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
------- |