Chapter 10: Response to Comments - NYC.gov

218 Pages·2012·0.65 MB·English

Chapter 10: Response to Comments
10.0-1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and responds to comments on the Water for the Future Program:
Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-West Branch Tunnel (RWBT) Repair Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), published on December 20, 2011. Oral and written comments were received
during three public hearings held by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP): on January 23, 2012, at Town of Newburgh Town Hall, 1496 Route 300, Newburgh, NY;
on January 24, 2012, at Wappingers Junior High School, 30 Major McDonald Way, Wappingers
Falls, NY; and on January 25, 2012, at Wawarsing Town Hall, 108 Canal Street, Ellenville, NY.
Written comments were accepted from issuance of the DEIS through the public comment period,
which was scheduled to close on February 17, 2012, but extended to March 9, 2012.
Chapter 10 is organized as follows:
 Section 10.0-2, “Organizations and Individuals That Commented,” alphabetically lists the
elected officials, public agencies, organizations, community residents, and others that
provided relevant comments on the DEIS.
 Section 10.0-3, “Comments and Responses,” summarizes and responds to each substantive
comment. The comments are organized by subject area and generally follow the chapter
organization of the DEIS. Where multiple comments were made on the same topic,
comments are grouped together. Following each comment is the name of the organization or
individual that made the comment, as listed in Section 10.0-2. Responses follow each
comment. The full text of public agency comments, written comments, and public hearing
transcripts is available for review at the New York City Department of Environmental
Protection, 11th Floor, 59-17 Junction Blvd, Flushing, NY.
Where relevant and appropriate, changes and other edits to the DEIS based on public comments
received have been incorporated into the Final EIS (FEIS). However, with the exception of
minor editorial changes to graphics for the FEIS which are noted in some responses below, for
ease of review, additional text added to the individual FEIS chapters are also embedded within
the appropriate responses below in this chapter.
10.0-1
Water for the Future Program: Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair FEIS
10.0-2 ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS THAT COMMENTED
1. Ruth K. Abrahams, Executive Director, Gomez Foundation for Mill House, written
comments dated February 13, 2012. (Abrahams)
2. Bridgette Anderson, oral comments dated January 24, 2012, and written comments dated
November 13, 2011 (B. Anderson)
3. Nick Anderson, oral comments dated January 24, 2012 (N. Anderson)
4. Karen Arent, RLA, Town of Newburgh Planning Board, written comments dated January 19,
2012 (Arent)
5. Scott Ballard, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits, Region 3, written
comments dated March 9, 2012 (Ballard)
6. Henry Bartosik, written comments dated March 13, 2012 (Bartosik)
7. Robert Bell, oral comments dated January 23, 2012 (R. Bell)
8. William Bell, oral comments dated January 23, 2012 (W. Bell)
9. Jim Beretta, oral comments dated January 23, 2012, and written comments dated February 8,
2012 (Beretta)
10. Clifford Browne, Town of Newburgh Planning Board, written comments dated January 19,
2012 (Browne)
11. Scott Carlsen, Supervisor, Town of Wawarsing, oral comments dated January 25, 2012
(Carlsen)
12. J. Stephen Casscles, oral comments dated January 23, 2012, and written comments dated
October 7, 2011, January 26, 2012, and February 2, 2012 (Casscles)
13. Bryan Cocks, Town of Newburgh Planning Board, written comments dated January 19, 2012
(Cocks)
14. Mary A. Colligan, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, written comments dated January 19, 2012
(Colligan)
15. Brook Crossan, P.E., President, MACK Associates, LLC, Town of Wappinger consultant,
written comments dated February 10, 2012, and revised March 6, 2012 (Crossan)
16. Leonard Distel, oral comments dated January 25, 2012 (L. Distel)
17. Tim Distel, oral comments dated January 25, 2012 (T. Distel)
10.0-2
Chapter 10: Response to Comments
18. Emily S. Dozier, AICP, Planner, Dutchess County Department of Planning and
Development, written comments dated January 4, 2012, and March 2, 2012 (Dozier)
19. Richard Eisinger, oral comments dated January 25, 2012 (Eisinger)
20. Bruce Flower, written comments dated February 20, 2012 (Flower)
21. Dean C. Frazier, Commissioner, Delaware County Department of Watershed Affairs, written
comments dated February 28, 2012 (Frazier)
22. Robert Gray, P.E., President of Morris Associates Engineering Consultants, PLLC (Town of
Wappinger Engineer), written comments dated February 2, 2012, and revised March 1, 2012
(Gray)
23. Gregory Graziano, Superintendent, Water Authority of Great Neck North, written comments
dated January 26, 2012 (Graziano)
24. Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, oral comments
dated January 24, 2012 (Greene)
25. Joan Homovich, written comments dated February 15, 2012 (Homovich)
26. James P. Horan, Vergilis, Stenger, Roberts, Davis & Diamond LLP, written comments dated
February 28, 2012 (Horan)
27. James P. Horan and Albert. P. Roberts, Vergilis, Stenger, Roberts, Davis & Diamond LLP,
written comments dated March 5, 2012 (Horan/Roberts)
28. Kate Hudson, Watershed Program Director, and William Wegner, Staff Scientist,
Riverkeeper, written comments dated March 9, 2012 (Hudson/Wegner)
29. Rita Hughes, oral comments dated January 23, 2012, and written comments dated March 6,
2012 (R. Hughes)
30. Tim Hughes, oral comments dated January 23, 2012 (T. Hughes)
31. Joseph E. Kelley, P.E., Assistant Director of Engineering, Dutchess County Department of
Public Works, written comments dated March 9, 2012 (Kelley)
32. Susan G. King, Director, Nassau County Department of Health, written comments dated
February 13, 2012 (King)
33. Eungjun Lim, written comments dated February 26, 2012 (Lim)
34. Kenneth Mennerich, Town of Newburgh Planning Board, written comments dated January
19, 2012 (Mennerich)
35. James P. Molinaro, Staten Island Borough President, written comments dated March 8, 2012
(Molinaro)
36. James W. Osborne, Town of Newburgh Engineer, written comments dated March 9, 2012
(Osborne)
10.0-3
Water for the Future Program: Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair FEIS
37. Charlie Pelella, oral comments dated January 23, 2012 (Pelella)
38. Rand Perry, oral comments dated January 24, 2012 (Perry)
39. Ronald and Theresa Plimley, written comments dated February 21, 2012 (Plimley)
40. John Plonski, Assistant Commissioner, Water Resource Management, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, written comments dated January 20, 2012 (Plonski)
41. Jim Pratt, oral comments dated January 24, 2012 (Pratt)
42. Donald Pritchard, oral comments dated January 24, 2012 (Pritchard)
43. Albert P. Roberts, Vergilis, Stenger, Roberts, Davis & Diamond, LLP (Town of Wawarsing
legal counsel), written comments dated January 26, 2012 (Roberts)
44. Michael Sassi, P.E., Regional Highway Work Permit Coordinator, New York State
Department of Transportation, Region 8, written comments dated January 19, 2012 (Sassi)
45. Christopher Smart, oral comments dated January 24, 2012 (C. Smart)
46. Wendy Smart, oral comments dated January 24, 2012 (W. Smart)
47. Laura Smith, oral comments dated January 25, 2012 (L. Smith)
48. David A. Stilwell, Field Supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, written comments dated February 2, 2012 (Stilwell)
49. David H. Stolman, President, Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc., Town of Wappinger
planner, oral comments dated January 24, 2012, and written comments dated February 8,
2012, and revised February 29, 2012 (Stolman)
50. Frederick W. Roe, written comments dated March 9, 2012 (Roe)
51. John Rooney, written comments dated March 10, 2012 (Rooney)
52. Joan Ryan, written comments dated March 2, 2012 (Ryan)
53. Fred Sickels, Director, division of Water Supply & Geoscience, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, written comments dated March 9, 2012 (Sickels)
54. Laura Smith, oral comments dated January 25, 2012, and written comments dated March 6,
2012 (L. Smith)
55. David H. Stolman, President, Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc., Town of Wappinger
planner, oral comments dated January 24, 2012, and written comments dated February 8,
2012, and revised on February 29, 2012 (Stolman)
56. Doreen A. Tignanelli, oral comments dated January 25, 2012, and written comments dated
February 6, 2012 (Tignanelli)
57. Karen Timko, Esq., Director, Environmental Compliance and Services, MTA Metro-North
Railroad, written comments dated March 9, 2012 (Timko)
10.0-4
Chapter 10: Response to Comments
58. Meredith and David VanEtten, written comments dated March 5, 2012 (VanEtten)
59. Ed Venuti, written comments dated March 1, 2012 (Venuti)
60. Nicholas D. Viest, Chair, Manhattan Community Board 8, written comments dated February
9, 2012 (Viest)
61. June Visconti, member of Town of Wappinger Planning Board, oral comments dated January
24, 2012 (Visconti)
62. Bill Wegner, Riverkeeper staff scientist, oral comments dated January 25, 2012 (Wegner)
63. Mike Wendel, oral comments dated January 25, 2012 (Wendel)
64. Kenneth Wersted, P.E., Project Manager (Town of Newburgh engineer), Creighton Manning
Engineering, LLP, written comments dated January 19, 2012 (Wersted)
65. June Weyant, oral comments dated January 24, 2012 (Weyant)
10.0-3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
10.0-3.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Note: Any revisions in the DEIS Executive Summary have also been made, as appropriate, in all
other relevant sections of the FEIS.
Comment 1: Figures S-14, S-15, and S-16 should be clarified. U.S. Route 9W is not on
the east side of the Hudson River and the road in question is a town road,
River Road. (Gray)
The alignment of the overhead utilities on Figure S-14 should be clarified.
Wires always run straight (in plain view) between towers and poles, not
along a curved alignment as shown. (Gray)
The site construction equipment, buildings, etc., shown on Figures S-15
and S-16 should be revised to match the site plan layout. Will all the
facilities and equipment shown on Figure S-15 remain in place as shown
on Figure S-16? (Gray)
Figure S-16 should be based on the topo per the regrading for Phases 1
and 2, not the site as it exists before the project is started (i.e., the existing
conditions today). Figure S-16 should also show the location of the
(purple) pump shafts depicted on Figure S-5. (Gray)
After page ES-10. (Noise) Figures S-15 and S-16 have River Road labeled
as U.S. Route 9W. After page ES-22. Figure S-22 and associated text will
need to be revised to reflect the changes requested elsewhere.
10.0-5
Water for the Future Program: Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair FEIS
Consideration should be given to using an aerial photo so individual
homes and the network of local streets can be more easily seen. (Crossan)
Response 1: Labels on Figures S-14, S-15, and S-16 and overhead utilities on Figure S-
14, along with comparable figures in Chapter 2 have been revised for the
FEIS. These figures are graphics intended to depict the changes from the
site before the proposed project is undertaken, and topography was not
changed between phases. The facilities and equipment during Phase 1:
Site Preparation and Phase 2 Shaft Construction (Figure S-15) will
continue to remain at the site during Phase 3: Bypass Tunnel Excavation
and Phase 4: Bypass Tunnel Lining, Project 1 Demobilization, and
Preparation for Project 2B (Figure S-16). The areas depicting the locations
of major fixed elements of Project 1, such as shafts and inundation plug
areas, would be in the locations shown. However, the locations shown for
overhead utilities and equipment on these drawings are approximations,
with final locations determined by the contractor. Areas for temporary
storage of excavated material, support construction equipment and
vehicles, and drill rigs would be located on the east connection site
depending on the construction phase.
Comment 2: Figures S-21 and S-22 should be corrected. The dark blue-colored area
near the middle of each page is the west connection site, not the east
connection site as identified in the legend. (Gray)
Response 2: The legend in Figure S-21 has been corrected for the FEIS. The legend in
Figure S-22 in the DEIS correctly showed the east connection site.
Comment 3: Page ES-2: This project will result in significant adverse impacts to visual
character, historic and archaeological resources, natural resources and
water resources, and public health. Further, while the DEIS maintains that
the significant adverse impacts on traffic and noise will occur, that such
effects will only be temporary. This language does not accurately reflect
the true nature of this project, which will last for approximately 10 years,
be conducted 5 to 7 days a week, both day and night, throughout the year.
(Casscles)
Describing impacts as “temporary” for a project spanning 10 years is
inadequate. (Tignanelli)
The word temporary is used 399 times in your report. The definition of the
word temporary is lasting for a limited time. The impacts caused by this
project are not temporary when you live in any of the neighborhoods
affected. It also stated that there is a possibility that due to the extended
duration and intensity of construction that there may be an effect on the
10.0-6
Chapter 10: Response to Comments
short-term marketability of residences or lots immediately adjacent to the
east and west connection sites. However, this effect, if it were to occur,
would be temporary and fully be confined to the construction period. Ten
years is not temporary. Three shifts, 24 hours a day for 5 or 7 days is not a
temporary impact. It is significant. (B. Anderson)
Descriptive language is somewhat misleading in characterizing potential
noise impacts as “temporary,” as construction—and associated noise from
construction—is anticipated to take 7½ to 8 years to complete. It is likely
that nearby residents will not perceive anticipated noise impacts during
this multi-year time period as “temporary.” The FEIS should make a
distinction between truly “temporary” noise impacts and longer-term noise
impacts. (Ballard)
Response 3: In each section of the DEIS, a detailed, conservative presentation of the
potential adverse impacts that would result from Project 1 construction
was undertaken. In addition, for several areas of technical study, such as
traffic and noise, the potential impacts from construction of Project 2B in
relation to connection of the tunnel were also included in the DEIS. Where
potential adverse impacts were identified for the respective worst-case
scenarios, following the approach suggested under SEQRA (State
Environmental Quality Review Act), the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual,
and as noted in the Final Scope of Work, the determination of the
significance of impacts from construction activities was based on an
assessment of the predicted intensity, duration, and the geographic extent
of the impacts. The word “temporary” was used for construction because
the construction described in the Water for the Future Program would not
be permanent, phases of construction would vary, and, ultimately,
construction would be complete and the impacts from the construction
would no longer occur. Many areas where impacts were identified would
no longer occur after construction is complete, and, therefore, the DEIS
recognized that due to the criteria listed above, predicted significant
adverse impacts would be expected due to the duration of construction. As
such, the use of the word “temporary” is intended to indicate that potential
significant adverse impacts are not expected to continue once construction
is complete.
Comment 4: On page ES-2, in the third full paragraph, there is the first of many “would
be” constructions that leave the reader unsure of the applicant’s intent (see
related comment under “Analytical Framework for Environmental
Review,” below). The statement that reads “Mitigation measures … are
proposed and would be incorporated…” is not a satisfactory commitment
from the applicant to actually implement the suggested mitigation
10.0-7
Water for the Future Program: Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair FEIS
(assuming of course that the Town [of Wappinger] accepted such
mitigation measures as satisfactory). The “would be” construction implies
that there are conditions (and they are not stated) under which the actions
will in fact be implemented.
On page ES-11 there is another of the unsatisfactory “would be”
statements: “A DEP field representative would be at each connection site
throughout the entire construction period.” The sentence should be
rewritten to make an affirmative commitment, without any implied and
unstated conditions, that a DEP field representative will be on-site.
The statement on page ES-23 in the last paragraph on the page should be
augmented to identify that the noise impacts will not (instead of the typical
DEIS construction would not) be fully mitigated.
The DEIS uses a grammatical construction /convention, where many
statements say the applicant “would” do something, which raises the
question, under what circumstances? The DEIS should make affirmative
commitments from the applicant, and say the applicant “will” do
something. Then the Town (of Wappinger) will know what to expect
under the conditions to which the statement refers. The town will not be
able to make its SEQR findings (as an involved agency) from the DEIS as
written with the conditional grammatical construction. (Gray)
Response 4: Construction and operation of the proposed project is conditioned upon
numerous permits and approvals from a number of different agencies as
well as the completion and acceptance of the EIS and implementation by
DEP. The use of “would” in the DEIS is a standard practice to indicate
that an action would occur subject to approval. DEP is committed to
implementing any of the specific best management practices, mitigation
strategies, or construction monitoring protocols identified in the DEIS.
Comment 5: The statement on Table S-3 regarding dewatering should be clarified and
expanded. It appears that only “dewatering” during the tunnel
rehabilitation is described, but it is not clear that the existing outfall would
be used to dispose of the treated dewatering wastewater (that may instead
be disposed of in the stormwater drainage system). The table should be
modified to address, in addition, dewatering Shaft 6B during its
construction and “unwatering” the existing tunnel shaft. (Gray)
Response 5: Table S-3 represents dewatering treatment and disposal of the resulting
wastewater at the east connection site during Project 1. The existing
outfall from the blowoff chamber would be used to convey discharges
from the dewatering operations during Project 1. Unwatering of the
existing RWBT would occur during Project 2B, which is not summarized
10.0-8
Chapter 10: Response to Comments
in this table and will be addressed in the second EIS or a subsequent
environmental review, as appropriate. Therefore, no change for tunnel
unwatering was made. See also Comment 275 below for a related
comment.
Comment 6: Table S-4 should be clarified, in conjunction with the response to the
comments above on Table S-3 regarding dewatering and unwatering.
Table S-4 should be clarified regarding the entry for a New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) permit for
chemical bulk storage. It does not appear that any such storage is shown
on the site plans in the DEIS or in the separate site plan submittal. This is
not the same as (in the next line) the petroleum bulk storage permit that
appears to be associated with on-site diesel fuel storage tank(s). Is the
chemical bulk storage perhaps only on the west connection site?
In the section of Table S-4 regarding “area municipalities,” for the Town
of Wappinger, there should also be an entry regarding the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) acceptance and monitoring.
Table S-4 entries should be clarified and coordinated regarding sanitary
wastewater disposal during construction:
1. Under “State,” the table lists a NYSDEC Sanitary Wastewater Pump
and Haul Approval.
2. Under “Dutchess County,” the table does not include an entry
regarding sanitary wastewater.
3. It appears sanitary wastewater disposal, including pump and haul, is
subject to only Dutchess County Health Department (DCHD)
permit/approval.
In the section of Table S-4 regarding “Other Entities,” it appears that for
the east connection site, DC 911, the school district, and the sheriff and
state police (there is no Town police department), and ambulance service
should all be listed. If such coordination is intended to be included under
“general coordination” with the Town Highway Superintendent, such
intent should be clarified. (Gray)
Response 6: At the east connection site with Project 1, which Table S-4 summarized,
only dewatering treatment and disposal would be implemented during
shaft construction. Unwatering of the existing RWBT would occur during
Project 2B, which is not summarized in Table S-4. Therefore, no change
for tunnel unwatering was made in the table.
10.0-9
Water for the Future Program: Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair FEIS
Table S-4 (as well as Table 1-2, which is the same as Table S-4) was
modified for the FEIS to identify SWPPP acceptance and monitoring for
the Towns of Wappinger and Newburgh. Table S-4 was also modified for
the FEIS to include potential DCDOH review of sanitary pump and haul
design. Table S-4 only lists anticipated required permits and approvals for
Project 1. Where appropriate, additional coordination measures DEP will
undertake during construction were noted in the DEIS.
As noted in the DEIS in Section 2.9, “Hazardous Materials,” chemical
bulk storage (CBS) and appropriate NYSDEC CBS registrations and local
approvals would be required for the both connection sites. Final site plans
will clarify the location of chemical storage areas and allow for contractor
field changes, as appropriate.
10.0-3.2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
Comment 7: The RWBT unwatering and repairs and return to service should be
clarified to resolve the differences in the DEIS text noted below:
1. In 1.0-1, the DEIS says (near the center of page 1.0-1) that upon
project completion, water would no longer flow through the RWBT
between the connection points of the bypass tunnel. This appears to
assume that the inundation plugs will be constructed.
2. However, on pages 1.0-23 and 1.0-25, the DEIS appears to say water
will flow through both the existing alignment and the bypass tunnel
simultaneously. (Gray)
Response 7: When the connection to the bypass tunnel and the repairs are completed,
water flow would be restored to the Delaware Aqueduct, and water would
flow through the RWBT and the newly constructed bypass tunnel of the
RWBT. The bypassed portion of the RWBT would no longer be used and
no water would flow through the bypassed section of the RWBT. The
FEIS has been updated to clarify this point.
OVERVIEW AND CONDITION OF THE RWBT
Comment 8: I was under the impression that possibly water is leaking out of the
aqueduct going into the landfill, and that the E. coli that’s contaminated
our wells could be coming from the landfill instead of from our septic
systems.
10.0-10