chapter 15: natural resources - mtaweb.mta.info/capital/fc_docs/feis/chapters/ch15.pdfnatural...

MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

October 2004 15.0 Natural Resources 15-1

CHAPTER 15: NATURAL RESOURCES

15.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses natural resources that may be affected by the construction and operation of the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC). Section 15.2 defines the study area, while Section 15.3 outlines the analysis methodologies. Section 15.4 characterizes the present condition of various natural resources in the study area and Section 15.5 describes the impact of the project alternatives upon the natural resources in the study area. Natural resources evaluated include geology and soil composition, groundwater levels, surface water quality, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife habitats. 15.1.1 CONTEXT AND KEY ISSUES

The proposed location of the FSTC is within an urban area with very limited natural resources. The events of September 11 did not substantially affect these resources. Changes in natural resource conditions as a result of September 11 were limited to the loss of minor areas of amenity landscaping within the World Trade Center (WTC) site, and the temporary use of water from the Hudson River during emergency operations at the WTC site. These changes in natural resource conditions within the study area (see Section 15.2) are considered to be minimal and would not be expected to have any substantial effect on natural resources or wildlife. The analysis of potential natural resources impacts therefore evaluates the construction (2005/2006) and operation (2008 and 2025) of the FSTC against future conditions without the FSTC, and does not account for the pre-September 11 reference condition, used to evaluate resource categories substantially affected by the events of September 11. Further details of the pre-September 11 reference condition are provided in Chapter 2: Analysis Framework. 15.1.2 CONCLUSIONS

Under the No Action Alternative, the FSTC would not be built and no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur. The Existing Complex would remain as is with the exception of routine maintenance and repairs. By 2006, several large-scale development projects in the study area are expected to be under construction in Lower Manhattan under the No Action Alternative (see Chapter 2: Analysis Framework for list of projects). These projects are not expected to impact existing natural resources. Construction of the FSTC under both Alternative 9 and Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative, would not result in any substantial impacts on natural resources. Potential impacts would be mitigated and controlled through a Construction Environmental Protection Program (CEPP). The State protected peregrine falcon, although present within the vicinity of the FSTC, would also not be adversely impacted by construction. The initial and full operation of FSTC (in 2008 and 2025) would alleviate pedestrian and commuter congestion in the study area without any adverse impacts on natural resources, and would make a positive contribution to the revitalization of Lower Manhattan. Table 15-1 presents a summary of potential environmental impacts on natural resources associated with the construction and operation of the FSTC. 15.2 STUDY AREA The study area for the analysis of natural resource impacts comprises the area of the FSTC (see Chapter 1: Purpose and Need) and the surrounding area of Lower Manhattan from the Hudson River in the west to the East River in the east. The northern limit of the study area is Chambers Street (Figure 15-1: Study Area, as defined in Chapter 2: Analysis Framework).



Table 15-1

Summary of Comparison of Alternatives: Natural Resources

2005/2006

(Construction) Planned Action

(for 2005/2006 Impact)

2008 (Initial Operation)

2025

(Full Operation)

No Action No impacts N/A As 2005/2006 Same as 2008

Alternative 9

No impacts on geology,

groundwater, terrestrial habitat or aquatic habitat.

Construction practices will minimize suspended solids in construction site drainage

and ground water drawdown.

Beneficial public transit project with

no adverse operational

impacts.

Same as 2008

Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative

As Alternative 9 As Alternative 9 As Alternative 9 Same as 2008

Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004. 15.3 METHODOLOGY

15.3.1 DATA SOURCES AND AGENCY COORDINATION

Available and pre-existing data were used to describe the geology, ecology, floodplains, wetlands, groundwater, surface water and aquatic biota in the study area. This data included:

• Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and New York City Transit (NYCT) records, published reports, articles, and maps from scientific literature and Federal and State agencies that regulate natural resources;

• Unpublished data, previous private and public studies (Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Environmental Assessments) relevant to the study area; and,

• Personal communications, such as telephone conversations, meetings and written consultations with resource agencies.

Federal, State and City agencies were consulted via written inquiries, meetings and telephone conversations throughout the analysis to confirm the presence, status and condition of the ecology, wetlands, groundwater, surface water and biota in the study area. The agencies contacted include:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC); • New York State Department of State (NYSDOS); and, • New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP).

These agencies were also invited to participate within the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the FSTC. Further details of the structure and function of the TAC are provided in Chapter 5: Public Outreach. A site reconnaissance to confirm the findings of the data consultations was conducted in April 2003 by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. This confirmed the extremely limited presence of potentially impacted natural resources (surface water, terrestrial ecology, floodplains, etc.) in the study area, as indicated by initial consultations with resource agencies. Copies of communications received from resource agencies are provided in Appendix K.

NHUDSO

RIVER

EASTRIVER

RIVERTER

NORTHENDAV

CHAMBERSST

READEST

PARK R

OW

BOWERY

DIVISION ST

E BROADWAY

ALLENST

DELANCY ST

HENRY ST

BROOKLYN

BRIDGE

MANHATTANBRIDGE

FDRDR

BARCLAYST

PARKPL

WARREN

STMURRAY

ST

CHURCHST

BROADWAY

STATEST

WHITEHALLST

WATERST

FRONTST

STJAMES' PL

PEARLST

PINEST

WALL

STEXCHANGE PL

BEAVER ST

NEWST

LWILIAMST

GOLDST

CLIFF

ST

NASSAUST

GREENWICHST

RECTOR ST

WTHAMES ST

BATTERYPL

SOUTHENDAV

CEDARST

CARLISLE ST

GREENWICHST

HUDSONST

VARICKST

WBROADWAY

MAIDENLA

LIBERTY ST

FULTONST

SPRUCEST

BEEKMANST

ANNST

FULTONST

JOHNST

WORTH

ST

WHITE

ST

FRANKLINSTLEONARD

ST

WALKER

ST

LISPENARDST

CANALST

HESTER ST

BROOME STN MOORE ST

DUANEST

CENTREST

LAFAYETTEST

PEARLST

ELDRIDGEST

SPRINGST

THOMPSONST

SULLIVANST

AVOFAMERICAS

SPRING ST

WASHINGTONST

WESTST

E HOUSTON ST

MOTTST

ELIZABETHST

MULBERRYST

LAFAYETTEST

MERCERST

CROSBYST

PRINCEST

VANDAM ST

VESTRY ST

LAIGHT ST

BEACH ST

HARRISON ST

GRANDST

WATTS STDESBROSSES ST

CHRYSTIEST

FORSYTHEST

BAYARD ST

PELL ST

BAXTERST

HOWARD

ST

CATHERINEST

MARKETST

BOWERY

WOOSTERST

GREENEST

BROADWAY

BROADST

OLDSLIP

GOUVERNEURLA

STONE ST

THOMASST

BEEKMANST

PECKSL

DOVERSST

FLETCHERST

SOUTHST

MONROEST

PIKEST

WESTST

FRANKFORTST

BATTERY PL

BROOKLYN

BATTERYTUNNEL

r

500 0 500 Feet

Fulton Street Transit Center

Figure 15-1

Natural ResourcesStudy Area

Legend

ApproximateProject Location

Study Area

Sources: NYC DoITT Landbase; NYC DCP

,.



15.3.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

The FSTC would comply with all applicable regulations and executive orders concerning protection of natural resources. Regulations pertaining to the natural resources include the following:

• The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. §§1241, 1344; 33 C.F.R. §§320-330; ECL Articles 15, • 17; 6 NYCRR §608); • The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544; 50 C.F.R. Part 402); • The Coastal Zone Management Act; Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.; 15

C.F.R. Part 930) (see Chapter 18: Coastal Zone); • Floodplains (New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 36; 6 NYCRR

§502; Department of Transportation Executive Order 11988 of 1977); • Tidal Wetlands (ECL Article 25; 6 NYCRR Part 661; Department of Transportation Executive

Orders 11990); and, • State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) (ECL §17-0801 et seq.; 6 NYCRR Part

751).

15.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

15.4.1 GEOLOGY

The geology of the study area consists of surficial, unconsolidated deposits of the Holocene and Pleistocene Epochs that overlie Early to Middle Cambrian crystalline bedrock. The general soil profile includes a stratum of fill underlain by Glacial Sand, Varved Silt, Glacial Till and Bedrock. Based on historic land maps, the project site is within the limits of the original shorelines of Manhattan Island. Therefore, the presence of organic soil deposits may be discontinuous and infrequent. Surficial Geology Surficial deposits in the study area consist of Holocene deposits overlying sediments associated with the most recent glacial advance in the region – Upper Pleistocene glaciers of the Wisconsin stage. The study area was subjected to multiple stages of glaciation during the Pleistocene Epoch and Wisconsin Glacial Age, which occurred approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. The advance and retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet deposited a variety of sediments over the bedrock in the study area. These unconsolidated formations are primarily comprised of ground moraine (till) and, in some areas, stratified glacial drift deposits. Soil boring logs provided by NYCT and data developed during Preliminary Engineering reveal that ground moraine, boulder zones, sand and gravel, and clay deposits overlie bedrock in the study area. The expected Glacial Sand stratum underlying the fill is a glacial lake deposit and typically consists of fine sands and silts. It may range in thickness from 25 to 50 feet, extending to a maximum depth of 70 feet below grade. Subsequent to glaciation, a tidal marsh depositional environment resulted in the deposition of organic silts, clays and sands overlying glacial sediments. This tidal marsh material may include peat and plant matter. As early as the 1700s, the native tidal marshes in the region were systematically filled for purposes of urban development. The study area is, therefore, expected to include areas of artificial fill, underlying impervious surfaces such as concrete and asphalt. Soil boring logs reveal that soils beneath the study area consist of fill material and glacial deposits. The fill ranges in thickness from 0 to 20 feet and is characterized as containing sand, silt, clay, gravel, stone, macadam, “river mud,” ash, cinders and brick. Bedrock Geology In the study area, crystalline bedrock is present approximately 70 to 100 feet below grade and consists of Manhattan Schist autochthonous member C, which is Early to Middle Cambrian in age. The Manhattan



Schist is a gray, medium- to coarse-grained, layered schist and thin-banded gneiss that has been severely crumpled and folded and shows a marked foliation. Some foliation surfaces have lustrous white mica (Baskerville, 1989 and Perlmutter, 1953). Structural elements in the formation include joints, irregular fractures, and faults (Perlmutter, 1953). Soils Most of the ground cover in the study area is classified as urban land, consisting of fill material and impervious surfaces. Natural soils underlying fill and impervious surfaces are derived from the glacial overburden. 15.4.2 FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS

As indicated in Figure 15-2, the FSTC is located within Zone C on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (FEMA, 1983), which represents areas of minimal flooding. This lies outside of any designated FEMA floodplains. The nearest zones of 100-year and 500-year designated floodplains (Zone A and B, respectively) are approximately two (2) city blocks in both east/west directions outside of the boundary of the FSTC. Similarly, the FSTC is not located on or near designated freshwater wetlands, as determined by review of the NYSDEC freshwater wetland maps, which indicate freshwater wetlands which are regulated under the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). There are no designated freshwater wetlands in the study area. The FSTC also does not lie within or close to any tidal wetlands, although tidal wetlands do occur in the study area. These wetlands are associated with the Hudson and East Rivers. Portions of these rivers are designated as tidal wetlands under New York State’s ECL and are subject to the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC. Regulated tidal wetlands also include a 150-foot adjacent area, also regulated by NYSDEC under the ECL. The FSTC is located more than 1000 feet beyond the boundaries of the regulated tidal wetlands and adjacent areas of the Hudson and East River. 15.4.3 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER

Groundwater Groundwater within the study area is found in unconsolidated sediments and in voids that may be present in bedrock. In Manhattan, groundwater is found in fractured bedrock and in old stream channels and coastal deposits buried beneath artificial fill. The glacial till is relatively impermeable. Fresh groundwater found in the study area is classified by the NYSDEC as GA (New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700-706, revised March 1998), for which the best usage is as a source of potable water supply. Naturally occurring saline ground waters are classified as GSA or GSB depending on chloride and total dissolved solids concentrations. The best usages of Class GSA waters are as a source of potable mineral waters for conversion to fresh potable waters, or as raw material for the manufacture of sodium chloride, its derivatives, or similar products. The best usage of Class GSB waters is as receiving water for disposal of wastes. Groundwater in the vicinity of the FSTC is found at approximately 25 to 35 feet below grade. However, the existence of dewatered deep basements and subway tunnels within close proximity to the site may artificially lower the groundwater table. Although Manhattan’s groundwater is not used for potable supply, and non-potable use is limited, groundwater in the study area is classified as GA.

UT

PEARL S

Fulton Street Transit Center

Floodplains

Figure 15-2Sources: Landbase, NYC DoITT;NYC DCP Q3 Flood Data, FEMA, 1996.

Not to Scale

Legend

Inside 100-YearFloodplain

Inside 500-YearFloodplain

ApproximateProject Location

FEMA Flood Insurance

Rate (FIRM) Categories:*

ZONE EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS

A Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and floodhazard factors not determined.

C Areas of minimal flooding. (No shading)

D Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards.

AD Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are betweenone (1) and three (3) feet; average depths of inundation areshown, but no flood hazard factors are determined.

V Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined.

A99 Areas of 100-year flood to be protected by flood protectionsystem under construction; base flood elevations and floodhazard factors not determined.

B Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood;or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depthsless than one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area isless than one square mile; or areas protected by leveesfrom the base flood.

AH Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are betweenone (1) and three (3) feet; base flood elevations are shown, butno flood hazard factors are determined.

A1-A30 Area of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazardfactors determined.

V1-V30 Area of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined.

,.



Groundwater is recharged through precipitation percolating through the subsurface or from infiltration of surface water bodies. Limited percolation is expected, as the ground surface in the study area is paved or developed with impermeable materials such as asphalt and concrete, which cause precipitation runoff. St. Paul’s Church and Cemetery at the northwest corner of Broadway and Fulton Street is the only permeable surface adjacent to the project site, and therefore is the only site in the study area where groundwater recharge through percolation can occur. Although this site allows the greatest and nearest infiltration of rainwater to the FSTC site, runoff from the FSTC site would be intercepted by sewer catch basins prior to reaching St. Paul’s Church and Cemetery. Surface water recharge rates from the Hudson and East Rivers are expected to be high, due to soil conditions and proximity of the FSTC site to these bodies of water. The Hudson River is approximately 2000 feet from the west project limit and the East River is approximately 1600 feet from the east project limit. Groundwater movement between the project site and the rivers within the Fill and Sand strata is expected to be relatively unrestricted with the exception that groundwater must circumvent the WTC site. The permeability of the Fill, Sand and Varved Silt strata is expected to be greater horizontally than vertically. Surface Water and Quality Water quality summaries were obtained from the 2001 New York Harbor Water Quality Survey by the NYCDEP. The two waterbodies in the study area – the Hudson River and the East River – are components of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and New York City Harbor. New York City Harbor waters receive pollutant loadings from upstream sources, flooding tidal waters, stormwater runoff, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges and atmospheric deposition. The NYSDEC has established Water Quality Regulations (6 NYCRR Parts 700-706, effective March 1998) to protect the designated best usages of waters. Similarly, the Interstate Environmental Commission (IEC) has established best usages and water quality standards for the waterways included in the study area. 15.4.4 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

The study area comprises a densely developed urban environment that does not support any natural resources, with the exception of street trees, shrubs and amenity plants. Wildlife is limited to transient individuals of common avian species and urban species such as squirrels, rock doves and rats. The USFWS and NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program Database were contacted to identify any endangered, threatened, or special concern terrestrial species in the study area. Confirmation was received from these agencies that such species are not present in the study area (see Appendix K), with the exception of the state protected peregrine falcon, which was identified as present in the vicinity of the study area (Natural Heritage Database Inquiry, 2003). The same pair of falcons identified in the database was also observed nesting on the 14th floor of a 54 story building on Water Street, facing the Hudson River, in 1999. Confirmation of the presence of this pair has been obtained from NYSDEC (see Appendix K). This pair is still known to nest at this location, and can be observed via NYCDEP and NYSDEC internet cameras during spring and summer. 15.4.5 AQUATIC ECOLOGY

The East River is a 14-mile long tidal strait that connects Long Island Sound with New York Upper Bay and separates the western end of Long Island from the New York mainland to the Hudson River. The results of intense urban development along the East River have greatly changed the natural functions of the river, with faster water flow, greater tidal rises and falls, and longer sedimentary ranges than would occur in the natural state. As a result, many of the species inhabiting the river are tolerant of highly variable conditions. The river supports a diverse range of species, including invertebrates, fish and marine mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The Hudson River in Lower Manhattan is a tidal estuary which supports a variety of aquatic species. It has been designated by NYSDOS as a “significant fish and wildlife habitat”.



Like the East River, the results of intense urban development along the Hudson River have greatly changed the natural functions of the river, with faster water flow, greater tidal rises and falls, and longer sedimentary ranges than would occur in the natural state. As a result, many of the species inhabiting the river are tolerant of highly variable conditions. The Hudson River also supports a diverse range of species, including invertebrates, fish and marine mammals, reptiles and amphibians. 15.4.6 ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

Consultations with USFWS and NYSDEC indicated that there are no ecologically sensitive areas in the study area (see Appendix K). 15.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

15.5.1 INTRODUCTION

The assessment of potential impacts assumes that the FSTC would comply with applicable Federal, State and other regulations concerning the protection of natural resources. Relevant regulations include those which control impacts on surface water, floodplains, wetlands, groundwater, ecologically sensitive areas (including designated Essential Fish Habitat areas) and endangered species. 15.5.2 PRE-SEPTEMBER 11 REFERENCE CONDITION

For the purposes of the analysis, the existing conditions in 2003 with respect to natural resources were considered to be representative of conditions that existed prior to the events of September 11 (see Chapter 2: Analysis Framework). Based on a review of the conditions present in the study area prior to, and after, September 11, the events of September 11 were not considered to have substantively altered natural resources in the study area. Therefore, for natural resources, the future conditions with and without the FSTC were assessed against existing 2003 conditions, projected forward to each of the three analysis years. 15.5.3 ANALYSIS YEAR 2005/2006 (CONSTRUCTION)

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the FSTC would not be constructed. Minor maintenance and rehabilitation activities could occur, including typical station and transit infrastructure maintenance and repair. These activities would not have any impacts on natural resources. By 2006, several land use changes are expected to have occurred (see Chapter 7: Social and Economic Conditions) and several large-scale projects are expected to be under construction (see Chapter 2: Analysis Framework for full list of projects). None of the anticipated future developments or land use changes are expected to result in any changes in existing natural resource conditions, given the temporary nature of any potential construction impacts that could be associated with these projects. ALTERNATIVE 9

Under Alternative 9, the FSTC would be constructed as described in Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Activities. Potential impacts associated with Alternative 9 are described below. Geology And Soils Removal of bedrock and soil during the construction processes would not substantively alter the underlying geology or soils in the study area. No adverse impacts on geology are anticipated as a result of the construction of this alternative.



Although this alternative would result in the temporary exposure of soil during construction, appropriate erosion and run off prevention measures, pursuant to the CEPP (see Appendix C) would be implemented by the Contractor to prevent adverse environmental impacts, and construction work would be performed in accordance with the “New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control” published by the Empire State Soil and Water Conservation Society. The erosion and run off prevention measures would include the use of hay bales and/or silt screens to capture run off prior to entering sewer catch basins, grading exposed soils on the project site away from the perimeter, and covering exposed soil with gravel or other materials to limit run off. Floodplains And Wetlands Changes to the existing ground levels at the FSTC are not expected. As the FSTC is outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains, no adverse impacts to floodplains, increased flooding, or wetlands impacts are anticipated. Groundwater Although groundwater in the study area is classified as potable water by NYSDEC, groundwater in Manhattan is not used as potable water and would not be adversely affected by construction of the FSTC. Dewatering of excavations during construction of the FSTC may be performed; however, these would be of limited duration and localized. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that during construction the Contractor, pursuant to the requirements of the CEPP, would be responsible for prevention of groundwater draw-down, or the mitigation of its adverse effects. The Contractor would limit the draw-down of groundwater in the vicinity of the project site during excavation through the selection of shoring or sheeting methods that limit the influx of groundwater into the excavation. If localized groundwater draw-down would occur, and have the potential to result in the settlement of structures, the Contractor would perform stabilization measures, such as injecting grout beneath the structure’s foundation, prior to dewatering. Prior to implementation, stabilization measures developed by a licensed professional engineer would be presented to the NYCT for review. The NYCT would notify the affected property owner prior to authorizing the Contractor to proceed. Once construction of this alternative is completed, groundwater levels and flow direction would return to the pre-construction state. Groundwater removed during the construction processes would be pumped to the municipal sewer system. A NYCDEP Sewer Discharge Permit would be obtained by the Contractor, pursuant to the requirements of the CEPP, prior to dewatering. Prior to discharging water to the sewer system, samples of the groundwater would be collected and treatment requirements, if necessary based on the laboratory results, would be determined. A permit application presenting the dewatering system and laboratory results would be presented to the NYCDEP for review and approval. NYCDEP approval of the permit would be secured prior to discharging to the municipal sewer system. The sampling and analyses required to obtain the permits are described in Chapter 16: Contaminated Materials and Waste Management. Surface Water Construction of this alternative would not impact surface water quality in the study area. There is no risk of overland flow from the construction site directly impacting the Hudson or East Rivers due to the distance of these waterbodies from the FSTC site. There is also no risk of indirect impacts on these waterbodies since runoff from the construction site will be controlled in accordance with “New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control” developed by the Empire State Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society (see Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Activities). A New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Construction is not required since the study area is serviced by combined sewers NYCT, in conjunction with Federal, State and City regulatory agencies, would develop measures to minimize temporary impacts on water quality, pursuant to the requirements of the CEPP, that would be implemented by the Contractor.



Terrestrial Ecology As the study area comprises an urban environment with no wildlife habitats or natural vegetation, no adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitats would occur as a result of construction of this alternative. Impacts on urban species would be temporary. The USFWS and NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program Database confirmed that there are no protected species in the study area (see Appendix K) that would be impacted by the proposed FSTC. The state protected peregrine falcon is present at a nesting location on Water Street (Natural Heritage Database Inquiry, 2003), but it is not considered that the construction of the FSTC would adversely affect the species, due to the distance of more than eight (8) City blocks between the area of construction of the FSTC and the nesting location. This is supported by information from May 2002 (Source: Second Avenue Subway SDEIS), which indicated that construction would not adversely affect peregrine falcons because they are accustomed to the intensive street level activity that already occurs throughout this area. This determination would be equally applicable to the construction of the FSTC. Confirmation has been provided by NYSDEC Regional Wildlife Manager (Appendix K) that the construction of the FSTC does not present any risk of adverse impacts on the species. Aquatic Ecology This alternative is not anticipated to cause any impacts on aquatic ecology, as construction activities would not affect aquatic species or habitats present in the study area. Due to the distance of the Hudson and East Rivers from the proposed site of the FSTC, there is no potential for environmental impacts on these waterbodies. NMFS has confirmed that the project would not affect any protected marine resources (Appendix K). Ecologically Sensitive Areas No Ecologically Sensitive Areas exist in the study area and, thus, there would be not be any adverse impacts on Ecologically Sensitive Areas as a result of the construction of this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 10 - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Under the Preferred Alternative, the FSTC would be constructed as described in Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Activities. Potential impacts would be the same as those associated with Alternative 9 and are described below. For the purpose of the analysis of natural resource impacts, there are no differences between either of the Build Alternatives. Geology and Soils Removal of bedrock and soil during the construction processes would not substantively alter the underlying geology or soils in the study area. No adverse impacts on geology are anticipated with implementation of the Preferred Alternative. Although the construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in the temporary exposure of soil during construction, appropriate erosion and run off prevention measures would be implemented by the Contractor, pursuant to the CEPP (Appendix C), to prevent adverse environmental impacts, and construction work would be performed in accordance with the “New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control” guidelines published by the Empire State Soil and Water Conservation Society (as used by NYSDEC). The erosion and run off prevention measures could include the use of the techniques such as: placement of hay bales and/or silt screens to capture run off prior to entering sewer catch basin;, grading exposed soils on the project site away from the perimeter; and, and covering exposed soil with gravel or other materials to limit run off.



Floodplains and Wetlands Changes to the existing ground levels at the FSTC are not expected. As the FSTC is outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains, no adverse impacts to floodplains, increased flooding or impacts on wetlands are anticipated. Groundwater Although groundwater in the study area is classified as potable water by NYSDEC, groundwater in Manhattan is not used as potable water and would not be adversely affected by construction of the FSTC. Dewatering of excavations during construction of the FSTC may be performed; however, these would be of limited duration and localized. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that during construction the Contractor, pursuant to the requirements of the CEPP, would be responsible for prevention of groundwater draw-down, or the mitigation of its adverse effects. The Contractor would limit the draw-down of groundwater in the vicinity of the project site during excavation through the selection of cut-off walls or sheeting methods that limit the influx of groundwater into the excavation. If localized groundwater draw-down would occur, and have the potential to result in the settlement of structures, the Contractor would perform stabilization measures, such as injecting grout beneath the structure’s foundation, prior to dewatering. Prior to implementation, stabilization measures developed by a licensed professional engineer would be presented to the NYCT for review. NYCT would notify the affected property owner prior to authorizing the Contractor to proceed. Once construction of this Alternative is completed, groundwater levels and flow direction would return to the pre-construction state. Groundwater removed during the construction processes would be pumped to the municipal sewer system. A NYCDEP Sewer Discharge Permit would be obtained by the contractor, pursuant to the requirements of the CEPP, prior to dewatering. Prior to discharging water to the sewer system, the contractor, pursuant to the CEPP, would collect samples of the groundwater and treatment requirements, if necessary based on the laboratory results, would be determined. A permit application presenting the dewatering system and laboratory results would be presented to the NYCDEP for review and approval. NYCDEP approval of the permit would be secured prior to discharging to the municipal sewer system. The sampling and analyses required to obtain the permits are described in Chapter 16: Contaminated Materials and Waste Management. Surface Water Construction of this alternative would not impact surface water quality in the study area. There is no risk of overland flow from the construction site directly impacting the Hudson or East Rivers due to the distance of these waterbodies from the FSTC site. There is also no risk of indirect impacts on these waterbodies since runoff from the construction site would be controlled in accordance with “New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control” developed by the Empire State Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society (see Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Activities). Any run off that potentially could occur (despite these precautionary measures) would be discharged via the City’s combined sewer and wastewater treatment system. A SPDES General Permit for Construction is not required since the study area is serviced by combined sewers. However, NYCT, in conjunction with Federal, State, and City regulatory agencies, would develop measures to minimize temporary impacts on water quality, and would implement these measures pursuant to the requirements of the CEPP, that would be implemented by the Contractor. Terrestrial Ecology As the study area comprises an urban environment with no wildlife habitats or natural vegetation, no adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitats would occur as a result of construction of this alternative. Impacts on urban species would be temporary. The USFWS and NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program Database confirmed that there are no protected species in the study area (see Appendix K) that would be impacted by the proposed FSTC. The state protected peregrine falcon is present at a nesting



location on Water Street (Natural Heritage Database Inquiry, 2003), but it is not considered that the construction of the FSTC would adversely affect the species, due to the distance of more than eight (8) City blocks between the area of construction of the FSTC and the nesting location. This is supported by information from May 2002 (Source: Second Avenue Subway SFEIS), which indicated that construction would not adversely affect peregrine falcons because they are accustomed to the intensive street level activity that already occurs throughout this area. This determination would be equally applicable to the construction of the FSTC. Confirmation has been provided by NYSDEC Regional Wildlife Manager that the construction of the FSTC does not present any risk of adverse impacts on the species (Appendix K). Aquatic Ecology This alternative is not anticipated to cause any impacts on aquatic ecology, as construction activities would not affect aquatic species or habitats present in the study area. Due to the distance of the Hudson and East Rivers from the proposed site of the FSTC, there is no potential for environmental impacts on these waterbodies. Ecologically Sensitive Areas No Ecologically Sensitive Areas exist in the study area and, therefore, there would be not be any adverse impacts on Ecologically Sensitive Areas with implementation of the Preferred Alternative. 15.5.4 ANALYSIS YEAR 2008 (INITIAL OPERATIONAL YEAR)


Under the No Action Alternative, the FSTC would not be operational in 2008. There would not be any change in existing natural resources conditions in the study area as a result of this alternative. There would also not be any changes expected in natural resource conditions associated with the implementation, construction or operation of other actions in the study area between 2003 and 2008. ALTERNATIVE 9

Under Alternative 9, the FSTC would be operational in 2008. The presence and operation of the elements of Alternative 9, including aboveground and subsurface structures, would not impact geology, groundwater or surface water, wetlands, protected species, terrestrial or aquatic ecology, and floodplains in the study area. Once complete, this alternative would not alter groundwater flow or elevation within the study area, and it is expected that groundwater levels and flow direction would return to the pre-construction state. Operation of this alternative would not result in new discharges to groundwater or surface waters, and would not affect protected species, Ecologically Sensitive Areas, or terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal species. ALTERNATIVE 10 - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Under the Preferred Alternative, the FSTC would be operational in 2008. The presence and operation of the elements of the Preferred Alternative, including aboveground and subsurface structures, would not impact geology, groundwater or surface water, wetlands, protected species, terrestrial or aquatic ecology, and floodplains in the study area. Once complete, this alternative would not alter groundwater flow or elevation within the study area, and it is expected that groundwater levels and flow direction would return to the pre-construction state. Operation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in new discharges to groundwater or surface waters and would not affect protected species, Ecologically Sensitive Areas, or terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal species.



15.5.5 ANALYSIS YEAR 2025 (FULL OPERATIONAL YEAR)


Under the No Action Alternative, the FSTC would not be operational in 2025. There would not be any change in existing natural resources conditions in the study area as a result of the FSTC. There would also not be expected to be any changes in natural resource conditions associated with the implementation, construction or operation of other actions in the study area between 2003 and 2025. ALTERNATIVE 9

Under Alternative 9, the FSTC would be operational in 2025. The presence of the elements of Alternative 9, including aboveground and subsurface structures, would not impact geology, groundwater or surface water, and floodplains in the study area. Once complete, the FSTC would not alter groundwater flow or elevation within the study area and it is expected that groundwater levels and flow direction would return to the pre-construction state. Operation of the FSTC would not result in new discharges to groundwater or surface waters and would not affect protected species, Ecologically Sensitive Areas, or terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal species. ALTERNATIVE 10 - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Under the Preferred Alternative, the FSTC would be fully operational in 2025. The presence of the elements of this alternative, including aboveground and subsurface structures, would not impact geology, groundwater or surface water, and floodplains in the study area. With full operation, this alternative would not alter groundwater flow or elevation within the study area, and it is expected that groundwater levels and flow direction would return to the pre-construction state. Full operation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in new discharges to groundwater or surface waters and would not affect protected species, Ecologically Sensitive Areas, or terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal species. 15.6 SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

MEASURES No substantial adverse impacts on natural resources would occur as a result of construction or operation of the FSTC under Alternative 9 or the Preferred Alternative; however, measures to prevent any impacts during construction would be developed and include:

• Soil erosion and run off prevention measures, pursuant to the CEPP (see Appendix C), would be developed and implemented in accordance with “New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control” published by the Empire State Soil and Water Conservation Society. The erosion and run off prevention measures would include the use of hay bales and/or silt screens to capture run off prior to entering sewer catch basins, grading exposed soils on the project site away from the perimeter, and covering exposed soil with gravel or other materials to limit run off.

• Dewatering of excavations in a manner that would limit the draw-down of groundwater in the

vicinity of the project site through the selection of cut-off walls or sheeting methods that limit the influx of groundwater into the excavation. If localized groundwater draw-down occurs, and has the potential to result in the settlement of structures, the Contractor would perform stabilization measures, such as injecting grout beneath the structure’s foundation, prior to dewatering. Prior to implementation, stabilization measures developed by a licensed professional engineer would be presented to NYCT for review. NYCT would notify the affected property owner prior to authorizing the Contractor to proceed. Once construction is completed, groundwater levels and flow direction would return to the pre-construction state.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

chapter 15: natural resources - mtaweb.mta.info/capital/fc_docs/feis/chapters/ch15.pdfnatural...

Documents