Chapter VI Summary and Analysis of Comments Received€¦ · Chapter VI Summary and Analysis of...

Kosciuszko Bridge Project VI-1 September 2008

Chapter VI Summary and Analysis of Comments Received This chapter summarizes the comments received by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) published in March 2007. Responses are provided to each substantive comment and, where appropriate, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) text has been modified to address those comments.

A. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS

As described in Chapter VIII, notices, advertisements, and other materials announcing the publication of the DEIS included instructions on how to submit comments on the document. Comments were accepted via mail, fax, email, and oral or written testimony at the two Public Hearings. Due to several requests to extend the public comment period, NYSDOT extended the deadline for submitting comments on the DEIS from May 25, 2007 to June 15, 2007, providing a total comment period of 85 days.

NYSDOT received more than 250 comments from 62 agencies, organizations, and members of the public. Table VI-1 provides a listing of all comments received during the public comment period. Copies of the comments are provided in Appendix T.

TABLE VI-1: COMMENTS RECEIVED

ID Commenter Comments Received Comment Reference

Written Comments

NRCS Clyde B. Giaquinto, P.E., Planning Engineer US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

March 23, 2007 (Letter)

EWR-13 EWR-14 EWR-15 EWR-16 MISC-4

FAA Manny Weiss, Regional Administrator Federal Aviation Administration

March 23, 2007 (Letter)

MAC-1

York Mary York

April 9, 2007 (Letter)

PA-26

Heimbinder Michael Heimbinder Habitatmap.org


PPB-8 RI-19

ACHP Katry Harris, Historic Preservation Specialist Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation


HCR-1 HCR-2

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section VI.A



Botzman Harvey Botzman Cyclotour Guide Books

April 19, 2007 (Email)

BAM-2 PO-2 PPB-2

Fee Clifford Fee


PPB-7

O’Neill Zora O’Neill

April 19, 2007 (Email) April 20, 2007 (Email)

PPB-15

Jakubassa Erika Jakubassa


PPB-10

O’Toole Msgr. Fursey O’Toole, Pastor St. Cecilia’s Roman Catholic Church


LST-2 PA-22 PA-23 PO-20 PO-21 PO-22 PO-23 VIB-2

Korchin Mortimer Korchin April 23, 2007 (Letter)

RI-21

Nelson Joseph Nelson, P.E. & L.S. April 25, 2007 (Letter) June 12, 2007 (Letter)

CPT-10 CI-8 CI-9 CI-10 CI-11 CI-12 CI-13 CI-14 SM-1 SM-2

Iwachiw Walter Iwachiw

April 26, 2007 (Postcard)

CM-19 EWR-2 EWR-3 HCR-3 PPB-9 PR-2

Budnick Noah S. Budnick Transportation Alternatives


PPB-3

Choudri, N.(1) Nena Choudri

May 8, 2007 (Letter)

CI-5 MISC-2 N-2 PA-8 RI-9

Choudri, S. Sema Choudri


AQ-1 CI-6 N-3 RI-10




NMFS Peter D. Colosi, Jr., Assistant Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service


CM-20 CM-21 EWR-4 EWR-5 EWR-6 EWR-7 EWR-8 EWR-9 EWR-10 EWR-11 EWR-12

CB5Q Vincent Arcuri, Chairperson Queens Community Board 5


PA-4 PA-5 PA-6 PA-7 PPB-5 PPB-6

NYSHPO Beth A. Cumming, Historic Preservation Specialist – Technical Unit New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation


HCR-4 HCR-5

Rodriguez Hector Rodriguez

May 27, 2007 (Email)

N-7 N-8

Zaslavsky Marlene Zaslavsky

May 30, 2007 (Email)

PPB-18

Stonehill Lenox Stonehill

May 31, 2007 (Postcard)

PPB-17

Mastellone Barry Mastellone

June 2, 2007 (Email)

PPB-14

Passantino Donald Passantino

June 5, 2007 (Email & Letter)

BAM-4 PA-24 PA-25 PPB-16

Antone Richard Antone June 6, 2007 (Postcard)

PPB-1

NYCDOT Moishe Strum Office of Construction Mitigation and Coordination - Highways New York City Department of Transportation

June 12, 2007 (Email)

CPT-11 CPT-12 CPT-13 CPT-14 CPT-15 ES-2 ES-3 PA-20 PA-21 PN-9 TA-1

USCG Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager First Coast Guard District US Coast Guard

June 12, 2007 (Letter)

MAC-4 MAC-5 MAC-6




Giulietti Joseph Giulietti, Superintendent Calvary Cemetery


CI-7 EWR-1 PA-11

Podd Steven C. Podd June 13, 2007 (Email)

BAM-5

USEPA John Filipelli, Chief Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch US Environmental Protection Agency


AQ-2 AQ-3 AQ-4 AQ-5 AQ-6 AQ-7 AQ-8 EWR-17 EWR-18

Kuonen Ryan Kuonen New York City Bicycle Coalition


PPB-11 PPB-12 PPB-13

Gottlieb Mary Gottlieb Meeker Avenue/Apollo Street Association

June 14, 2007 (Email & Letter)

CPT-3 CPT-4 CPT-5 ES-1 MAC-2 MAC-3 N-4 N-5 PA-12 PA-13 PO-4

Kulewicz Mark J. Kulewicz, AAA New York June 14, 2007 (Letter)

PA-17 PA-18

Buchanan Ronald Buchanan, Jr., Manager Remediation Projects Phelps Dodge Refining Corp.

June 14, 2007 (Letter) CM-2 CM-3 CM-4 CM-5 CM-6 CM-7 CM-8 CM-9 CM-10 CM-11

Cianciotta Guido Cianciotta, President and Theresa Cianciotta, Vice President Concerned Citizens of Withers Street and Area Block Association


PA-10 PN-5 PN-6

Wink Miriam Wink June 14, 2007 (Email)

RI-33 RI-34




CB1B(1) Teresa Toro Transportation Committee Brooklyn Community Board 1


CM-12 CPT-2 PA-3 PPB-4 PO-4 PO-5

CB1B(2) Vincent Abate, Chairman Brooklyn Community Board 1


N-1 PO-3

BBP Marty Markowitz Brooklyn Borough President


BAM-1 CM-1 CPT-1 MISC-1 PA-1 PA-2 PN-1 PO-16, PO-17

Lentol Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol New York State Assembly


CPT-8 CPT-9 N-6 PA-19 PO-10 PO-11

Chorost Dan Chorost Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.


CI-1 CI-2 CI-3 CI-4 CM-13 CM-14 CM-15 CM-16 CM-17 CM-18 PN-3 ROW-1 ROW-2

APRIL 19TH PUBLIC HEARING (BROOKLYN) - SPEAKERS IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE

Holowacz Christine Holowacz St. Cecilia’s Roman Catholic Church

April 19, 2007 LST-1 PA-15 PA-16 PO-12 PO-13 PO-14, PO-15 VIB-1

Swick Dorothy Swick St. Cecilia’s Roman Catholic Church

April 19, 2007 PO-24




Hofmann Laura Hofmann Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks & Planning

April 19, 2007 PA-14 PN-7 PO-9 PO-10 PO-11 PR-1

Washack Rosalie Washack

April 19, 2007 LST-3 OLP 3 OLP-4

Perez George Perez

April 19, 2007 CPT-16 RI-25

APRIL 26TH PUBLIC HEARING (QUEENS) – SPEAKERS IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE

Keeshan Cathryn Keeshan, President United Forties Civic Association

April 26, 2007 CPT-6 CPT-7 MISC-3 RI-20

Gold Adam Gold

April 26, 2007 RI-14 RI-15 RI-16 RI-17 RI-18

Weiss Ed Weiss

April 26, 2007 RI-30 RI-31 RI-32

Midura Zbigniew Midura

April 26, 2007 PN-8 RI-22 RI-23 RI-24

Ziccardi Connie Ziccardi April 26, 2007 RI-35

Gualtieri Richard Gualtieri April 26, 2007 BAM-3

Choudri, T. Tes Choudri April 26, 2007 PA-9 PO-7 RI-11 RI-12 RI-13

Choudri, N.(2) Nena Choudri April 26, 2007 PN-4

Choudri, A. Akhtar Choudri April 26, 2007 PO-6

Nunziato Anthony Nunziato Maspeth Chamber of Commerce

April 26, 2007 OLP-1 PO-18 PO-19

Trovato Sal Trovato April 26, 2007 BAM-6 BAM-7 PO-25 RI-26




Vetell Barbara Vetell Greenpoint West Street Block Association

April 26, 2007 AQ-9 CM-22 CPT-17 CPT-18 MISC-5 N-9 N-10 PO-26 PO-27 PO-28 PO-29 PO-30 PR-4 PR-5 PR-6 OLP-2 RI-29 SM-3 TA-3 VIB-3

Casalino Anna Casalino April 26, 2007 PN-2 RI-1 RI-2 RI-3 RI-4 RI-5 RI-6 RI-7 RI-8

Vespole Vincent Vespole April 26, 2007 BAM-8 PN-10 PR-3 RI-27 RI-28 ROW-3 TA-2

Note: Nena Choudri provided both a written comment and oral testimony. To distinguish them the written comment has been designated “Choudri, N. (1)” and the oral testimony has been designated “Choudri, N. (2).” Two letters were received from representatives of Brooklyn Community Board 1 and have been designated “CB1B(1)” and “CB1B(2).”

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section VI.B


B. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS

This section summarizes the content of the comments received on the DEIS, provides responses to those comments, and, where appropriate, indicates how the document has been revised to address those comments. The comments have been divided into general categories and are summarized in the following sections. Table VI-2, located at the end of this section, provides individual responses to each comment. Comment reference numbers in Table VI-2 correspond to the comments identified in Table VI-1.

B.1. Preferred Alternative

Twenty-six comments were received regarding the selection of a preferred alternative. The majority of these comments supported the selection of Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative, as documented in this FEIS. An additional group of commenters supported the selection of one of the three Bridge Replacement Alternatives (BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5), without identifying a specific alternative. One commenter preferred the No Build Alternative. Finally several commenters expressed displeasure that a preferred alternative was not identified in the DEIS.

Statements supporting the selection of Alternative BR-5 noted that this alternative:

Best addresses capacity, safety and operational issues;

Is the most efficient and cost effective alternative;

Incurs the least amount of economic impacts and has the lowest cost of the Bridge Replacement Alternatives;

Provides a longer-term solution;

Best balances transportation improvements and economic and community impacts;

Moves the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE) and construction activities away from residences on Meeker Avenue, Van Dam Street, and Apollo Street;

Does not result in unhealthy and unsafe conditions for the three acquired residences in Queens that would remain in each of the other Build Alternatives; and

Has the least potential for impact to the underground oil plume in Brooklyn.

Reasons provided by those supporting the Bridge Replacement Alternatives (in general) cited the inability of the Bridge Replacement Alternatives to correct non-standard design features, adequately reduce vehicle hours of delay, or increase travel speeds, and high cost relative to their projected lifespan.

B.2. Project Need

Each of the 10 comments received addressing the need for the project concurred with the findings of the DEIS. Comments specifically noted the non-standard features (insufficient



shoulders, poor visibility, narrow lanes on the Main Span, and insufficient acceleration lanes) and the resulting high accident rate, persistent traffic congestion, and need for frequent maintenance.

B.3. Recommendations for Build Alternative Modifications

Eight comments received suggested additional features or modifications for the Build Alternatives. One comment recommended the construction of a new bridge across Newtown Creek connecting Meeker Avenue and Laurel Hill Boulevard in order to provide redundancy for the BQE; the new structures included in Alternative BR-5 would provide both increased security through modern structural standards and redundancy through the use of three separate structures. One comment suggested the addition of express connections to the Long Island Expressway; Alternative BR-5 would improve these connections significantly by providing auxiliary lanes. One comment suggested providing crossover areas at either end to facilitate future maintenance; Alternative BR-5 would provide this function where the individual bridges reunite at each end of the bridge. One comment requested that the project not preclude any of the strategies under consideration in NYSDOT’s managed use lanes study; Alternative BR-5 provides significant flexibility for future implementation of such strategies. Two comments suggested straightening the BQE and using cantilevered structures to reduce impacts to businesses; the Alternatives Analysis process considered “straighter” alternatives, but found them to have greater impacts than those in the DEIS, and, while the project already includes efforts to minimize property impacts, further efforts will be made during the final design phase. Finally, one comment suggested the addition of a merging sign to help reduce accidents; this comment was forwarded to the NYSDOT Office of Operations, Traffic Engineering and Safety Division for consideration.

B.4. Traffic Analysis

Three comments were received in this category. The New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) commented that any proposed street closures must be supported by traffic data; NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDOT during final design to ensure that adequate access is provided into and within the industrial areas surrounding the bridge. One comment noted that widening the bridge will not substantially improve traffic; Alternative BR-5 would reduce delay on the bridge by 67-75 percent during peak hours. One comment expressed concern that a larger bridge would impact traffic on a number of other streets; Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, is anticipated to improve traffic operations on the BQE and Kosciuszko Bridge, thereby minimizing traffic that currently uses local streets as alternate routes.

B.5. Local Street Traffic

Three comments were received encouraging NYSDOT to make improvements to the local street network prior to construction to ease any impacts during construction. NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDOT during the final design phase to determine the appropriate timing for implementation of proposed mitigation measures.

B.6. Construction Period Traffic

Eighteen comments were received concerning traffic operations during construction. The vast majority concerned the closure of local streets and the re-routing of traffic. Several commenters requested that NYSDOT carefully plan for any construction-period detours and monitor the



impacts of those changes once implemented. As construction plans are developed during the final design phase, NYSDOT will develop detailed maintenance of traffic plans, including detours, for each street closure. Closures and detours will be coordinated closely with NYCDOT, New York City Transit (NYCT) (buses), the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY), the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) to ensure that all necessary services are maintained and vehicle and pedestrian access are provided throughout construction. NYSDOT will also communicate all closures to the public through the SAC.

NYCDOT commented that temporary structures should provide standard clearances; clearances will be standard throughout construction, except where they are non-standard today (Vandervoort Avenue and 54th Road). Alternative BR-5, when complete, would provide standard clearances throughout the project. NYCDOT also indicated that parking may be restricted where necessary in order to maintain traffic operations, but that the impact must be determined.

One commenter raised concern about damage to city streets caused by the large number of construction-related trucks accessing the site. As noted in Section IV.B.3.j, to the extent practicable, materials and equipment will be brought to the site on barge via Newtown Creek, greatly reducing the number of trucks using local streets. NYSDOT will repair any damage to local streets caused by construction vehicles.

B.7. Right-of-Way Impacts

Three comments were received concerning proposed acquisitions of right-of-way. One commenter inquired as to the purpose of proposed permanent easements; these easements allow NYSDOT to conduct maintenance on the completed bridge in the future. The owner of one property expressed a preference for an area proposed for permanent easement to instead be taken by fee. One commenter expressed concern about how the project and the realignment of streets would affect his residence on Van Dam Street in Brooklyn; no changes are proposed to Van Dam Street.

B.8. Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Eighteen comments were received addressing accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. Seventeen comments received were in support of a bikeway/walkway on the bridge, with one specifying a preference for its placement on the westbound side of the bridge. The preferred alternative, BR-5, would provide a bikeway/walkway on the north side of the new bridge.

One comment supported improved pedestrian access to Newtown Creek across the Long Island Rail Road tracks in Queens and provision of a fishing boardwalk. As described in Section III.C.2.m, each of the Build Alternatives includes a boat launch on each side of Newtown Creek near the bridge. Pedestrian and vehicular access will be provided to the boat launch. However, at this time there is no plan for any additional recreation facilities at the creek.

B.9. Other Local Projects/Plans

Four comments were received related to other plans or projects in the area. One comment noted that the proposed Grand Street Bridge replacement and the Maspeth Bypass Plan should be completed prior to the start of construction on the Kosciuszko Bridge; both projects are under



NYCDOT jurisdiction, with whom NYSDOT will continue to coordinate. One comment asked whether NYSDOT had plans to widen the BQE south of the project limits; NYSDOT has no such plans. One commenter made suggestions regarding implementing “Don’t Block the Box” regulations and some changes to the direction of several local streets; both comments were forwarded to NYCDOT for consideration.

B.10. Emergency Services

Three comments directly addressed the provision of emergency services during construction. It was requested that the local police precinct be added to the SAC; at their request, the 9th Precinct in Brooklyn has received SAC materials throughout the project and both this precinct and the 108th Precinct in Queens will be invited to participate during final design and construction. NYCDOT indicated that maintaining Cherry Street as a through street is preferable; Alternative BR-5 would maintain Cherry Street to Stewart Avenue and would reopen two currently closed street segments nearby to maintain accessibility into and within the industrial area surrounding the bridge in Brooklyn. One comment suggested that emergency access must not be compromised during construction; NYSDOT has coordinated with emergency services, and will continue to do so, to ensure that service is maintained throughout the community.

B.11. Relocation Impacts

A total of 35 comments were received addressing impacts associated with the relocation of businesses or residents. Almost all of the comments concerned the timing of the relocation and the compensation to be provided. A number of commenters were concerned that relocation would disrupt their business, resulting in loss of employees or closure. Others were concerned that the new location would not meet their needs due to proximity to highways, employees or, in the case of the three residences to be relocated, other family members. Representatives of one business indicated that due to the nature of their business, a new facility must be in place and operational prior to closing the existing one and that this process takes more time than may be provided. NYSDOT will comply with all relevant state and federal regulations regarding relocation. NYSDOT is working to expedite the acquisition process to minimize the impact to property owners to the greatest extent possible and, while NYSDOT cannot guarantee relocation within a specific area, they are committed to working with relocated businesses and residents to identify locations that meet their needs.

Three comments encouraged NYSDOT to minimize impacts to businesses; NYSDOT worked throughout the Alternatives Analysis process to minimize business impacts, altering the design where possible. One comment provided clarification on the number of buildings on Block 2810 in Brooklyn; the FEIS has been revised accordingly. One comment expressed concern that the acquisition of the portion of Stewart Avenue their business uses would harm the business; the segment is a mapped street and is needed to maintain access in the area. Two commenters expressed a preference for or interest in the relocation of existing waste transfer stations; NYSDOT has worked to minimize impacts to businesses, regardless of type.

B.12. General Ecology and Water Resources

Eighteen comments were received addressing this broad category. The majority of these comments concerned potential impacts to Newtown Creek resulting from demolition of the existing Main Span piers, the dredging required to allow the use of barges for transportation of



materials and equipment, and proposed new stormwater outfalls. Concerns about demolition and dredging focused on the containment of any debris or contaminated sediment. NYSDOT has committed to preventing the discharge of demolition debris and the use of a closed-top clamshell bucket and silt curtains to prevent re-suspension of sediment during demolition and dredging. All new stormwater outfalls will provide pre-treatment and will conform to all relevant standards.

One comment requested that temporary structures be removed from Newtown Creek as soon as possible; although the temporary platforms will remain throughout most of the construction period, they will be removed promptly. One comment requested that riprap not be used to create fast land; riprap would be placed on either side of the creek to provide a stable, non-erosive creek bank and to protect the new pier foundations. Two comments discussed the need to implement control measures to prevent sediment from the construction site from entering the creek; soil and groundwater management plans will be developed during final design to address these issues.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) noted that the Bridge Replacement Alternatives would decrease the long term impacts to Newtown Creek by removing the existing bridge piers from the littoral zone as compared to the Rehabilitation Alternatives and that they do not anticipate that this project will result in significant adverse impacts to ground water quality.

One comment expressed concern about impacts to trees; NYSDOT will obtain a “Street Tree Work Permit” from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) for any proposed removal or pruning of street trees. One comment requested that NYSDOT cooperate with re-establishing fresh-water flow from the terminus of Newtown Creek; the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has authority over such matters. One commenter noted that the roadbed should be above the 300 year floodplain; the road surface of the BQE would be well above the 500-year floodplain.

B.13. Stormwater Management

Three comments addressed the proposed stormwater handling system included in the Build Alternatives. One comment wanted to ensure that the new system would have adequate capacity and another comment expressed concern that the impacts of the new system were not fully explored; the new system will comply with all appropriate standards, including capacity. One comment suggested that electrical and other boxes should be connected to the stormwater system; most of these facilities will be contained within closure walls, but those that aren’t will be connected to the new closed stormwater handling system where feasible.

B.14. Historic and Cultural Resources

Five comments were received regarding historic and cultural resources. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) requested that NYSDOT continue consultation during the Section 106 process and that if the preferred alternative will adversely affect historic properties, FHWA must notify ACHP. NYSDOT has identified Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative, which would demolish the existing historic bridge resulting in an adverse effect to this resource. FHWA notified the ACHP of NYSDOT’s Adverse Effect determination and provided the ACHP an opportunity to participate in consultation. The ACHP subsequently informed FHWA that it did not believe their participation in the consultation to resolve adverse effects was needed.



The New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) noted that because the Bridge Replacement Alternatives would adversely impact a historic resource (the bridge) while the Rehabilitation Alternatives would not, they therefore, preferred the latter. As discussed in Chapter VII, Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6 were rejected as not prudent under Section 4(f) because they do not meet the project’s purpose and need. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative. NYSHPO also noted that a Programmatic Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement addressing architectural and archaeological resources may be appropriate once the project is further defined. Appendix M-3 contains a Memorandum of Agreement reflecting the selection of Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative.

B.15. Parks and Recreational Facilities

Six comments were received discussing the proposed recreational amenities included in the project. Two commenters indicated that the proposed amenities were insufficient to compensate the community for the impacts associated with construction. The preferred alternative, BR-5, would provide an additional 5,210 m2 (56,077 ft2) of new parkland in Brooklyn – almost tripling parkland in the immediate area. Specific plans for the additional parkland will be determined by NYCDPR during the final design stage of this project. One comment suggested the need for additional and larger boat facilities than those proposed; NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDPR during the final design phase of the project to determine the facilities to be provided.

B.16. Air Quality

Nine comments were received addressing the project’s air quality analysis. USEPA noted that the 24-hour standard for PM2.5 had changed and that the FEIS should be updated to reflect this. USEPA noted that the required “maintenance period” for areas that recently attained a particular air quality standard is 20 years, not 10 as indicated in the DEIS. USEPA also noted that the construction emissions procedure used was developed by NYSDOT not USEPA as indicated in the DEIS. The FEIS has been updated to reflect each of these.

USEPA noted that PM2.5 hot-spot analysis is required for any alternative whose construction period is longer than five years (i.e., Alternative BR-2). Because construction would not persist at a single location for more than two years, a construction-period hot-spot analysis was not required. USEPA also recommended reviewing a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report and considering an update to the project’s mobile source air toxics (MSATs) analysis. NYSDOT has evaluated the referenced NCHRP report and, in discussions with FHWA, have found no new information that might outdate the DEIS analysis. The project type classifications described in that NCHRP Report mirror those described in the FHWA MSAT Guidance, which were applied in the DEIS. According to the DEIS analysis, only a minor increase in VMT is expected under the build alternatives, attributable to operational and safety improvements, without any increase in capacity of the facility. Therefore, the project is classified as a project of "low potential MSAT effects," as described in the FHWA MSAT Guidance. To minimize PM2.5 impacts, NYSDOT will continue to comply with New York State’s Diesel Retrofit Law and other measures including the retrofit of low-emission diesel engines and the use of ultra low sulfur diesel in off-road vehicles, where practicable.

A resident of one of the three homes to be acquired under Alternative BR-5 expressed concern about air quality during construction; relocation of these residents would occur prior to the commencement of construction. One comment expressed concern that impacts associated with PM2.5 were not fully explored; the air quality analysis indicated that Alternative BR-5 would result



in a slight increase (less than three percent) in PM2.5 emissions, but that this would be more than offset by reductions (40-50 percent) achieved through implementation of existing required control technology.

B.17. Noise

Ten comments were received addressing noise concerns either during construction or long-term. Six comments expressed concern about construction-period noise, including nighttime construction and monitoring of construction noise. NYSDOT will employ construction equipment noise control and administrative measures and will monitor noise during the construction phase. Some nighttime construction may be required, but NYSDOT will continue to work with the community to minimize construction impacts to the extent practicable, including possible restrictions on nighttime work in residential areas.

Two comments requested that abatement measures be implemented to reduce post-construction noise, particularly from Meeker Avenue. Federal regulations provide a list of permissible noise mitigation measures, of which only noise barriers were found to be potentially feasible on this project. However, the analysis showed that even very tall noise barriers placed on the BQE would not meet the minimum insertion loss (reduction) required for consideration. NYSDOT has committed to consider alternative mitigation measures during the final design phase of the project.

One commenter expressed concern about the impacts of traffic noise on residents of Woodside and suggested that noise barriers be installed. The Woodside community, located north of the Long Island Expressway, is located outside the limits of the project’s noise study.

B.18. Vibration

Three commenters expressed concern about vibration impacts resulting from either existing/future traffic on the BQE or construction-related activities. NYSDOT has committed to bringing, to the extent practicable, materials and equipment to the site by barge via Newtown Creek to reduce the number of truck trips required on the local streets. Construction trucks would be required to remain on the designated truck routes, especially along Meeker Avenue. The permanent bridges are anticipated to have no significant post-construction vibration impacts.

B.19. Contaminated Materials

Twenty-two comments were received addressing contaminated materials. The majority of the comments concerned the potential impact of the project on the Phelps Dodge site and the ongoing remediation efforts there. Comments noted the property owner’s requirement to cap the site and maintain a groundwater treatment system and concern that the proposed construction activities on the site could either damage systems implemented to date or interfere with required monitoring of those systems. Concern was also expressed about the impacts associated with bridge foundations to be located on the site. NYSDOT has discussed with NYSDEC the use of a portion of the Phelps Dodge site as a staging area during construction. This coordination will continue throughout the final design phase as the specific needs for the area are determined. This coordination will determine what measures would be required to avoid impacts to the ongoing remediation efforts at the site.



One comment indicated that NYSDOT should determine how much soil would be excavated from the Phelps Dodge site and describe how it will be handled. The final design phase and pre-construction analysis of each area of proposed excavation will determine the quantity and level of contamination of soil to be removed. A soil management plan, described in Section IV.B.3.i, would identify soil handling and disposal procedures to be employed during construction activities.

Several comments also noted that the Phelps Dodge site includes a portion of Newtown Creek that is to be dredged and that these activities could interfere with NYSDEC-mandated remediation efforts. As noted in Section IV.B.3.i, dredging would be conducted under an approved NYSDEC Dredging Permit, which would include requirements and procedures for the testing, handling, and disposal of dredged material.

Two comments raised concerns about impacts associated with the underground oil spill in Brooklyn. One noted that while there may be construction impacts, Alternative BR-5 may minimize impacts to the community. The other comment noted that NYSDOT should coordinate with involved agencies to provide mitigation for the oil spill clean up. NYSDOT has coordinated, and will continue to do so, with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), NYSDEC, and USEPA regarding potential impacts and mitigation associated with the oil spill in Brooklyn. A Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) will be implemented during construction to ensure the safety of workers and the community.

One comment expressed concern about polluted sediments in the portion of Newtown Creek that will not be dredged as part of this project; NYSDEC has regulatory authority over water quality within Newtown Creek. One comment requested that NYSDOT coordinate dredging operations with NYCDEP’s Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant conduits; the dredging operations planned for Newtown Creek would be conducted under an approved NYSDEC Dredging Permit.

One comment noted that NYSDOT should be prepared to employ containment equipment and develop response plans to address water quality concerns. Contaminated material encountered during excavation activity, including any free petroleum, will be handled, transported, and disposed of according to all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations, and in accordance with the site-specific HASP and soil and groundwater management plans.

B.20. Construction Impacts

A total of 14 comments were received concerning construction impacts, focused on three general areas: the proposed staging area in Queens, impacts to residences, and impacts to Old Calvary Cemetery. Concerns were raised about the use of the former Phelps Dodge site in Queens for a staging area due to the ongoing remediation efforts and one commenter questioned why no other sites were considered. NYSDOT has coordinated with NYSDEC, and will continue to do so throughout final design and construction, concerning the use of this site and ensuring that its use does not interfere with remediation efforts. The site was selected based on its proximity to Newtown Creek and the project site, and its topography.

The owners of the three houses that would be relocated under Alternative BR-5 raised concerns about their quality of life during construction. Under Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, the residents would be relocated prior to the commencement of construction.



The owners of Old Calvary Cemetery expressed concern about impacts to the cemetery including damage to the perimeter fence, headstones, and mausoleums; the proximity of temporary or permanent structures; and any need for construction personnel to enter the cemetery. Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, would result in minimal impact from such concerns because only a small section of temporary structure would be built adjacent to the cemetery. NYSDOT has committed to communicating and coordinating with Old Calvary Cemetery to ensure that construction impacts are minimized.

B.21. Public Outreach

Thirty comments on the project’s public outreach efforts were received. A number of comments referenced a technical issue with the project’s website that prevented online access to the DEIS and requested an extension of the comment period. NYSDOT promptly corrected the website and extended the comment deadline from May 25th to June 15th, resulting in a total comment period of 85 days.

A number of comments requested continued coordination with the community through the final design and construction phases of the project. Specific requests included notification of any changes in traffic patterns and cooperation regarding mitigation of construction impacts. NYSDOT formed the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC) during the earliest phases of the project to advise and coordinate with the project team through all aspects of the EIS process and is committed to continuing this coordination throughout the final design and construction phases of the project. NYSDOT has also committed to providing a full-time on-site community liaison during construction, with an office near the project site that will be accessible and convenient to members of the public.

A number of commenters expressed interest in NYSDOT providing a community/independent engineer to assist the community in evaluating the DEIS and noted that the FHWA Resource Center, which was offered as a source of technical assistance, was insufficient. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) does not require, nor is it NYSDOT policy, to retain an independent consultant. Nevertheless, NYSDOT has been responsive to the community’s request. The project’s SAC was created to help the community understand the project, from alternatives analysis through construction. The project team has been committed to presenting technical material in a clear and coherent manner. NYSDOT also offered the services of the University Transportation Research Center (UTRC) and the FHWA Resource Center to answer any and all questions regarding the project and the environmental process. It should be noted that both resources were meant to supplement, not replace, the effort by the project team to interpret and explain complex issues to the SAC in terms that could be easily understood.

One affected property owner indicated that he was not notified of the public hearing or project; certified letters were sent to all property owners at the address listed in the New York City Department of Finance (NYCDOF) records. One commenter felt that the traffic studies completed to date have not adequately addressed the community’s concerns; prior to conducting its studies, NYSDOT consulted with the general public through the scoping process and held several SAC meetings specifically addressing the traffic analyses. One comment suggested that the project’s notification for the hearing was not sufficient due to the observed attendance; as documented in Chapter VIII, an extensive public outreach campaign was conducted to notify the public of the hearings and, based on the comments provided (and summarized in this chapter), NYSDOT is comfortable that they have met their outreach obligations.



Seven commenters praised NYSDOT and the project team for their public outreach efforts, noting the transparency of the process, the respect shown to all stakeholders, and the effort made to address the community’s goals for the project.

B.22. Miscellaneous Agency Coordination

Six comments either suggested coordination with other agencies or provided agency comments that did not fall into other categories discussed in this section.

The FAA noted that it must be notified if the preferred alternative meets the criteria in 14 CFR 77 for objects affecting navigable airspace. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) noted that the proposed reduction in height of the bridge is acceptable and that final approval will be given after the FEIS and after they have completed their bridge permit process. USCG requested that NYSDOT coordinate with them regarding navigation on Newtown Creek during the construction period. USCG noted that a text change was necessary regarding their permit granting authority for the Bridge Replacement Alternatives. NYSDOT will comply with each of these agency requests.

One comment requested that NYSDOT coordinate with DSNY to ensure that street cleaning activities are not disrupted during construction; NYSDOT will coordinate with DSNY and all other relevant service agencies to ensure that essential services are not interrupted during construction. One comment suggested that the New York City Department of Health should monitor rodents during construction.

B.23. Miscellaneous

Five comments addressed issues that did not fall into any of the categories above. One comment suggested use of a cost benefit analysis to compare the alternatives; NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative on the basis of its addressing the project’s purpose and need (safety, operational, and structural) while minimizing cost and impacts to the natural and human environment. One comment questioned if the project would result in increased taxes; the project will be paid for through state and federal funds, but will not result in any new or additional taxes. A resident of one of the three houses to be acquired commented that if an alternative other than Alternative BR-5 was selected, the bridge would be very close to their homes; NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5, which would acquire these homes, as the preferred alternative. One comment requested that NYSDOT provide a consultant to ensure pedestrian safety during construction due to past issues with material falling from the bridge; NYSDOT will continue to monitor the structure to ensure safe conditions and will provide a permanent solution through the replacement of the structure. One comment noted that impacts to farm businesses should be minimized; the project will have no impact on farm businesses.



TABLE VI-2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Comment Reference Commenter Comment Summary Response

Air Quality (AQ)

AQ-1 Choudri, S. Concerned about impact of air pollution and litter from the bridge on my family’s homes.

Alternative BR-5, which NYSDOT has selected as the preferred alternative, would require the permanent relocation of the referenced residences. Relocation would occur prior to the commencement of construction. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

AQ-2 USEPA Table IV-25 should be revised to reflect the new PM2.5 daily standard of 35 µg/m3 (71 FR 61144).

Comment noted. Section IV.B.3.h has been revised accordingly. (Page IV-141, Table IV-25 “National (and State) Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS))

AQ-3 USEPA The FEIS should discuss the differences between the conformity-related hot-spot analysis for PM2.5 and the microscale analysis performed under NEPA. The hot-spot analysis required by the conformity rule (40 CFR 93.116(a)) is based on the standard in place when the area was designated to be in a non-attainment (i.e., the 65 µg/m3 PM2.5 daily standard). However, the 35 µg/m3 standard is currently in place and any discussion of air quality impacts under NEPA should be made with reference to the new standard.

Based on current monitored levels in the area, shown in Table IV-26, which range from 33 to 41 ug/m3, the projected increase due to the project (less than three percent), and the projected decrease projected to result from existing control technology (see Table IV-34), it is expected that PM2.5 levels in the project area will be well below the new standard. Therefore we expect no impact under either conformity or NEPA. (Page IV-161, “Conclusions”)

AQ-4 USEPA The maintenance period for NAAQS is 20 years, rather than the 10 year time period identified on page IV-148 of the DEIS.

Comment noted. Section IV.B.3.h has been revised accordingly. (Page IV-148, “Existing Conditions”)

AQ-5 USEPA Page IV-163 refers to a USEPA screening procedure for construction emissions. We believe it is a NYSDOT procedure.

Comment noted. Section IV.B.3.h has been revised accordingly. (Page IV-163, “Screening Analysis”)

AQ-6 USEPA EPA recommends that NYSDOT review the recent National Cooperative Highway Research Program report entitled “Analyzing, Documenting, and Communicating the Impacts of Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions in the NEPA Process” (Project 25-25, Task 18) to evaluate whether the mobile source air toxics analysis in the draft EIS should be updated.

NYSDOT has evaluated the referenced NCHRP report and, in discussions with FHWA, have found no new information that might outdate the DEIS analysis. The project type classifications described in that NCHRP Report mirror those described in the FHWA MSAT Guidance, which were applied in the DEIS. According to the DEIS analysis, only a minor increase in VMT is expected under the build alternatives, attributable to operational and safety improvements, without any increase in capacity of the facility. Therefore, the project is classified as a project of "low potential MSAT effects," as described in the FHWA MSAT Guidance.




AQ-7 USEPA The FEIS should address how New York State’s diesel retrofit law (§19-0323) applies to NYSDOT, including any assumptions related to equipment emission rates in construction analysis. If NYSDOT determines that law does not apply, EPA encourages NYSDOT to consider adopting “clean diesel” practices as air quality mitigation measures during construction.

NYSDOT is committed to complying with New York State’s diesel retrofit law that includes the use of ultra low sulfur diesel and best available technology, as well as complying with EPA’s recommendations for “”clean diesel” practices for off-road vehicles and equipment. (Page PA-19, PA.F. “Environmental Commitments”)

AQ-8 USEPA Construction impacts must be considered in the PM2.5 hot-spot analysis for any alternative for which construction will last more than five years (40 CFR 93.123(c)(5)).

The Air Quality Technical Report noted in Section C.4, that because construction would not persist at a single location for more than two years, that a construction-period hot-spot analysis was not required. Similar text has been added to the FEIS. (Page IV-163, “Construction Analysis”)

AQ-9 Vetell Feels that impacts associated with PM2.5 have not been fully explored.

NYSDOT has evaluated the referenced NCHRP report and, in discussions with FHWA, have found no new information that might outdate the DEIS analysis. The project type classifications described in that NCHRP Report mirror those described in the FHWA MSAT Guidance, which were applied in the DEIS. According to the DEIS analysis, only a minor increase in VMT is expected under the build alternatives, attributable to operational and safety improvements, without any increase in capacity of the facility. Therefore, the project is classified as a project of "low potential MSAT effects," as described in the FHWA MSAT Guidance.




Recommendations for Build Alternative Modifications (BAM)

BAM-1 BBP Suggest evaluating extension of Meeker Avenue across Newtown Creek, forming a continuous service road to provide redundancy for the BQE.

As described in Section III.B.4.a, the Alternatives Analysis process considered the need to provide redundancy for the BQE should the bridge be subject to a natural or man-made disaster (Page III-16, “Level 2 Screening Criteria”). Each of the Build Alternatives in the DEIS included one or more new bridges, built to current structural standards, that would be physically separated from either the existing bridge or the other new structures, increasing the likelihood that one of the structures would remain operational following a disaster. The preferred alternative (BR-5) includes three new structures, increasing the level of structural security and redundancy.

In terms of operational redundancy and efficient local connection across Newtown Creek, one objective of the project was to “minimize diversion of highway auto and truck traffic to local streets, both during construction and long-term.” Alternative BR-5 will substantially improve operations on the bridge, increasing 2045 eastbound peak hour speeds to 42 to 45 mph, compared to 7-12 mph for the No Build Alternative. In the westbound direction more modest improvement is expected with peak hour speeds of 29 mph, compared to 7 to 17 mph for the No Build Alternative. In addition Alternative BR-5 will substantially improve conditions for vehicles entering the BQE on both sides of Newtown Creek. In Brooklyn, the Vandervoort Avenue Entrance Ramp will be expanded to two lanes and will be provided with a continuous auxiliary lane across the bridge. Similarly in Queens, traffic entering the westbound BQE from either the LIE or 43rd Street may utilize a continuous auxiliary lane connecting to the Meeker Avenue/Morgan Avenue Exit Ramp in Brooklyn. With these improvements, and their associated travel time savings, Alternative BR-5 will adequately serve both local and through traffic.

BAM-2 Botzman Be aware of future urban trends in auto/public transit traffic management.

Each of the Build Alternatives would include modern design improvements to address safety and operational concerns. As described in Section II.C.2.b, two ongoing projects would implement Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements along the BQE to maximize NYSDOT’s ability to manage the facility as a key part of the region’s transportation network. (Page II-106, “Highway Information Systems”)




BAM-3 Gualtieri NYSDOT is currently studying managed use lanes and should ensure that this project does not preclude their implementation on the bridge.

As described in Section III.B.6.h, the DEIS evaluated the inclusion of an HOV lane on the Kosciuszko Bridge. It found, however, that it is not feasible to reduce the number of general purpose lanes on the BQE and that severe physical constraints prevent implementation over an effective length of the highway. The managed use lane (MUL) study is considering a range of innovative measures some of which may be appropriate for implementation on the Kosciuszko Bridge. The design for the preferred alternative, BR-5, provides significant flexibility for possible MUL implementation. Coordination with the MUL study will occur during the final design phase as MUL measures are considered further. (Page III-34 III.B.6.h “High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes”)

BAM-4 Passantino NYSDOT should consider a plaza or crossover lanes at each end of the bridge to allow easier night-time maintenance.

Although consisting of three (3) separate bridges crossing the creek, all three bridges would begin and end at a common area (the Brooklyn Connector in Brooklyn or the LIE interchange in Queens) where the cross-over action suggested in the comment could be accomplished.

BAM-5 Podd Project should include express lanes that directly connect the LIE both east and westbound. Connections to the LIE should be improved for safety and traffic flow.

Each of the Build Alternatives would improve connections to the LIE through the addition of auxiliary lanes, connecting the ramps in Brooklyn with the LIE interchange. Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, would provide safety and operational improvements by providing a split of eastbound traffic, separating vehicles that want to continue on the BQE from those wishing to exit to the LIE. (Page III-45, III.C.1.f “Alternative BR-5”)

BAM-6 Trovato Concern about impacts to business property. Can cantilevered columns be used over the cemetery to minimize property impacts?

During the development of the Build Alternatives, NYSDOT looked to minimize impacts on businesses and residents by altering the design, where possible. Pier location and span length were modified in several locations to eliminate or minimize impacts to businesses. During the final design process, NYSDOT will continue to evaluate the project’s design and seek out changes in design or construction technique that may reduce impacts.




BAM-7 Trovato Why don’t the Build Alternatives straighten the BQE to eliminate the existing curve and, therefore, improve safety and reduce property impacts?

The alternatives analysis process considered a wide range of alternatives, including two, BR-7 and BR-8, which “straightened” the expressway to some extent. However, construction of either of these alternatives would require significant impact to Old Calvary Cemetery, with limited change in impacts to businesses. (Page III-8, III.B.2. “Long List of Alternatives”)

BAM-8 Vespole Suggests adding a merging sign to help reduce accidents. Comment noted and forwarded to NYSDOT Office of Operations, Traffic Engineering and Safety Division for consideration.

Construction Impacts (CI)

CI-1 Chorost The DEIS has not adequately analyzed the potential impacts of using parts of the Class 2 NYSDEC listed “Phelps Dodge/Laurel Hill Inactive Hazardous Waste Site” (Block 2529, Lot 1) for construction staging areas, or whether off-site areas might be better suited.

Block 2529, Lot 1 is identified as a potential staging area due to its proximity to Newtown Creek, NYSDOT’s right-of-way (under the bridge) and topography as suitable conditions for the site. The proposed activities on the site would be limited to the transfer and stockpiling of materials. No impact is anticipated to subsurface structures including the sheet pile barrier wall, groundwater interceptor trench, media drains, and site-specific cap system. Text to this effect has been added to Section IV.B.3.j. (Page IV-221, “Transportation and Storage of Construction Materials and Equipment”)

CI-2 Chorost DEIS does not explain the basis for identifying Block 2529, Lot 1 as the only contemplated construction staging area. It does not appear to have any characteristics distinct from other nearby sites that might also be used for construction staging areas.

Block 2529, Lot 1 is identified as a potential staging area due to its proximity to Newtown Creek, NYSDOT’s right-of-way (under the bridge) and topography as suitable conditions for the site.

Text has been added to Section IV.B.3.j to reflect this rationale. (Page IV-221, “Transportation and Storage of Construction Materials and Equipment”)

CI-3 Chorost Other than proximity to the bridge, Block 2529, Lot 1 lacks any bulkhead or relieving platform which other nearby parcels have. The rip-rap shoreline cannot be disturbed without NYSDEC approval. Therefore, the FEIS should explain if NYSDOT plans to construct a new bulkhead on Block 2529, Lot 1 if it is selected as the construction staging area.

NYSDOT has and will continue to coordinate with NYSDEC and other agencies on permit requirements for the construction of bulkhead.




CI-4 Chorost The DEIS does not discuss or analyze alternate staging areas. The FEIS should consider potential construction impacts to the site including, but not limited to, damage to the sheet pile barrier wall, groundwater interceptor trench, media drains, and/or site-specific cap system.

Block 2529, Lot 1 is identified as a potential staging area due to its proximity to Newtown Creek, NYSDOT’s right-of-way (under the bridge) and topography as suitable conditions for the site. The proposed activities on the site would be limited to the transfer and stockpiling of materials. No impact is anticipated to subsurface structures including the sheet pile barrier wall, groundwater interceptor trench, media drains, and site-specific cap system. Text to this effect has been added to Section IV.B.3.j. (Page IV-221, “Transportation and Storage of Construction Materials and Equipment”)

CI-5 Choudri, N.(1) Will my family be temporarily relocated during construction? Alternative BR-5, which NYSDOT has selected as the preferred alternative, would require the permanent relocation of the referenced residences. Relocation would occur prior to the commencement of construction. (Page IV-31, B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

CI-6 Choudri, S. Concerned about the quality of life for our family once construction begins.

Alternative BR-5, which NYSDOT has selected as the preferred alternative, would require the permanent relocation of the referenced residences. Relocation would occur prior to the commencement of construction. (Page IV-31, B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

CI-7 Giulietti Concern over potential damage to Old Calvary Cemetery’s perimeter fence during construction.

As described in Section III.C.2.h, Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, would require a temporary bridge to be constructed over a portion of Laurel Hill Boulevard adjacent to Old Calvary Cemetery. This temporary structure would be located immediately adjacent to Old Calvary Cemetery’s fence, but would not encroach on the cemetery’s property. NYSDOT will implement measures to avoid damage to private property including the cemetery’s perimeter fence. (Page III-92, “Alternative BR-5”)

CI-8 Nelson We would like to confirm that the project will not encroach or occupy air space over any part of Laurel Hill Boulevard.

As described in Section III.C.2.h, Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, would require a temporary bridge to be constructed over a portion of Laurel Hill Boulevard adjacent to Old Calvary Cemetery, which would remain in place less than 18 months. (Page III-92, “Alternative BR-5”)




CI-9 Nelson Please indicate the limits of construction along the project perimeter in the area of Laurel Hill Boulevard.

As described in Section III.C.2.h, Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, would require a temporary bridge to be constructed over a portion of Laurel Hill Boulevard adjacent to Old Calvary Cemetery. This temporary structure would be located immediately adjacent to Old Calvary Cemetery’s fence, but would not encroach on the cemetery’s property. (Page III-92, “Alternative BR-5”)

CI-10 Nelson Protection of Calvary’s perimeter iron fence may be required to be included in the contract documents.

Measures to protect all private property will be developed during the final design phase and will be included in construction contract documents. (Page IV-224, “Construction Period Measures”)

CI-11 Nelson Please advise as to what provisions will be included in the construction contract documents for the protection of the mausoleums and headstones in Old Calvary Cemetery.

Measures to protect all private property will be developed during the final design phase and will be included in construction contract documents. (Page IV-224, “Construction Period Measures”)

CI-12 Nelson NYSDOT must be responsible for the protection of headstones, statuary and historic/landmark structures against project-related construction.

NYSDOT will coordinate with Old Calvary Cemetery during the final design phase to ensure that appropriate protection measures are incorporated.

CI-13 Nelson NYSDOT must request permission for any work or entry within or overhead of Old Calvary Cemetery and provide adequate insurance as required by cemetery owner.

NYSDOT will coordinate with Old Calvary Cemetery during the final design phase regarding any required entry or work on or above cemetery property.

CI-14 Nelson During the entire construction period plus 2 years after completion, NYSDOT must require that all stormwater, snow, and ice be removed from the project area within a closed system (no outlet to ground surface), or by bucket/truck (no snowplow) when snow/ice prevents and/or disrupts flow pattern.

As described in the DEIS, each of the Build Alternatives would include a new closed stormwater handling system to collect water on the bridge and convey it, following pre-treatment, to Newtown Creek. From the start of construction activities until completion, NYSDOT’s contractor would be required to maintain the traveled way in such a condition and conduct operations in such a manner that snow and ice may be readily controlled by others as necessary, and in such a manner that proper drainage is provided for the melting of snow in the banks resulting from normal plowing. Removal of snow/ice from the bridge will be handled in a manner similar to other similar highway facilities. (Page III-90, III.C.2.f. “Drainage”)




Contaminated Materials (CM)

CM-1 BBP The community is concerned about the construction impacting the underground oil spill. Alternative BR-5 may minimize the potential for impacts to the community.

NYSDOT will seek to limit any impacts on the underground oil spill in Brooklyn through the use of spread footings instead of piles for pier foundations in the area of the spill. By limiting construction on the north side of the existing BQE in the area of the spill, Alternative BR-5 has less potential for impact to the spill than the other Build Alternatives. Further testing will be completed during the final design phase and the project’s Health and Safety Plan will include provisions for appropriate response should the spill be encountered during construction. (Page IV-215, Table IV-59 “Potential Impact to Contaminated Materials”; Page IV-215, “Mitigation”)

CM-2 Buchanan DEIS did not adequately evaluate project’s impact on remediation efforts at the Class 2 NYSDEC listed “Phelps Dodge/Laurel Hill Inactive Hazardous Waste Site.”

NYSDOT has discussed with NYSDEC the use of a portion of the Phelps Dodge/Laurel Hill Site as a staging area during construction. This coordination will continue throughout the final design phase as the specific needs for the area are determined. This coordination will determine what measures would be required to avoid impacts to the ongoing remediation efforts at the site. (Page IV-215, “Mitigation”)

CM-3 Buchanan Block 2529 Lot 1 (parcel 1A of the Laurel Hill Site) is identified as a construction staging area for each alternative. The groundwater treatment system has underground chambers that must be accessible and regular sampling of monitoring wells is required by NYSDEC.

NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with NYSDEC during the final design phase to ensure that site activities would not interfere with ongoing monitoring of the site. (Page IV-215, “Mitigation”)

CM-4 Buchanan The proposed placement of the bridge foundations on Block 2529 Lot 60 (Parcel 9 of the Laurel Hill Site) could disable or destroy the western segment of the groundwater treatment system, specifically Wet Well No. 1 and 2, which is essential to the collection system’s functions.


CM-5 Buchanan The FEIS should consider the impact of the construction staging area and bridge foundations on the effectiveness and operation of the groundwater treatment system and evaluate alternative locations.





CM-6 Buchanan Construction of bridge foundations and the stormwater handling system may require excavation and disposal of contaminated soils.

As described in Section IV.B.3.i, NYSDOT’s sampling program identified contaminated soil throughout much of the project site and a pre-construction analysis of each area of proposed excavation will be undertaken. Contaminated materials encountered during construction would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and in compliance with the soil and groundwater management plans developed for the project. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

CM-7 Buchanan NYSDOT should determine how much soil would be excavated at the Laurel Hill Site and how it will be sampled, analyzed, characterized, excavated, transported, and disposed of appropriately.

The final design phase and pre-construction analysis of each area of proposed excavation will determine the quantity and level of contamination of soil to be removed. A soil management plan, described in Section IV.B.3.i, would identify soil handling and disposal procedures to be employed during construction activities. (Page IV-217, “Soil Management Plan”)

CM-8 Buchanan NYSDOT should develop a health and safety plan that will protect personnel working in potentially hazardous soils as well as the public at large.

A Health and Safety Plan (HASP) as well as a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) would be implemented by NYSDOT during construction to protect the health of workers and the community. (Page IV-216, “Health and Safety Plan”)

CM-9 Buchanan Project may disturb, dredge, and/or dispose of potentially impacted sediments in Newtown Creek.

Each of the Build Alternatives would require dredging contaminated Newtown Creek sediment. As noted in Section IV.B.3.i, dredging would be conducted under an approved NYSDEC Dredging Permit, which would include requirements and procedures for the testing, handling, and disposal of dredged material. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

CM-10 Buchanan NYSDOT should determine how much Newtown Creek sediment would be dredged or disturbed and determine how it will be dredged, transported, and disposed of appropriately.

As noted on Figure IV-15, “Dredging and Temporary Platform Plan,” it is estimated that 2,750 m3 (3,797 yd3) of sediment would be removed from Newtown Creek in the area adjacent to the bridge. As noted in Section IV.B.3.i, dredging would be conducted under an approved NYSDEC Dredging Permit, which would include requirements and procedures for the testing, handling, and disposal of dredged material. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)




CM-11 Buchanan NYSDOT should address the need to minimize migration of contaminants within the creek, spillage of loose sediments from the lifting operation of the dredge sediments from the creek bed into the transport barge, and the impact on local businesses and residences from the odor of the dredge sediments during loading and transportation.

Dredging will be performed using a closed-top clamshell bucket to prevent dredged water and material from leaking or becoming re-suspended by spilling out of the bucket during the dredging operation. Properly maintained, weighted silt curtains will be used to confine the dredged area until the material has an opportunity to settle. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

CM-12 CB1B(1) NYSDOT should coordinate with agencies involved in the oil spill clean up and work together to provide environmental mitigation to protect the Brooklyn and Queens communities.

NYSDOT has coordinated, and will continue to do so, with NYCDEP, NYSDEC, and USEPA regarding potential impacts and mitigation associated with the oil spill in Brooklyn. A Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) will be implemented during construction to ensure the safety of workers and the community. (Page IV-216, “Health and Safety Plan”)

CM-13 Chorost The DEIS does not address the fact that some of the dredging would take place within the boundaries of the Class 2 NYSDEC listed “Phelps Dodge/Laurel Hill Inactive Hazardous Waste Site.”

Text has been added to Section IV.B.3.i to clarify that a portion of the dredging required to construct temporary platforms in Newtown Creek would occur within the boundaries of the Class 2 NYSDEC listed “Phelps Dodge/Laurel Hill Inactive Hazardous Waste Site.” (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

CM-14 Chorost Dredging operations planned for Newtown Creek within Operable Unit 6 (OU6) could interfere with the investigation and/or remediation. NYSDOT is obligated to comply with NYSDEC pursuant to the MOU between those agencies, and must coordinate with NYSDEC regarding Consent Order D2-0001-02-06 (June 2002).

The dredging operations planned for Newtown Creek would be conducted under an approved NYSDEC Dredging Permit which would include requirements and procedures for the testing, handling and disposal of dredged material. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

CM-15 Chorost The DEIS does not consider that the staging and permanent easement areas on the Phelps Dodge site are subject to NYSDEC remedial requirements.

NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with NYSDEC during the final design phase to ensure that site activities would not interfere with ongoing remedial actions on the site. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

CM-16 Chorost The project could impede Sagres’ required capping of the Phelps Dodge Site and its obligation to monitor and maintain that cap. The use of heavy equipment or other intrusive activities could damage the sheet pile barrier wall, groundwater interceptor trench, and media drains installed within the proposed staging area.





CM-17 Chorost The DEIS does not adequately address the potential release of contaminated sediment resulting from dredging activities or interference with the NYSDEC-controlled remediation of the Phelps Dodge Site.

The dredging operations planned for Newtown Creek would be conducted under an approved NYSDEC Dredging Permit which would include requirements and procedures for the testing, handling and disposal of dredged material. NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with NYSDEC during the final design phase to ensure that site activities would not interfere with ongoing monitoring of the site. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

CM-18 Chorost The FEIS should describe the Consent Order; the extent of known contamination in Newtown Creek; any sampling or other testing that will be performed prior to dredging to characterize contamination in Newtown Creek; anticipated impacts to the environment and/or human health as a result of the dredging; any dredging mitigation measures; any measures designed to mitigate potential damage to media drain and barrier wall caused by heavy equipment; the coordination process with NYSDEC regarding dredging activities and associated mitigation; monitoring of coordination; and the likelihood of NYSDOT acquiring or requiring necessary permits/approvals for construction and dredging the Site.

As described in Section IV.B.3.i, NYSDOT reviewed the results of sediment sampling conducted in Newtown Creek in the vicinity of the Kosciuszko Bridge by the NYSDEC in 2000, as well as results for sediment samples collected during investigations at the Phelps Dodge site. Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures were described in the DEIS. (Page IV-212, “Impacts of the Proposed Project”)

The dredging operations planned for Newtown Creek would be conducted under an approved NYSDEC Dredging Permit which would include requirements and procedures for the testing, handling and disposal of dredged material. NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with NYSDEC during the final design phase to ensure that site activities would not interfere with ongoing monitoring of the site. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

CM-19 Iwachiw Coordinate dredging with NYCDEP Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant conduits and oil plume remediation.

The dredging operations planned for Newtown Creek would be conducted under an approved NYSDEC Dredging Permit which would include requirements and procedures for the testing, handling and disposal of dredged material. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

NYSDOT has coordinated, and will continue to do so, with NYCDEP, NYSDEC, and USEPA regarding potential impacts and mitigation associated with the oil spill in Brooklyn. A Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) will be implemented during construction to ensure the safety of workers and the community. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)




CM-20 NMFS All dredging must suitably protect water quality and local uses by fishery resources and their prey. All dredging should use an environmental bucket within properly maintained, weighted silt curtains that confine re-suspended material until it has an opportunity to settle. This is necessary to minimize the transport and distribution of re-suspended contaminated material in the waterway and to limit the extent to which chemically reduced substances are broadcast in the waterway which results in depressed dissolved oxygen values.


CM-21 NMFS Given the highly contaminated nature of the sediments, NYSDOT should be prepared to employ containment equipment and develop response plans to address water quality concerns that would accrue from encountering pockets of hydrocarbons or similar issues during dredging, demolition, or construction activities that could mobilize these contaminants.

Contaminated material encountered during excavation activity, including any free petroleum, will be handled, transported, and disposed of according to all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations, and in accordance with the site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and soil and groundwater management plans. The approved HASP and management plans will be in place during construction and will include specific procedures to address known contamination as well as contingency measures to be taken if unanticipated contamination is encountered. The HASP will also include procedures for monitoring for the presence of VOC vapors, including methane, as well as action threshold levels and responses. (Page IV-219, “Mitigation”)

CM-22 Vetell Concerned about contamination in the creek in areas that will not be dredged as part of the project.

NYSDEC has regulatory authority over water quality within Newtown Creek.

Construction Period Traffic (CPT)

CPT-1 BBP NYSDOT and NYCDOT should anticipate and plan for off-project detours. The effect of construction on other Newtown Creek bridges and the suggested detours should also be studied as part of the construction period impacts.

NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDOT during the final design and construction phases to minimize the impacts of construction on traffic operations.

NYSDOT is committed to minimizing detours within the community by maintaining all six lanes of traffic on the bridge during construction, conducting construction activities during off peak hours, and minimizing street closures to the greatest extent practicable. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”)




CPT-2 CB1B(1) NYSDOT, NYCDOT and CB1 should collaborate to make sure traffic monitoring and mitigation are a priority throughout construction.

NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDOT during the final design and construction phases to minimize the impacts of construction on traffic operations. NYSDOT will also continue to coordinate with the SAC, of which CB1 is a member, throughout construction to identify and address any issues as they arise. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”; Page PA-13, “Communication/Outreach”)

CPT-3 Gottlieb Major equipment should be brought in on barges over Newtown Creek.

As noted in Section IV.B.3.j, NYSDOT has committed to bringing, to the extent practicable, materials and equipment to the site by barge via Newtown Creek to reduce the number of truck trips required on the local streets. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Transportation and Storage of Construction Materials and Equipment”)

CPT-4 Gottlieb NYSDOT should be aware of the potential impacts to bus schedules.

As described in Section IV.B.1.d, NYSDOT’s Preferred Alternative BR-5 would not have any long term effects on bus routes in the area. However, the B24, B48, Q67, and B43 bus routes, which are in close proximity to the construction areas, may be temporarily rerouted for brief periods of time during construction. In addition, alternate routes would be provided to mitigate lane closures. Coordination with NYCT will occur during the final design stage to maintain levels of service. (Page IV-17, IV.B.1.d. “Change in Travel Patterns or Accessibility”)

CPT-5 Gottlieb Additional traffic resulting from construction should be monitored day to day.

NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDOT during the final design and construction phases to minimize the impacts of construction on traffic operations. NYSDOT will also continue to coordinate with the SAC throughout construction to identify and address any issues as they arise. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”)

CPT-6 Keeshan Concerned with the traffic that will come through their area as a result of the project.

As noted in Section IV.B.3.j, NYSDOT has committed to bringing, to the extent practicable, materials and equipment to the site by barge via Newtown Creek. Construction truck traffic will be limited to existing designated truck routes where feasible to reduce the number of truck trips required on the local streets. Additionally, NYSDOT has committed to maintaining six lanes of traffic on the bridge throughout the duration of construction, reducing the need for vehicles to seek alternate routes. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”)




CPT-7 Keeshan Will our community’s street repairs be affected by the additional truck and vehicular traffic that will result from the project?

NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDOT to minimize disruption to regular maintenance and street repair schedules. NYSDOT is committed to repairing any streets damaged by construction for this project. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”)

CPT-8 Lentol NYSDOT and NYCDOT must coordinate regarding traffic during construction.

NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDOT during the final design and construction phases to minimize the impacts of construction on traffic operations. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”)

CPT-9 Lentol NYSDOT must communicate with the public regarding traffic management during construction.

NYSDOT will continue working with the SAC during the final design and construction phases to identify and address concerns and to notify the public of any upcoming community disruptions. (Page PA-13, PA.F. “Environmental Commitments”)

CPT-10 Nelson At any time during construction, will Laurel Hill Boulevard be closed to traffic and, if so, for what purpose?

Short-term street closures during off-peak and nighttime periods would be required during construction along Laurel Hill Boulevard specifically during erection and removal of temporary structures when work is taking place overhead. All temporary detours, lane and street closures must first be approved by NYCDOT. Extensive notification will be provided to the community in advance of closures. (Page IV-223, “Queens Streets”)

CPT-11 NYCDOT Traffic count data should determine roadway closure hours for construction.

NYSDOT will conduct further traffic studies during the final design process and coordinate closely with NYCDOT to ensure that the impacts of any local street closures are minimized. Closures will be limited to overnight and off-peak hours to the greatest extent practicable. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”)

CPT-12 NYCDOT Traffic count data along proposed detour routes will be necessary to determine its viability.

NYSDOT will conduct further traffic studies during the final design process and coordinate closely with NYCDOT to ensure the appropriateness of any proposed detour routes. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”)

CPT-13 NYCDOT If sidewalks are closed, pedestrians must be detoured safely to the other side.

Any pedestrian detours will include adequate safety measures that meet NYCDOT requirements.




CPT-14 NYCDOT To increase roadway capacity, parking can be restricted full time or part time. The impact of lost parking needs to be determined.

NYSDOT will coordinate closely with NYCDOT during the final design phase to ensure that plans balance the need for vehicle movement and parking needs in the community. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”)

CPT-15 NYCDOT Ideally temporary structures should provide the same vertical clearance as permanent structures (14’-6”).

Standard vertical clearances will be maintained during construction at all locations except Vandervoort Avenue (14'-2") and 54th Road (13'-4") where existing clearances are less than 14'-6".

CPT-16 Perez Concerned about construction workers parking in area that already has limited parking. Suggest suspending alternate side parking regulations for the duration of the project.

NYSDOT will work with the SAC, the contractor, NYCDOT, and DSNY to address concerns regarding street parking during construction. Construction workers and contractors will be strongly encouraged to carpool and park in legal spaces or project-designated spaces only. (Page IV-224, “Construction Period Measures”)

CPT-17 Vetell Traffic agents should be provided in Brooklyn during construction to ensure that drivers obey traffic laws.

NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDOT and NYPD during the final design and construction phases regarding the use of traffic agents at key intersections in the community during construction. (Page IV-220, IV.B.3.j. “Construction Impacts”)

CPT-18 Vetell Concerned that vehicles will exit the BQE at Flushing Avenue to avoid congestion on the bridge during construction.

NYSDOT has committed to maintaining six lanes of traffic on the bridge throughout the duration of construction, reducing the need for vehicles to seek alternate routes. (Page PA-5, PA.B.2. “Construction Staging”)

Emergency Services (ES)

ES-1 Gottlieb Local police precinct should be involved with SAC. Coordination and communication has occurred on a regular basis with NYPD since 2005 with minutes and meeting notices sent to a representative in the 94th Precinct in Brooklyn. In addition, NYPD has three (3) representatives on the IAAC: Office of Technology and Systems, Traffic Control Division, and Highway Patrol. Additionally, FDNY has four representatives. Emergency services agencies will be increasingly involved during final design and construction. Representatives of these agencies will be invited to join the SAC, as we move into the final design phase of the project. (Page PA-17, “Transportation”)




ES-2 NYCDOT Maintaining Cherry Street as a through street is preferable. Based on coordination with NYCDOT and FDNY, all Build Alternatives maintain Cherry Street to at least Stewart Avenue. Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, would terminate Cherry Street at Stewart Avenue, but reopen currently closed segments of Thomas Street and Stewart Avenue, ensuring efficient access throughout the area. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.f. “Changes to Local Streets”)

ES-3 NYCDOT Emergency access must not be compromised. Emergency services may be affected by required periodic lane closures, particularly during the erection and removal of a temporary structure over eastbound Meeker Avenue between Kingsland Avenue and Porter Avenue, in order to reconstruct the viaduct in this section. Meeker Avenue would remain open to traffic during this time. NYSDOT will coordinate with NYPD and FDNY during the final design and construction phases to ensure that sufficient emergency access is provided to all properties at all times during construction. (Page IV-19, IV.B.1.f. “Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety and Overall Public Safety and Health”)

General Ecology and Water Resources (EWR)

EWR-1 Giulietti Trees branching over Old Calvary Cemetery’s fence along Laurel Hill Boulevard will require special attention in accordance with the New York City Trees & Sidewalks Repair Program.

Text has been added to the Executive Summary (H.4.i), and Section IV.B.3.k, indicating the need to obtain a “Street Tree Work Permit” from NYCDPR for any proposed removal or pruning of street trees. (Page IV-230, “New York City Department of Parks and Recreation”)

EWR-2 Iwachiw Cooperate with re-establishing fresh-water flow from the terminus of Newtown Creek and runoff marshland.

NYSDEC has regulatory authority over water quality within Newtown Creek.




EWR-3 Iwachiw The roadbed should be above the 300 yr floodplain for disaster response purposes.

Floodplain maps obtained from FEMA for the Newtown Creek watershed show the 100-year floodplain coincides with the bulkhead system of the creek in many places (Page Fig. IV-20). The 100-year floodplain is at an elevation of 10 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) in the vicinity of the bridge. The 500-year floodplain is at approximately 13 feet in the area. While the main span piers would be within the 500-year floodplain, it would be supported on a deep pile foundation. Flooding in this area would not include fast moving water and the piers would not be in danger of being compromised by scour. The road surface of the BQE would be well above (more than 30 feet) the 500-year floodplain. (Page IV-52, “Floodplains”)

EWR-4 NMFS The proposed project would adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) and the species associated with it, particularly during demolition of the existing main span piers and dredging. Installation of additional storm water outfalls would introduce more contaminants as well as create seasonal thermal influences. These disturbances to local water quality and associated habitat conditions should be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable.

NYSDOT has committed to a number of measures, described in Section IV.B.3.a, IV.B.3.b, and IV.B.3.c, to minimize and mitigate impacts to Newtown Creek water quality and wildlife. (Page IV-58, B.3.b. “Water Source Quality”, IV-75, IV.B.3.c. “General Ecology and Wildlife”)

EWR-5 NMFS All dredging must suitably protect water quality and local uses by fishery resources and their prey. All dredging should use an environmental bucket within properly maintained, weighted silt curtains that confine re-suspended material until it has an opportunity to settle. This is necessary to minimize the transport and distribution of re-suspended contaminated material in the waterway and to limit the extent to which chemically reduced substances are broadcast in the waterway which results in depressed dissolved oxygen values.





EWR-6 NMFS All demolition activities should employ the least damaging option.

Alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 would require removal of the existing concrete pier structures by mechanical means (e.g., large hoe-rams, jackhammers, and wire cutting) to approximately 2 feet below the mudline. Since no blasting (and no associated shockwaves) would be required, no cofferdams are proposed as part of the creek-side pier removal process. If acceptable, avoiding the additional expense and disturbance that a sheetpile cofferdam would entail is desired. Silt curtains will be used to contain any short-term turbidity. (Page IV-75, “Mitigation”)

EWR-7 NMFS All temporary structures must immediately be removed from the waterway to ensure that local habitat recovery can begin as soon as possible.

The temporary platforms in the creek would need to remain for the duration of construction to serve the barges that would transport construction and demolition materials. The platforms will be removed at the earliest opportunity, towards the end of the project. (Page IV-35, IV.B.3.a. “Surface Waters/Wetlands”)

EWR-8 NMFS Rip rap should not be used to create fast land and must be minimized to the extent practicable.

Riprap would be placed on either side of the creek to provide a stable, non-erosive creek bank and to protect the new pier foundations to be installed farther back from the creek than the existing pier foundations. The purpose of the riprap is to stabilize the creek banks in lieu of the bulkheads that presently form the creek banks, not to create fast land. The precise configuration of the riprap slopes will be established during final design; however, the volume of the riprap to be placed within the creek would be largely or entirely balanced by the volume of water-column habitat that would be created by dredging for all alternatives, and by removal of the existing concrete pier foundations for alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5. (Page IV-36, “Alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5”)

EWR-9 NMFS NMFS recommends that the applicants pursue the least damaging project alternative that achieves the transportation infrastructure improvements that are necessary.

NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative, because it addresses the project’s purpose and need (safety, operational and structural) while minimizing cost and impacts to the natural and human environment. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)




EWR-10 NMFS All storm water outfalls should be designed and maintained to minimize their role as a potential source of chemical substances or thermal pollution. This conservation recommendation is necessary to avoid and minimize the potential for directed surface runoff to further contaminate the waterway and potentially contribute to local hypoxic or anoxic events.

All stormwater outfalls will be constructed and maintained to minimize potential pollutants from the project area entering receiving waters. This project will be constructed in conformance with NYSDEC’s General Permit for Construction Activities (GP-0201) and New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, August 2005. Permanent stormwater controls would be designed per the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual, and/or NYSDEC’s Interim Strategy (April 2004) for Redevelopment Projects. (Page IV-66, “Operation Period”)

EWR-11 NMFS Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires the involved federal agency to provide NMFS with a detailed written response to these EFH conservation recommendations, including a description of measures they will adopt for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In the case of response that is inconsistent with NMFS’ recommendations, Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA also indicates that the involved federal action agency must explain why NMFS recommendations will not be followed. Included would be the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(k).

NYSDOT has provided written response to NMFS regarding their comments. A copy of the correspondence is included in Appendix R. (see Appendix R, “Correspondence”)

EWR-12 NMFS Further EFH consultation must be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(l) if new information becomes available or the project is revised in such a manner that affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommendations.

Comment noted.

EWR-13 NRCS Demolition and construction debris should not be discharged into any watercourse, wetland, or other waterbody.

No demolition debris would be discharged into any watercourse, wetland, or other waterbody. Alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 would require removal of the existing concrete pier structures by mechanical means (e.g., large hoe-rams, jackhammers, and wire cutting) to approximately 2 feet below the mudline. Silt curtains will be used to contain any short-term turbidity and all material will be removed from the creek. (Page IV-75, “Mitigation”)




EWR-14 NRCS Sediment from erosion near the project site should not enter any water body or water course.

The Kosciuszko Bridge Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with NYSDEC’s New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, August 2005, for temporary erosion control during construction. (Page IV-45, “Coastal Zone Impacts of the Proposed Project”)

EWR-15 NRCS Contractor’s quality control and NYSDOT’s quality assurance responsibilities should ensure these suggested control measures are instituted and maintained.

NYSDOT will, through both the agreement with the contractor and their own direct oversight, ensure that all environmental controls and mitigation measures described in the FEIS are implemented during construction. (Page IV-224, “Construction Period Measures”)

EWR-16 NRCS Should any water course be altered, NYSDOT should identify alternatives that would minimize the impact.

Riprap would be placed on either side of Newtown Creek to provide a stable, non-erosive creek bank and to protect the new pier foundations. Dredging on the Queens side of the creek would allow for the construction of temporary platforms to be used for offloading materials brought to the site by barge. Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, would remove the existing Main Span piers, which extend into the creek. No other permanent changes are proposed for Newtown Creek. (Page IV-36, “Alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5”)

EWR-17 USEPA The bridge replacement alternatives would decrease the long term impacts to Newtown Creek by removing the existing bridge piers from the littoral zone as compared to the rehabilitation alternatives.

Comment noted. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the Preferred Alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

EWR-18 USEPA Based on review of provided information, EPA does not anticipate that this project will result in significant adverse impacts to ground water quality. Accordingly, the project satisfies the requirements of Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Comment noted.

Historic and Cultural Resources (HCR)

HCR-1 ACHP Continue consultation with SHPO and other consulting parties regarding the Section 106 process.

NYSDOT has coordinated with SHPO throughout the project and will continue to do so through the completion of the Section 106 process. Sections VII.F.2 and VII.I.2 provide details of this coordination. (Page IV-82, IV.B.3.d. “Historic and Cultural Resources”)




HCR-2 ACHP If the preferred alternative will adversely affect historic properties, FHWA must notify ACHP as required by 36 CFR 800.

The preferred alternative, BR-5, will adversely affect the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible Kosciuszko Bridge. Accordingly, FHWA has notified ACHP of this impact. (Page PA-10, PA.E.3.b. “Cultural Resources”)

HCR-3 Iwachiw The existing bridge should be maintained as a historic site, eventually to provide a viewing platform for pedestrians and tourists.

Under NYSDOT’s preferred alternative, BR-5, the existing bridge would be demolished. Due to additional property impacts, it would not be feasible to retain the existing bridge for non-highway use. Mitigation for the demolition of the existing Kosciuszko Bridge will include coordination with the National Park Service on documentation to Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards, HAER documentation includes bridge history, photodocumentation and measured drawings, dissemination of this documentation to the appropriate state and national repositories (i.e. the Library of Congress), and/or interpretive displays on-site associated with the new bridge. Note that Alternative BR-5, similar to Alternatives BR-2 and BR-3, would include a bikeway/walkway on the north side of the bridge (facing Manhattan) for use by bicyclists and pedestrians. (Page PA-10, PA.E.3.b. “Cultural Resources”)

HCR-4 NYSHPO Since there are still a number of alternatives being evaluated, we believe it is premature to move forward with a Programmatic Agreement at this time. It is clear that BR-2, BR-3 and BR-5 would constitute an Adverse Effect due to the demolition of the National Register-Eligible Kosciuszko Bridge. However, RA-5 and RA-6 are clearly alternatives to the demolition of this historic bridge. As such, it is our opinion that these two alternatives should be the preferred alternatives moving forward.

As discussed in FEIS Chapter VII, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6 were rejected as not prudent under Section 4(f) because they do not meet the project’s purpose and need. With the selection of Alternative BR-5 as the Preferred Alternative and the determination that an adverse effect would occur, the draft Programmatic Agreement became the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). (See “M-3 Memorandum of Agreement” in Appendix M.) The MOA also incorporates stipulations of the draft PA.

HCR-5 NYSHPO A Programmatic Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement may be appropriate once the project is further defined. Any such agreement must address all cultural resources, both archaeological and architectural.

Appendix M-3 contains a revised Memorandum of Agreement reflecting the selection of Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative. As required, this agreement addresses both archaeological and architectural resources. (see “M-3 Memorandum of Agreement” in Appendix M)




Local Street Traffic (LST)

LST-1 Holowacz Please address the existing traffic problem on Meeker Avenue before construction begins.

Section III.C.2.b identifies a number of measures to improve traffic operations at Meeker Avenue intersections between McGuinness Boulevard/Humboldt Street and Vandervoort Avenue that will be completed as part of the project. NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDOT during the final design phase to determine the appropriate timing for implementation of these measures. (Page III-59, III.C.2.b. “Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service and Safety Conditions”)

LST-2 O’Toole Traffic congestion on Meeker Avenue must be dealt with before project construction begins.


LST-3 Washack Something has to be done with the traffic now. If traffic problems in the area are alleviated now, it will be easier to continue with the reconstruction project.


Miscellaneous Agency Coordination (MAC)

MAC-1 FAA FAA must be notified if preferred alternative meets the criteria in 14 CFR 77 for objects affecting navigable airspace.

Comment noted. Text has been added to Section III.C.2.d to reflect coordination needs. (Page III-82)

MAC-2 Gottlieb NYSDOT should coordinate with the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) so that street cleaning activities are not disrupted during construction.

NYSDOT will coordinate with DSNY as well as many other city agencies to ensure that essential services are not interrupted. (Page PA-17, “Transportation”)

MAC-3 Gottlieb The New York City Department of Health should monitor rodents during construction.

Comment noted.




MAC-4 USCG Proposed reduction in the vertical clearance from 125 to 90 feet appears to be acceptable to the U.S. Coast Guard. Final approval will be given after the FEIS and after USCG has completed their bridge permit process.

Comment noted. NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with USCG during final design to ensure that all navigation and permit needs are addressed. (Page IV-226, “Federal Permits/Approvals”)

MAC-5 USCG Our authority for the Bridge Replacement alternatives is under the General Bridge Act of 1946 and not under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 as noted in the DEIS. The Rehabilitation Alternatives remain under Section 9.

Comment noted. Sections III.C.2.q, IV.B.3.a, and IV.B.3.k of the FEIS have been revised appropriately. (Page III-121, “Clearance Requirements”; Page IV-51, “Navigable Waters”; and Page IV-226 “Federal Permits/Approvals”)

MAC-6 USCG Page IV-45 referring to NYCWRP Policy 3 states, “The temporary platforms would leave an unobstructed channel width of approximately 30m (100ft).” Though USACE may issue permit authorization for the platforms, the Coast Guard will have to coordinate passage of navigation through the area during construction and may require the platforms to be lighted. Also, we may have concerns whenever barges are moored to the platforms (further obstructing the channel) so coordination with the Coast Guard should occur soon after the contractor is selected.

NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with USCG during final design to ensure that all navigation and permit needs are addressed. (Page IV-226, “Federal Permits/Approvals”)

Miscellaneous (MISC)

MISC-1 BBP Recommend using a cost benefit analysis to compare the alternatives.

NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative because it addresses the project’s purpose and need (safety, operational, and structural) while minimizing cost and impacts to the natural and human environment. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

MISC-2 Choudri, N.(1) If an alternative other than BR-5 is chosen and our property is not acquired by NYSDOT, the bridge will be very close to our homes.

NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the Preferred Alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

MISC-3 Keeshan Will taxes be raised to cover the cost of the project? The public expenditures for this project would be generated from federal and state sources. The federal government would contribute approximately 80% of the total cost and NYSDOT would cover the remaining 20%. Funds primarily come from gas tax revenues. No new or additional taxes will be required for this project. (Page III-120, III.D.1. “Costs”)




MISC-4 NRCS If agricultural land is needed for the project, it should remain a viable operation. The acquisition process should not result in the elimination of a farm business and should minimize the impacts of acquisition on any farm businesses.

There is no active or dormant farmland located within the project area. (Page IV-140, IV.B.3.g. “Farmland Assessment”)

MISC-5 Vetell NYSDOT should provide a consultant to ensure the safety of pedestrians during construction.

NYSDOT acknowledges that a concern was previously raised concerning material falling from the bridge to the ground below. NYSDOT has addressed these issues and continues to monitor the structure as part of its routine maintenance efforts and will continue to do so throughout construction. Each of the Build Alternatives would provide a permanent solution through the reconstruction and/or replacement of the existing structures.

Noise Impacts (N)

N-1 CB1B(2) NYSDOT and NYCDOT must address traffic noise abatement on Meeker Avenue.

Federal regulations (23 CFR 772) provide a list of permissible noise mitigation measures. Given the type and intensity of land use only noise barriers were found to be potentially feasible. However, the analysis showed that even very tall noise barriers on the BQE structure (the only practicable location for a barrier in this location) would not meet the minimum insertion loss (reduction) required for consideration. NYSDOT has committed to consider alternative mitigation measures during the final design phase of the project. (Page IV-175, “FHWA Guidelines”)

N-2 Choudri, N.(1) Noise from the bridge is already bad; how will construction affect noise levels for residents?

As described in Section IV.B.3.h, construction equipment noise control and administrative measures will be employed during the construction phase to minimize construction noise to the greatest extent possible (Page IV-179, “Recommended Construction Noise Control”)

N-3 Choudri, S. Concerned about construction noise at night. Will our family be relocated during construction? Who will pay for our expenses during the interim?

Alternative BR-5, which NYSDOT has selected as the preferred alternative, would require the permanent relocation of the referenced residences. Relocation would occur prior to the commencement of construction. (Page IV-31, B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

N-4 Gottlieb Construction should not be done at night during the week when it may disrupt residential areas due to noise.

Some nighttime construction may be required. However, NYSDOT will continue to work with the community to minimize construction impacts to the extent practicable. This may include restricting nighttime work in residential areas. (Page IV-179, “Recommended Construction Noise Control”)




N-5 Gottlieb Construction noise levels should be monitored on a regular basis.

As noted in Section IV.B.3.h, construction noise will be monitored. (Page IV-179, “Recommended Construction Noise Control”)

N-6 Lentol NYSDOT and City must coordinate regarding noise during construction.

As noted in Section IV.B.3.h, construction noise will be monitored. As described in Section IV.B.3.h, construction equipment noise control and administrative measures will be employed during the construction phase to minimize construction noise to the greatest extent possible. In addition, specific maximum construction noise levels will be considered for inclusion in construction contracts. (Page IV-179, “Recommended Construction Noise Control”)

N-7 Rodriguez The existing traffic noise is hazardous to the mental health of Woodside residents.

The Woodside community, located north of the Long Island Expressway, is located outside the limits of the project’s noise study. (Page II-1, II.A.2. “Project Description/Location” and Figure II-2, “Kosciuszko Bridge Project Limits”)

N-8 Rodriguez Suggest noise barriers to shield Woodside residents from the noise and pollution from traffic.

The Woodside community, located north of the Long Island Expressway, is located outside the limits of the project’s noise study. (Page II-1, II.A.2. “Project Description/Location” and Figure II-2, “Kosciuszko Bridge Project Limits”)

N-9 Vetell Concerned that project does not adequately consider noise abatement measures.

Federal regulations (23 CFR 772) provide a list of permissible noise mitigation measures. Given the type and intensity of land use only noise barriers were found to be potentially feasible. However, the analysis showed that even very tall noise barriers placed on the BQE structure would not meet the minimum insertion loss (reduction) required for consideration. NYSDOT has committed to consider alternative mitigation measures during the final design phase of the project. (Page IV-179, “Recommended Construction Noise Control”)

N-10 Vetell Feels that impacts associated with noise, particularly during construction have not been fully explored.

Section IV.B.3.h included a quantitative analysis of predicted noise levels during construction at 27 sensitive receptor locations in the project area. As described in Section IV.B.3.h, construction equipment noise control and administrative measures will be employed during the construction phase to minimize construction noise to the greatest extent possible. NYSDOT will continue to work with the community to minimize, to the extent practicable, construction impacts. (Page IV-179, “Recommended Construction Noise Control”)




Other Local Projects/Plans (OLP)

OLP-1 Nunziato NYCDOT should finish the Grand Street Bridge before the Kosciuszko Bridge Project is started so that traffic congestion does not worsen. NYCDOT should also implement the Maspeth Bypass Plan to relieve congestion that may result from the project.

As described in Section II.C.1.w, NYSDOT has been informed that NYCDOT is proceeding with its plan to replace the Grand Street Bridge. The NYCDOT Truck Route Study, completed in March 2007, recommended further consideration of the Maspeth Bypass Plan. NYSDOT will continue to coordinate closely with NYCDOT on these and other projects in the area to ensure that any traffic impacts associated with construction are minimized to the extent practicable. (Page II-90, II.C.1.w. “Planned Development for Area”)

OLP-2 Vetell Does NYSDOT have future plans to widen the BQE to the south of the ramps in Brooklyn?

NYSDOT has no plans to add lanes to the BQE south of the project limits.

OLP-3 Washack Suggests that NYSDOT and NYCDOT collaborate and implement “Don’t Block the Box” regulations at Meeker Avenue intersections.

Traffic enforcement on local streets such as the one referenced are within the jurisdiction of NYCDOT exclusively. Your comment has been forwarded for their consideration.

OLP-4 Washack Suggests turning Herbert Street into a one-way street towards Kingsland Avenue and turning Richardson Street into a one-way street from Kingsland to Graham Avenue. This provides access to McGuiness Boulevard which brings traffic to the Pulaski and Greenpoint Avenue Bridges, as well as access to the westbound BQE. This will allow cars to find alternative routes away from the Kosciuszko Bridge, which is the problem now.

Changes of direction of local streets, such as those recommended, are within the jurisdiction of NYCDOT exclusively. Your comment has been forwarded for their consideration.

Preferred Alternative (PA)

PA-1 BBP It is clear that bridge replacement is superior to a rehabilitation of the existing bridge. Alternative BR-5 is the best of the bridge replacement alternatives.

Comment noted. NYSDOT has identified Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-2 BBP Alternative BR-5 best balances transportation improvements and economic and community impacts.


PA-3 CB1B(1) Bridge Replacement Alternatives (BR-2, BR-3, BR-5) provide the greatest opportunity to address the efficiency, safety, and other goals of the project. Of these, Alternative BR-5 seems to be the most effective.





PA-4 CB5Q Members of the Queens Community Board 5 Transportation Services Committee have reviewed the documentation provided and recommend that Alternative BR-5 be selected.


PA-5 CB5Q Alternative BR-5 provides for all recommended safety and traffic mitigation measures.


PA-6 CB5Q Of the Bridge Replacement Alternatives, BR-5 incurs the least amount of economic impacts and has the lowest cost.


PA-7 CB5Q Queens Community Board 5 unanimously voted to recommend Alternative BR-5 for the Kosciuszko Bridge.


PA-8 Choudri, N.(1) Although Alternative BR-5 is the only plan that would acquire all of our property, at this time, we are not opposed to it.


PA-9 Choudri, T. All build alternatives will affect our family’s quality of life; therefore we support BR-5. The other alternatives will create unhealthy and unsafe conditions for our family by moving the expressway closer to our homes.


PA-10 Cianciotta Believe “Build Alternative” is the best option, that the SAC should be provided the opportunity to comment after the FEIS, and that NYSDOT should make the final decision on which is the best alternative.

NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative. The SAC, as well as the general public, is encouraged to provide comments to NYSDOT and FHWA on the FEIS by July 21, 2008. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-11 Giulietti Calvary Cemetery supports BR-2 and BR-5 and opposes BR-3 because of sidewalk obstruction.

Comment noted. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-12 Gottlieb Support for BR-5 because it provides greater distance between the project and residences on Meeker Avenue, Van Dam Street, and Apollo Street.

Comment noted. NYSDOT has selected BR-5 as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)




PA-13 Gottlieb Why didn’t the DEIS select a preferred alternative? The environmental impact should be the main factor in determining this. Would like further studies that reach a more definite decision.

NYSDOT waited until the FEIS to identify a preferred alternative to allow input from agencies and the public on the technical analyses presented in the DEIS to be factored into the selection of a preferred alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-14 Hofmann It is more beneficial to build a new bridge than to rehabilitate the existing bridge. The No Build and Rehabilitation alternatives should be eliminated from the process. The build alternatives offer numerous benefits to the community.


PA-15 Holowacz Thought that NYSDOT was going to select a preferred alternative in the DEIS. By not selecting it, NYSDOT has made it harder to provide comments.

NYSDOT waited until the FEIS to identify a preferred alternative to allow input from agencies and the public on the technical analyses presented in the DEIS to be factored into the selection of a preferred alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-16 Holowacz St. Cecilia’s feels the alternative should be selected based on lowest maintenance, least impact on the community, and whichever best addresses traffic.

NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative because it addresses the project’s purpose and need (safety, operational and structural) while minimizing cost and impacts to the natural and human environment. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-17 Kulewicz The AAA of New York supports Alternative BR-5. It best addresses capacity, safety and operational issues and is the most efficient and cost effective alternative.

Comment noted. NYSDOT has selected BR-5 as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-18 Kulewicz The Rehabilitation Alternatives are unacceptable because they do not correct substandard design features, adequately reduce vehicle hours of delay, increase travel speeds, and cost too much relative to their projected lifespan.


PA-19 Lentol The preferred alternative should take into consideration environmental impacts as well as the health and well-being of the surrounding neighborhoods. Any harmful impacts identified and revealed must trigger additional community dialogue and decision making.





PA-20 NYCDOT Alternative BR-5 would provide for a total bridge replacement, standard design speed, standard lane widths, more lanes, increased shoulder widths, improved vertical sight distance due to a lower grade, reduced traffic delays, improved traffic operations (all resulting in a reduced accident rate) and a 75 year life. It is the least expensive of the three bridge replacement alternatives. It is furthest from the residential side. It has the least impact on the Brooklyn oil plume (contaminated materials can cause costly delays). Park parcels appear to be more usable due to their shapes.

Comment noted. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as its preferred alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-21 NYCDOT NYCDOT prefers Alternative BR-5 because bridge capacity would improve, lanes and shoulders would be standard width, land impact would be minimized, and there would be no need to build a temporary bridge.


PA-22 O’Toole The DEIS should have chosen a preferred alternative. NYSDOT waited until the FEIS to identify a preferred alternative to allow input from agencies and the public on the technical analyses presented in the DEIS to be factored into the selection of a preferred alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-23 O’Toole Choose an alternative based on lowest maintenance, that best addresses traffic, and will last the longest with repairs, not based on cost. Alternatives that will need an upgrade after 25 years should be discarded.


PA-24 Passantino Support for BR-5. Comment noted. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as its preferred alternative. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”)

PA-25 Passantino Keeping the existing bridge would not eliminate any of the existing problems.


PA-26 York

I choose No Build Alternative. It is better to maintain the bridge with repairs than to spoil it.





Project Need (PN)

PN-1 BBP The Kosciuszko Bridge should be reconstructed due to its outdated and non-standard features. It has survived beyond its expected useful life.

Each of the Build Alternatives would address most of the non-standard features and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge that contribute to the elevated accident rate. The Bridge Replacement Alternatives would address these deficiencies to a greater extent than the Rehabilitation Alternatives. (Page III-49 “Engineering Considerations of Feasible Alternatives”)

PN-2 Casalino The DEIS, public meeting materials, and press coverage of the project clearly demonstrate the need for a new bridge, with improved safety and engineering elements.

Comment noted. Continuing to maintain the bridge in its current state will not address the operational problems and will incur significant financial and mobility costs. The Bridge Replacement Alternatives best address the safety, operational, and structural deficiencies of the existing bridge. (Page III-49, III.C.2 “Engineering Considerations of Feasible Alternatives)

PN-3 Chorost The DEIS clearly demonstrates the need to rehabilitate or replace the Kosciuszko Bridge to address safety and traffic concerns.

Each of the Build Alternatives would address most of the non-standard features and operational deficiencies of the existing bridge that contribute to the elevated accident rate. The Bridge Replacement Alternatives would address these deficiencies to a greater extent than the Rehabilitation Alternatives. (Page III-49, III.C.2 “Engineering Considerations of Feasible Alternatives)

PN-4 Choudri, N.(2) Existing traffic conditions indicate that improvements to the bridge are needed.

Insufficient shoulders, narrow lanes, insufficient acceleration/deceleration lanes, non-standard stopping sight distance, as well as structural and operational deficiencies all add to the existing congestion on the bridge and on the nearby section of the BQE. (Page II-50, II.C.1.j. “Non-Standard Features and Non-Conforming Features”)

PN-5 Cianciotta Concerned about the excessive amount of commuter vehicles and trucks on the bridge.

Comment noted. As one of New York City’s few north-south interstates, the BQE serves commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from neighboring parkways. (Page II-97, II.C.1.x. “System Elements and Conditions”)

PN-6 Cianciotta Existing bridge conditions, including severe congestion, insufficient shoulders, poor visibility, narrow lanes on main span, and insufficient acceleration lanes are hazardous to those driving over the bridge.





PN-7 Hofmann The Project Team has clearly demonstrated the need for the project.

Comment noted.

PN-8 Midura Agree that improvements to the bridge are needed. Comment noted.

PN-9 NYCDOT The existing bridge has safety, infrastructure and operational deficiencies highlighted by an elevated accident rate, insufficient shoulders, narrow lanes, substandard acceleration/ deceleration lanes, roadway needing perpetual maintenance and a steep grade.


PN-10 Vespole Recognizes that there are a large number of accidents on the bridge and that this should be addressed.


Public Outreach (PO)

PO-1 BBP The alternatives analysis and DEIS processes have been unusually transparent.

Comment noted.

PO-2 Botzman The project website is not working properly. Upon receipt of comments NYSDOT addressed the website issue.

PO-3 CB1B(2) NYSDOT should provide an independent engineer for the community during the construction project.

As noted in the Preferred Alternative chapter of the FEIS, NYSDOT is committed to providing a full-time on-site community liaison during construction, with an office near the project site that will be accessible and convenient to members of the public. (Page PA-13, “Communication/Outreach”)

PO-4 CB1B(1) This DEIS process has been remarkably transparent, respectful, and effective. There were no surprises in the DEIS.

Comment noted.




PO-5 CB1B(1) Community should have independent consultant to review and advise the community on the DEIS process.

NEPA does not require, nor is it NYSDOT policy, to retain an independent consultant. Nevertheless, NYSDOT has been responsive to the community’s request. The project’s Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC) was created to help the community understand the project, from alternatives analysis through construction. The project team has been committed to presenting technical material in a clear and coherent manner. NYSDOT has also provided the community with access to the University Transportation Research Center (UTRC) and the FHWA Resource Center to answer any and all questions regarding the project and the environmental process. It should be noted that both resources were meant to supplement, not replace, the effort continued by the project team to interpret and explain complex issues to the SAC in terms that could be understood.

PO-6 A. Choudri I really appreciate how my family was treated by NYSDOT and the Project Team.

Comment noted.

PO-7 T. Choudri I would like to thank NYSDOT and the Project Team for all their help and support.

Comment noted.

PO-8 Gottlieb Community and NYSDOT must continue to work together through the SAC during the completion of this project.

NYSDOT formed the SAC in the earliest phases of the project to advise and coordinate with the Project Team through all aspects of the EIS process. NYSDOT is committed to continuing this coordination throughout the final design and construction phases of the project. (Page VIII-12, VIII.C.2. “Stakeholders Advisory Committee”)

PO-9 Hofmann Request that URL correction be sent to all parties that received the DEIS. Also request that the written comment period be extended to accommodate the parties that need online access to materials.

Upon receipt of this comment, NYSDOT corrected the website access problems and informed the SAC of the corrective action taken. In addition the comment period was extended from May 25th to June 15th, resulting in a total comment period of 85 days.




PO-10 Hofmann Would like an independent consultant to assist with technical information.


PO-11 L. Hoffmann It has been a pleasure to work with the NYSDOT and the Project Team. They have clearly made every effort to work with the SAC and the community to realize the SAC and community goals and objectives of this project. The Project Team promised there would be no surprises in this DEIS, and they were true to their word.

Comment noted.

PO-12 Holowacz Would like NYSDOT to provide an independent consultant to review the DEIS.





PO-13 Holowacz The FHWA Resource Center, which was offered to answer questions from the SAC, is not adequate.

NYSDOT offered the services of the FHWA Resource Center, which has expertise in the full range of issues included in the DEIS, to answer any general or technical questions the community may have concerning the DEIS.

PO-14 Holowacz Would like the comment period extended due to difficulties with the website.


PO-15 Holowacz It has been a pleasure to work with NYSDOT and the Project Team. They have always been ready to answer any questions and made every effort to work with the SAC and the community.

Comment noted.

PO-16 Lentol An independent engineer is essential for a more streamlined and transparent process.


PO-17 Lentol NYSDOT must notify the public of new traffic patterns, noise, and property damage issues caused by the project.

NYSDOT is committed to providing a full-time on-site community liaison during construction, with an office near the project site that will be accessible and convenient to members of the public. (Page PA-13, “Communication/Outreach”)

PO-18 A. Nunziato I want to personally commend NYSDOT and the Project Team for doing a fantastic job. They’re truthful, everything they do is always aboveboard, they’re going to make sure that anyone who is displaced by the project have everything they need.

Comment noted.




PO-19 A. Nunziato The outreach on this project was unlike any other. Thank you again for keeping everything transparent and keeping everyone informed of what’s going on.

Comment noted.

PO-20 O’Toole NYSDOT should work with the community to mitigate construction and bridge traffic impacts.

As noted in Section IV.B.3.j, NYSDOT has committed to bringing, to the extent practicable, materials and equipment to the site by barge via Newtown Creek to reduce the number of truck trips required on the local streets. Additionally, NYSDOT has committed to maintaining six lanes of traffic on the bridge throughout the duration of construction, reducing the need for vehicles to seek alternate routes. NYSDOT formed the SAC in the earliest phases of the project to advise and coordinate with the Project Team through all aspects of the EIS process. NYSDOT is committed to continuing this coordination throughout the final design and construction phases of the project. (Page IV-216, “Mitigation”)

PO-21 O’Toole Would like an independent consultant to help analyze issues such as noise, PM2.5 and the installation of a new sewer system.


PO-22 O’Toole The FHWA Resource Center, which was offered to answer questions from the SAC, is not adequate.

The FHWA Resource Center, which has expertise in the full range of issues included in the DEIS, was provided to answer any general or technical questions the community may have concerning the DEIS.

PO-23 O’Toole Because of a technical error on the NYSDOT website, we are requesting a longer comment period





PO-24 Swick Website was unavailable. Upon receipt of this comment, NYSDOT corrected the website access problems and informed the SAC of the corrective action taken. In addition the comment period was extended from May 25th to June 15th, resulting in a total comment period of 85 days.

PO-25 Trovato Property owner did not receive any notification of public hearing or project.

Certified letters were sent to owners of all potentially impacted properties. The letter for this property was sent to, and signed for by, North Fork Bank, the address provided in the New York City Department of Finance records. Additionally, through previous contact with the project team, Mr. Trovato’s business was on the project’s mailing list and received notification of the public hearings via a more general mailing. (Page VIII-27, VIII.E, “Program Documentation”)

PO-26 Vetell Outreach has not worked since only ten people commented on the project. There should be another Public Hearing.

Over 60 agencies and members of the public provided more than 250 individual comments (included in this table) either at the public hearings or through written comments. Notices announcing the comment period and the public hearing were published in the NYSDEC Environmental Notice Bulletin, the Federal Register, and ten local, citywide and foreign language (Italian, Polish and Spanish) newspapers. Calendar announcements were sent to three community television stations, eight community newspapers, and the websites of several community organizations, including GWAPP and Tri-State Transportation Campaign. Details regarding the Public Hearings were also posted on the project website. An information package was distributed to over 850 individuals and organizations on the project mailing list and to 49 potentially impacted property owners. Over 7,500 flyers announcing the hearings were provided to elected officials, public libraries, community board offices, and SAC members for distribution. Finally, in response to requests from the public, the comment period was extended to 85 days to provide additional opportunity to comment. Based on this record, NYSDOT is comfortable that they have met their outreach obligations and will not hold an additional public hearing. (Page VIII-22 VIII.C.4. “DEIS Public Hearings”)




PO-27 Vetell Request for an extended comment period as well as additional Public Hearing due to technical difficulties with project website.

Upon receipt of this comment, NYSDOT corrected the website access problems and informed the SAC of the corrective action taken. In addition the comment period was extended from May 25th to June 15th, resulting in a total comment period of 85 days. (Page VIII-26, VIII.D.8. “Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period”)

PO-28 Vetell NYSDOT failed to provide the community with an independent consultant to analyze environmental issues.


PO-29 Vetell Once this project is over, NYSDOT will move on and the community will be left without a consultant.

NYSDOT formed the SAC in the earliest phases of the project to advise and coordinate with the Project Team through all aspects of the EIS process. NYSDOT is committed to continuing this coordination throughout the final design and construction phases of the project. (Page VIII-12, VIII.C.2. “Stakeholders Advisory Committee”)

PO-30 Vetell Does not believe that traffic studies have adequately addressed concerns of community.

Prior to conducting its traffic analyses, NYSDOT consulted the community through the public scoping process, which included open houses, public scoping meetings, meetings with elected officials and community groups, and bus tours led by community members. In addition, the Project Team held several meetings with the SAC specifically discussing the traffic analyses. (Page VIII-7, VIII.C.1. “Scoping Activities”)




Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists (PPB)

PPB-1 Antone Provide a bikeway/walkway on the Kosciuszko Bridge. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5, which includes a bikeway/walkway on the north side of the new bridge, as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.e. “Bikeway/Walkway”)

PPB-2 Botzman Support the inclusion of a bicycle lane or bicycle-pedestrian off roadway path on the Kosciuszko Bridge.

NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5, which includes a bikeway/walkway on the north side of the new bridge, as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.e. “Bikeway/Walkway”)

PPB-3 Budnick

Transportation Alternatives supports a bikeway/walkway on the bridge.


PPB-4 CB1B(1) Support for alternatives that provide a bikeway/walkway on the Kosciuszko Bridge.


PPB-5 CB5Q Support for new bridge with bikeway/walkway. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5, which includes a bikeway/walkway on the north side of the new bridge, as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.e. “Bikeway/Walkway”)

PPB-6 CB5Q Support for BR-5 which places the bikeway/walkway on the west side of the bridge.


PPB-7 Fee

Any plan that does not include pedestrian and bicycle paths for the new/renovated Kosciuszko Bridge is unacceptable.


PPB-8 Heimbinder Any reconstruction of the bridge should include both pedestrian and cycling paths.





PPB-9 Iwachiw Provide pedestrian access to shore for fishing boardwalk and across LIRR tracks.

Each of the Build Alternatives includes a boat launch on each side of Newtown Creek near the bridge. Pedestrian and vehicular access will be provided to the boat launch. At this time there is no plan for any additional recreation facilities at the creek. (Page PA-5, PA.B.1.h. “Streetscaping and Other Enhancements”)

PPB-10 Jakubassa

Support for a bikeway/walkway over a replaced or rehabilitated bridge.


PPB-11 Kuonen Urge NYSDOT to select one of the Build Alternatives that includes a bikeway/walkway.


PPB-12 Kuonen We urge NYSDOT to include bikeway/walkway paths in all bridge reconstruction plans.


PPB-13 Kuonen A bikeway/walkway on the bridge would improve mobility to all who work and live nearby.


PPB-14 Mastellone Any rehabilitation or replacement plan for the Kosciuszko Bridge needs to include a bicycle and pedestrian path.


PPB-15 O’Neill

A bike and pedestrian path is a good idea. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5, which includes a bikeway/walkway on the north side of the new bridge, as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.e. “Bikeway/Walkway”)

PPB-16 Passantino There is a need for a bikeway/walkway. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5, which includes a bikeway/walkway on the north side of the new bridge, as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.e. “Bikeway/Walkway”)




PPB-17 Stonehill Support for bikeway/walkway on the replacement bridge. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5, which includes a bikeway/walkway on the north side of the new bridge, as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.e. “Bikeway/Walkway”)

PPB-18 Zasalavsky Support for bikeway/walkway on the bridge. NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5, which includes a bikeway/walkway on the north side of the new bridge, as the preferred alternative. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.e. “Bikeway/Walkway”)

Parks and Recreational Facilities (PR)

PR-1 Hofmann Would like to discuss additional community amenities to compensate for the project.

As described in Section II.C.2.a, NYSDOT implemented its Environmental Initiative to seek out opportunities to use its engineering and construction capabilities to enhance the communities in which it works. As part of this effort, NYSDOT has included numerous improvements, such as parks, a bikeway/walkway, boat launches, and enhanced streetscaping, in its plans for the Kosciuszko Bridge. (Page II-100, “Operational”)

PR-2 Iwachiw In addition to boat launches for canoes and kayaks, provide larger boat ramps, boat storage lockers, boat houses, and parking for trailers.

NYSDOT will coordinate with NYCDPR during the final design phase of the project to determine the facilities to be provided. (Page VII-23, VII.E.1.e. “Alternative BR-5”)

PR-3 Vespole Impressed with the renderings of parks proposed on the north side of the BQE in Brooklyn.

Comment noted.

PR-4 Vetell Believe that proposed park in Greenpoint is unsatisfactory because it is too small and on an approach to a highway.

The preferred alternative, BR-5, would provide an additional 5,210 m2 (56,077 ft2) of new parkland in Brooklyn – almost tripling parkland in the immediate area. Specific plans for the additional parkland will be determined by NYCDPR during the final design stage of this project. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.g. “Parkland Improvements”)




PR-5 Vetell NYSDOT should provide additional amenities to compensate the community for impacts associated with the long construction period.

As described in Section II.C.2.a, NYSDOT implemented its Environmental Initiative to seek out opportunities to use its engineering and construction capabilities to enhance the communities in which it works. As part of this effort, NYSDOT has included numerous improvements, such as parks, a bikeway/walkway, boat launches, and enhanced streetscaping, in its plans for the Kosciuszko Bridge. (Page II-101, II.C.2.a., “Environmental/Community”)

PR-6 Vetell Does not feel that the size of the proposed park in Brooklyn adequately compensates for community impacts.

The preferred alternative, BR-5, would provide an additional 5,210 m2 (56,077 ft2) of new parkland in Brooklyn – almost tripling parkland in the immediate area. Specific plans for the additional parkland will be determined by NYCDPR during the final design stage of this project. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.g. “Parkland Improvements”)

Relocation Impacts (RI)

RI-1 Casalino Almost every alternative except RA-6 would destroy our family’s businesses at Block 2814 Lot 6, the property known as 520 Stewart Avenue and 116 Cherry Street in Brooklyn. Even this alternative will significantly impact this property.

Each of the Build Alternatives would require the relocation of businesses in both Brooklyn and Queens. As noted in Section IV.B.2.d, NYSDOT will work with business owners to identify new locations and compensate them for costs associated with relocation. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-2 Casalino Relocating to another area will severely impact my small business, which depends on its proximity to major highways and to Manhattan.

NYSDOT is working to expedite the acquisition process to minimize the impact to property owners to the greatest extent possible. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-3 Casalino The assistance being offered by NYSDOT is insufficient to fulfill our needs.

NYSDOT is committed to minimizing impacts to businesses that must relocate. All relocations will comply with relevant state and federal regulations regarding such activities. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-4 Casalino Relocating our business to another area would create a hardship for our employees, who largely depend on public transportation for travel to work.

While NYSDOT cannot guarantee relocation within the same immediate area, they are committed to working with business owners to identify sites that meet their needs. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)




RI-5 Casalino Acquisition of the portion of Stewart Avenue that my business currently utilizes will harm my business.

The segment of Stewart Avenue between Cherry Street and Anthony Street is a mapped street. Construction of Alternative BR-5 would require the closure of the segment of Cherry Street between Stewart Avenue and Gardner Avenue; in order to maintain the safe and efficient flow of vehicles, including emergency services, through the area, NYSDOT must reopen this segment of Stewart Avenue, as well as a segment of Thomas Street that is currently utilized for private purposes. (Page PA-4, PA.B.1.f. “Changes to Local Street”)

RI-6 Casalino NYSDOT should investigate other alternatives that impact fewer businesses and residents.

The Alternatives Analysis process began with a long list of 26 alternatives, including several recommended by the public during the scoping process. The two-level screening process applied increasingly detailed criteria to narrow this list to the five Build Alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. These alternatives best balance the project’s purpose and need (safety, operations, and structural) with impacts to the human and natural environment. (Page III-8, III.B.2. “Long List of Alternatives

RI-7 Casalino If NYSDOT cannot come up with additional alternatives, they must identify locations in North Brooklyn or Maspeth to relocate affected businesses.

While NYSDOT cannot guarantee relocation within the same immediate area, they are committed to working with business owners to identify sites that meet their needs as quickly as possible and as regulations and policies permit. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-8 Casalino Request NYSDOT to begin working immediately to assist my business in relocating.

Assistance and benefits are being provided by NYSDOT to business owners to minimize relocation impacts. NYSDOT is also working to expedite the acquisition process to further minimize relocation impacts to business and property owners. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-9 Choudri, N.(1) If we must relocate, please allow us adequate time and money to do so.

NYSDOT is working to expedite the acquisition process to minimize the impact to property owners to the greatest extent possible. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)




RI-10 Choudri, S. The bridge should be expanded from the opposite side, where the cemetery is located; that way homes and businesses will not need to be relocated.

Alternative RA-6 would construct a new, parallel bridge on the westbound side of the existing bridge, adjacent to Old Calvary Cemetery, with no permanent structures required on the eastbound side. However, as described in this FEIS, this alternative does not adequately address the project’s purpose and need. (Page PA-1, PA.A. “Identification of the Preferred Alternative”) Due to the issues associated with relocating a portion of the cemetery, and the limited space between it and the existing bridge, NYSDOT was limited in the types of alternatives that could be developed utilizing only property on the westbound side of the bridge.

RI-11 Choudri, T. Concerned about how we will be compensated for the purchase of our new homes. Would like the process to go as quickly as possible and want a commitment in writing from the City or State.

Relocation assistance and benefits will be made available to those property owners who will be displaced as a result of the project. NYSDOT is working to expedite the acquisition process to minimize the impact to property owners to the greatest extent possible. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-12 Choudri, T. Would like to be notified of preferred alternative as quickly as possible to allow for smooth transition.

NYSDOT has selected Alternative BR-5 as the Preferred Alternative and is working to expedite the acquisition process.

RI-13 Choudri, T. If we are relocated, we would like to all remain close to each other.

NYSDOT is committed to working with relocated residents to ensure that new housing meets their needs. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-14 Gold Request the State to speed acquisition process along as much as possible. We cannot look at alternate property until DOT commits to taking our property.

NYSDOT is working to expedite acquisition as much as possible to minimize the impacts to business and property owners. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-15 Gold Because 50% of our business is custom production, we must purchase, install, and customize and fully test new equipment before we can reopen for business.

NYSDOT is working to expedite acquisition as much as possible to minimize the impacts to business and property owners. As noted in Section IV.B.2.d, NYSDOT will work with business owners to identify new locations and compensate them for allowable costs associated with relocation. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-16 Gold Need more time than the standard eighteen months to look for a new business location.

NYSDOT is working to expedite the acquisition process to minimize impacts to displaced business and property owners. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)




RI-17 Gold We need a timely and fair settlement that will keep us out of court and not cost us production time.

NYSDOT is committed to minimizing impacts to businesses that must relocate. All relocations will comply with relevant state and federal regulations regarding such activities. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-18 Gold It is our hope that the City and State will offer the right incentives and make it worthwhile for us to stay in New York City.

Relocation assistance and benefits will be provided by NYSDOT to all displaced business and property owners. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-19 Heimbinder NYSDOT should minimize displacement of businesses and residents and compensate fairly those that must be relocated.

During the development of the alternatives, NYSDOT looked to minimize impacts on businesses and residents by altering the design, where possible. All relocations will comply with relevant state and federal regulations regarding such activities (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-20 Keeshan The United Forties Civic Association is pleased that none of the buildings in their immediate area will be taken as a result of the project.

Comment noted.

RI-21 Korchin

There are four individual buildings on the three lots (Block 2810 Lots 24, 29, 34), not one building as indicated in the DEIS. They should not be designated for full acquisition.

Providing street and sidewalk widths that meet NYCDOT standards at this location creates a physical conflict with all four buildings. Therefore, as described in Section III.C.2.l, all are shown for acquisition. However, text has been added to that section indicating that the acquisition negotiation process may include consideration of partial building acquisition where desired by the property owner. Figures IV-5, IV-7, IV-9, IV-11, and IV-13 have been modified to reflect the presence of four buildings on the three lots. (Page III-100, III.C.2.l. “Right-of-Way”)

RI-22 Midura Relocation of our manufacturing business will be complicated. NYSDOT is working to expedite acquisition as much as possible to minimize the impacts to business and property owners. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-23 Midura Hopes the project is done in a way that satisfies the state as well as workers and residents of the community.

Assistance and benefits will be provided by NYSDOT to those property and business owners that will be displaced by NYSDOT’s Preferred Alternative, BR-5. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)




RI-24 Midura Would like business to be relocated within Maspeth or Queens.


RI-25 Perez Concerned that NYSDOT acquisition process does not adequately compensate relocated residences.

Assistance and benefits are provided by NYSDOT to all property owners and businesses relocated as a result of the Preferred Alternative. NYSDOT is also working to expedite the acquisition process to minimize impacts to business and property owners to the greatest extent possible. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-26 Trovato Concerned that business relocations will result in layoffs. NYSDOT is committed to minimizing impacts to businesses that must relocate.

Assistance and benefits are provided by NYSDOT to all property owners and businesses relocated as a result of the project. NYSDOT is also working to expedite the acquisition process to minimize impacts to business and property owners to the greatest extent possible. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-27 Vespole Favors alternatives that require relocation of waste transfer stations.

NYSDOT worked hard during the development of the alternatives to minimize impacts on all businesses, regardless of type. Section IV.B.2.d identifies the businesses (including type) that would require relocation by each alternative. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts” as well as Figures IV-5 through IV-14 “Residential and Business Relocations”)

RI-28 Vespole Believes that the three residences in Queens shown as relocated under Alternative BR-5 are large apartment buildings, rather than single family homes, and is concerned about that impact.

The three residential properties that will be displaced by the Alternative BR-5 are single-family homes. NYSDOT has coordinated extensively with the residents of these properties. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-29 Vetell Will the sanitation facilities that throw dust still be located under the bridge?

Section IV.B.2.d identifies the businesses (including type) that would require relocation by each alternative. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts” as well as Figures IV-5 through IV-14 “Residential and Business Relocations”)




RI-30 Weiss Concerned that if the situation is not handled correctly, Karp would be forced out of the area or forced to close its doors.

Assistance and benefits would be provided by NYSDOT to business and property owners that would be displaced by the Preferred Alternative BR-5. In addition, NYSDOT is working to expedite the acquisition process to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the relocation impacts to business and property owners. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-31 Weiss We understand this project will proceed and is in the best interest of New York. NYSDOT needs to move quickly, act decisively, and provide us with timely, accurate information as we move forward.

NYSDOT is committed to minimizing impacts to businesses that must relocate and will work closely with those businesses throughout the relocation process. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-32 Weiss We implore NYSDOT to work with us, move quickly and provide us with timely, accurate information as we move forward. We need them to also understand that most of our business is custom manufacturing, and that we cannot shut down production while we move our machinery to a new location.

NYSDOT is working to expedite acquisition as much as possible to minimize the impacts to business and property owners. As noted in Section IV.B.2.d, NYSDOT will work with business owners to identify new locations and compensate them for allowable costs associated with relocation. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-33 Wink It would be hard to find another location that fits our financial needs at the rent we are currently paying. Relocating will force us to close down and force us to lay off employees.

Assistance and benefits will be provided by NYSDOT to those businesses and property owners that will be displaced by the project. NYSDOT is committed to working with business owners to identify sites that meet their needs. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-34 Wink We hope you can find a solution to the project that does not displace businesses, residents and employees. If none can be found we suggest you help these businesses and residents find affordable nearby locations similar to what we have now. Displacing businesses will have effects beyond the businesses directly affected.

During the development of the alternatives, NYSDOT looked to minimize impacts on businesses and residents by altering the design, where possible. All relocations will comply with relevant state and federal regulations regarding such activities. While NYSDOT cannot guarantee relocation within the same immediate area, they are committed to working with business owners to identify sites that meet their needs. (Page IV-31, IV.B.2.d. “Relocation Impacts”)

RI-35 Ziccardi Hope that Karp can be relocated within Maspeth so that employees are not disrupted.





Right-of-Way Impacts (ROW)

ROW-1 Chorost The FEIS should describe the purpose of the proposed permanent easement on Block 2529, Lot 1 required for Alternatives RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5. It should also describe whether it will disturb subsurface soil, and any potential impacts on remedial work and human health near the site.

The purpose of the permanent easement is to allow NYSDOT to conduct maintenance on the completed bridge in the future. A 4.5 m (15 ft) wide permanent easement would be taken on all private properties adjacent to new or rehabilitated structures. No disturbance to subsurface is anticipated by the proposed use. (Page III-100, III.C.2.l. “Right-of-Way”)

ROW-2 Chorost If Alternative RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, or BR-5 is selected, Sagres prefers NYSDOT acquire by fee the portion of Block 2529, Lot 1 proposed for a permanent easement.

Comment noted.

ROW-3 Vespole Concerned about how the project and the realignment of streets will affect my residence (on Van Dam Street).

Each of the Build Alternatives requires the realignment of Cherry Street east of Vandervoort Avenue. No changes are proposed to Van Dam Street.

Stormwater Management (SM)

SM-1 Nelson Stormwater should outlet to street gutters or storm sewers with capacity adequate to eliminate clogging.

Each of the Build Alternatives would provide a new closed system for stormwater from the bridge. The system will be designed to comply with all appropriate standards, including sufficient capacity. (Page III-86, III.C.2.f. “Drainage”)

SM-2 Nelson Where electric fixture and duct connection boxes have vent/drain holes in the bottom of fixture/enclosure, same should be connected to closed stormwater system.

Facilities such as those mentioned will be contained within closure walls or within boxes. They will be connected to the new closed stormwater handling system where feasible. No water would discharge onto Old Calvary Cemetery property.

SM-3 Vetell Feels that impacts associated with the installation of a new sewer system have not been fully explored.

Each of the Build Alternatives would provide a new closed system for stormwater from the bridge. The system will be designed to comply with all appropriate standards, including sufficient capacity. (Page III-86, III.C.2.f. “Drainage”)




Traffic Analysis (TA)

TA-1 NYCDOT Traffic count data will be necessary to determine impacts of closures of portions of streets.

Alternative BR-5 includes the closure of a segment of Cherry Street between Stewart Avenue and Gardner Avenue and the reopening of segments of Thomas Street and Stewart Avenue. While the traffic volumes associated with these street segments are low, NYSDOT will coordinate closely with NYCDOT during the final design phase to ensure that these changes will provide adequate access into and within the Brooklyn industrial area. (Page III-45, III.C.1.f “Alternative BR-5”)

TA-2 Vespole Widening the bridge will not help the traffic though it may improve the commute over it.

As described in Section III.C.2.b, each of the Build Alternatives would make a number of improvements to the bridge (e.g., adding auxiliary lanes and standard shoulders) that will substantially improve safety and traffic operations, cutting delay by 45 to 75 percent. (Page III-59, III.C.2.b. “Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service and Safety Conditions”)

TA-3 Vetell Once the bridge is enlarged, how will NYSDOT protect St. Cecilia’s Church and the residents of Greenpoint Avenue and West Street from traffic impacts?

Alternative BR-5, the preferred alternative, is anticipated to improve traffic operations on the BQE and Kosciuszko Bridge, thereby minimizing traffic that currently uses local streets as alternate routes. (Page PA-6, PA.C.2. “Traffic Operations”)

Vibration Impacts (VIB)

VIB-1 Holowacz The brick façade of St. Cecilia’s Church is currently impacted by vibrations caused by trucks on the BQE. How will a larger bridge and its construction impact the church? Hopefully NYSDOT can mitigate any problems during and after construction.

NYSDOT has committed to bringing, to the extent practicable, materials and equipment to the site by barge via Newtown Creek to reduce the number of truck trips required on the local streets. No diversions of trucks onto local streets are anticipated during construction. Construction trucks would be required to remain on the designated truck routes, especially along Meeker Avenue. The permanent bridges are anticipated to have no significant post-construction vibration impacts. (Page IV-221 “Transportation and Storage of Construction Materials and Equipment”)




VIB-2 O’Toole Vibrations from trucks on the BQE can be felt inside St. Cecilia’s Church and have impacted the brick façade of the church.


VIB-3 Vetell St. Cecilia’s is affected by vibration resulting from trucks on the BQE.


Chapter VI Summary and Analysis of Comments Received€¦ · Chapter VI Summary and Analysis of...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter VI Summary and Analysis of Comments Received€¦ · Chapter VI Summary and Analysis of...