is a discrepency in the figures, I would

-------
insist another look oe taken at this portion of the draft.   It is unacceptable



at this time as it stands.  The report by Kassner however, was done  in 1975 and



I feel so much has been done since this report in depth is antiquated and def-



initly needs revision.



        The amount of ground water and daily flow,  no where  mentions the  amoun-



ts 'generated in a ten year storm.  The L.P.C.D.  (liters per  capata daily) given,



is from 1971 to 1975.  This also included two of our driest  years.   This  is not



a good full projected figure flow.  It is to be accepted if  accompanied by ten



year storm figure flows and normal flows.  Water supplies have changed since 1975.



One was the expansion of Silver Lake and then recently  the dryness of the Water



Sheds.  Occasional changes should be recorded of intake as well as outflow,  for



an even evaluation of remaining balances of ground  water and over usage of dom-



estic, industrial or commercial water.



        Treatment at the plant is designed to be secondary,  unless there  is  add-



itional overflow.  The 227,000 c/m/d 60 M.G.D.,  can only be  given primary treat-



ment.  I feel there is no guarentee in an emergency situation  where  excess waste



and ground water would arise only primary treatment may be given.  This is not



acceptable.  Some form of emergency backup must  be  formulated.



        Drying beds may be used, but since the sludge line is  complete, and the



capital budget was alotted for the leg to go to the dumps, I suggest a controlled



plant be built on the site to extract methane gas and any other compounds needed



from the sludge that can and will be deposited here.



        Unsewered areas have a problem of their own. The NYCDH's recommendation



in 1971^1976, realizes the problem both with excessive  amounts of oversaturated



areas but the potential health hazard unsewered areas are having.  Many factors



cause this, but, the only feisable solution is sewers.   However,  there is a sit-



uation that dies cause problems and adds to the already saturated areas.   That is



the recent over-building with little regard for water courses, streams, existing



culverts and natural drainoffs.  The builders that close up  culverts are  not made



to open them.  The builders that close waterways or streams  are not  made  to do any-

-------
thing.  The law states they must divert them, but who enforces these laws.  The

problem is lack of checks and balances.  Building is fine and I'm sure needed, but

sewers are needed to rectify the problems not only caused by nature but by man

as well.  Until sewers are built, I would suggest a more careful check of areas

in problem areas.  Now when a builder applies for a permit to build, just check

to assure no more water backup will occur by filled in streams or existing cul-

verts or catch basins.  Financial penalties to a builder doesn't help.  He just

passes it off as a loss.  But to be made to direct or reroute said streams, cul-

verts or catch basins, would make them more aware of the problems and save the

surrounding residents undue hardships.

        Unless the E.P.A. doesn't consider High Rock and Davis Wildlife potable

water, they are not correct in stating there are no potable wells ofl S.I..

        Other states utilize the refiltered water or recycled waste water.- .They

can spray the highways with it.  Unfortunatly, New York has a way of coming in

last with ways to recycle things.  First of all, more buisnesses are guilty of

wasting water than residents.  If we were to check one area alone, check car

washes.  Many in N.J. and Conn., must use recycled water.  But lastly, check your

public toilets.  Water in faucets drip, toilets run many times, a bushing seat or

washer is «.n that is needed.  In N.Y. alone, I complained for two months of a

faucet that constantly ran.  Finally, when I called the mayors office it was fixed.

        The one or two plant system, with the sludge line having a leg to the city

dump, is a good plan.  However, in light of the fact that legislature was passed

to stop dumping at sea by 198l> I feel a few factors could be considered to make

this plan overall successful, beneficial and financially acceptable:

A) A larger improvement for at least secondary treatment to be used in emergencies
   only.

B) The leg of the sludge line to the city dump is fine but, only sludge should be
   executed to this area.

C) A final treatment be it a 3 stage or 2, but removal of all sludge and impur-
   ities R.nr? -notable or close to potable water remain.

D) Emergencies have either secondart treatment, then be placed in a holding tank
   or, treated and sludge separated and discharged to the dump or placed in drying
   beds.

-------
E) The treatment plant at Oakwood, if tertiary treatment was  used,  a Gauffer Dam
   could carry the effluent to the sea and not pollute it if  its  secreted prop-
   erly and it will not imbalance the sea or fishing area.

        The area surrounding the Kill Van Kull is slowly going downhill,  the st-

andard set dies not desigrj.te a definite percentage  of pollution  now present and

constantly being added.  There is no monitoring of this and no agency or  inspect-

ors to enforce this.  An impact study was made of this area in 1975 and now  that

revealls revitalization of certain portions of this  area are  underway, some  form

of regulations and follow ups should be instituted.

        Topography of the area in South Richmond. The topography plays a very

important part in the sewers as well as in the development  of the area.   The top-

ography in the coastal area changes more rapidly than it does inland.  If a  plant

or inteceptor with an overflow was proposed three years ago,  and  the outflow was

planned to discharge at a certain point, you better  recheck this.   The original

plan I'm sure had many coastal as well as inland changes including  ground swells

have taken place.

        Tidal flats, changing tides and unquestionable varities of  changes in the

expelling areas around proposed treatment plants and outfalls from  inteceptors  will

carry the outfall back to the shore creating: A} Contamination of beaches
                                              B) Pollution  of wetalnds
                                              C) Unbalancing  of the natural  food chain
                                              D) Destruction  or contamination of
                                                 fisheries.

        There are a number of things that could be considered to  insure the  least

destruction possible over a long term period, none as costly  as devestation  of  bea-

ches, fisheries, wetlands or the natural food chain.

        The Lemon Creek area as well as Blue Heron Pond, have special bird mig-

ration, fish, clams, crabs that need a balance in the food chain  to survive, all of

which must not be disturbed.  The flora and fauna that inhabit these areas must not

be disturbed in any way.  The Purple Martin colony at Lemon Creek has been un-

disturbed for years.  The first count started in the early thirties and  it would be

a shame to disturb these birds since the next colony on record is in the  Wildwood

area.  The Wolfs Pond area may be in danger if the berm separating the freshwater
                                    39.

-------
ecosystem and the saline Raritan Bay is destroyed.  This should be reinforced to


assure it doesn't happen.  The astitic beauty here, aside from the ecological and


environmental balance, should receive special consideration as it is a part of


the South Richmond plan to ignore this foulhardiness.


        The planned draft is mainly concerned with severs, yet, the Arthur Kill

   i
prison building in the special district area of South Richmond, school seats are


ftii mentioned.  I feel this was a waste.  There are many alternatives proposed


that will cost less, effect less property and help more people dispose of waste.


An improved draft could be formulated by three people who attended the hearing.


In the best interest of the taxpayer, South Richmond and the federal government,


I suggest you consolidate the previously proposed changes made by myself, Phil


Iskowitz and the engineer/architect who attended the hearing.  I would appreciate


your final draft and any correspondence concerning our areas.  Any questions,


you may have pertaining to this, you may contact me at; 212-^32-1160 days.
                                                        Submitted
                                                        Rita Wangenstein

-------
            United States Department of the Interior

                         OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                             Northeast  Region
                             15 State   Street
                        Boston, Massachusetts 02109


ER-81/47?                                    April 14,  1981 „    ^      S
                                                               CT>    — '      "*^
Dr. Richard T.  Dewling
Acting Regional  Administrator                                  £>s    ro
Environmental Protection  Agency
26 Federal Plaza                                              ^    ^   \-^  ™
New York, New York  10278                                       g    "^   "   S
                                                               -Si     ««•      —*
                                                               3    eo      35
Dear Dr. Dewling:                                               r            ~ac

The Department of  the Interior  has  reviewed the draft environmental
statement for Phase III  and  Future  Phases of the Oakwood Beach Water
Pollution Control  Project, Staten Island, New York, and offer the
following comments for your  consideration.

                          General  Comments

The document contains an adequate evaluation of project alternatives and
generally describes anticipated project-related impacts.  Based on the
information provided, we would  concur with the recommended plan and
proposed mitigative measures.   However, site specific information is
insufficient to determine specific  measures which may be needed to
further minimize project-related impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

We suggest that the proposed plan include provisions for the disposal  of
septic-tank systems abandoned following activation of the wastewater
control projects.   Such  measures would minimize the potential for any
long-term migration of hazardous substances to ground- and surface-water
sources.

                          Specific Comments

Page xi, paragraph 1 - The Fish and Wildlife Service would appreciate
the opportunity to review plans for the proposed emergency bypass outfalls
as early as possible to  maintain continued coordination on this aspect
of the project.

Page 4-3, paragraphs 1-3 - We note  that details of construction involving
interceptors, force mains, and  pump stations in or adjacent to aquatic
habitats have not  been described sufficiently for us to assess site

-------
specific project-related impacts on fish and wildlife resources.  More
detailed site descriptions should be developed so that the extent of
project effects on surface waters and wetlands can be more clearly
determined.

                           Summary Comments

Fish and Wildlife Resources

The statement lacks a discussion of other interrelated Federal actions
(i.e., the requirement for permits) and evaluation of how these actions
may affect fish and wildlife resources.  Accordingly, these comments do
not preclude separate evaluation and comments by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), if project implementation
requires a permit from the U.S. Coast Guard and/or the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended
(P.L. 92-500).

If permits are required, in reviewing the application the Fish and
Wildlife Service may concur, with or without stipulations, or recommend
denial depending on the effects on fish and wildlife resources.  It
would appear that the Fish and Wildlife Service would not oppose issuance
of any permits for this project provided they contain conditions to
minimize adverse project-caused impacts to fish and wildlife including
restoration of important habitat areas.

The Fish and Wildlife Service wishes to continue working with the project
sponsors and is willing to meet, if necessary, to insure continued coor-
dination on this project.  Requests for technical assistance on fish and
wildlife matters may be directed to the Field Supervisor, Ecological
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 100 Grange Place, Cortland, New
York  13045 (FTS 882-4246).

Recreational Resources

As noted in the draft environmental statement, the construction of the
interceptor sewer system will require one hundred hectares of private
property easements, parklands, and the base of mapped streets (4-12).
All but two hectares are to be returned to their original use.  Any
recreational lands disturbed by this project should be restored to
preproject status through landscaping and replacement of land if necessary
The plans for mitigation and landscaping should be addressed in the final
environmental statement as should the location of the two hectares
impacted.
                                     II-

-------
The development project at Claypit Ponds State Park (3-2) has been found
eligible by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service for funding
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (Project #36-00959F).  The
project is currently pending approval subject to the release of funds by
the Department of the Interior.   If the interceptor line is located
within the roadway, as appears to be the situation, Claypit Ponds State
Park should not be impacted.t However, should the final  design require
land from the park or create secondary impacts which constitute use of
the park, Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) Act
should be addressed.

Section 6(f) of the L&WCF Act states:

     No property acquired or development with assistance under
     this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary,
     be converted to other than  public outdoor recreation uses.
     The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds
     it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive
     statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions
     as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other
     recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and
     of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.

Any involvements with L&WCF lands require that the replacement provisions
of Section 6(f) be addressed.  Lands substituted must be of at least
fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.
In the event that Section 6(f) does apply to the project, we recommend
that the Environmental Protection Agency contact the State Liaison
Officer regarding evitable replacement lands.  The State Liaison Officer
for New York is Mr. Orin Lehman, Commissioner, Parks and Recreation,
Agency Building #1, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York  12238.

Any proposed conversion of properties associated with the park also
requires the approval of the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
as delegated by the Secretary of the Interior.  Technical assistance on
this project is available from the Regional  Director, Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service, Northeast Region, 600 Arch Street, Federal Building,
Room 9310, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19106.

                                   Sincerely,
                                   William Patterson
                                   Regional  Environmental  Officer

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------