Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV - dot.ny.gov · Final Environmental Impact...

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-84 September 2008

species to the project site, such as waterborne invasive species that might arrive on construction barges in Newtown Creek, or seeds that might arrive on muddy construction vehicles from elsewhere. Invasive species already within the project area could also colonize newly disturbed areas in the project site. These species could also be spread beyond the study area to earth/debris disposal sites, by transport within excavated earth and debris. For example, the seeds or roots of Japanese Knotweed may be present in project area soils and could propagate at disposal locations under the right conditions.

Conversely, new construction would displace some of the invasive species and provide new paved and vegetated areas that would eliminate entrenched invasive species. In this way the Build Alternatives would aid in management of invasive species.

If the existing ALB quarantine area is still in effect at the time of construction, any cleared vegetation of susceptible tree species would need to be disposed of at an approved disposal site to prevent spreading ALB.

Operation Period

The No Build Alternative would maintain conditions as they are today, continuing existing control efforts. The Build alternatives would provide a fresh start in the immediate project area by disturbing entrenched invasive populations, making future control easier by allowing removal of invasive species when they first appear, before they become established.

MITIGATION

Measures to control invasive species during construction and operation of any of the Build Alternatives could include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment, commitments to ensure the use of invasive-free mulches, topsoil and seed mixes, establishment of native vegetation and control or eradication strategies to be deployed should an invasion occur. These measures would be developed in the permitting and design stages when construction materials, excavation areas, landscaping plans, and construction specifications are developed.

B.3.d. Historical and Cultural Resources

This section presents information on cultural resources located within the project area. The discussion includes a description of regulatory requirements, methods of identifying cultural resources, the presence of cultural resources in the project area and their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), potential impacts, and potential mitigation measures. A detailed discussion of the cultural resources investigations conducted as part of this FEIS is contained in Appendix M.

Cultural resources consist of archaeological and architectural resources. Archaeological resources include both prehistoric and historic sites. Prehistoric resources are physical properties resulting from human activities predating written records. These archaeological sites are the loci of human behavior as indicated by concentrations of artifacts, features, or floral and faunal remains. Prehistoric land use patterns were more closely related to local environmental conditions than are most modern settlements. Historic resources are physical properties that postdate the existence of written records and include features such as trails, roadbeds, foundations, and refuse concentrations. Architectural resources consist of standing buildings or structures from the historic period. These resources consist of residential buildings (e.g., farmhouses, plantation manors and associated outbuildings including sheds and barns),



industrial structures such as mills and millraces, commercial buildings (e.g., stores, banks, and other business related office buildings), and transportation structures such as bridges.

LEGAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT

Although cultural resources are addressed in NEPA, procedures for their identification, evaluation, and treatment are contained in a series of other federal and state laws and regulations, and agency guidelines. The most important include the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended in 2000; the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974; and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. Treatment of archaeological and architectural resources is further guided by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800). Several New York State statutes and guidelines also establish procedures for cultural resources management and historic preservation, and include SEQR, the New York State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) of 1980, and the March 2004 New York State Education Department Cultural Resources Survey Program Work Scope Specifications for Cultural Resource Investigations on New York State Department of Transportation Projects (“SED-CRSP Scope”).

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended (16 USC 470), governs federal actions that could affect historic properties. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings, including licensing and approvals, on historic properties and to afford the ACHP and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to comment. As defined broadly by the regulations implementing Section 106 (36 CFR 800), a historic property is defined as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.” The Section 106 process is a consultation process that seeks to balance historic preservation concerns with the needs of federal undertakings through consultation between the agency, ACHP, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and other parties interested in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties.

IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY

Identification of archaeological and architectural resources was conducted in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 800 for implementing Section 106 of the NHPA and in consultation with the New York SHPO (NYSHPO). As stipulated in Section 800.8(a)(1), Section 106 can be coordinated with the requirements of NEPA including using NEPA public participation, analysis, and review processes to meet the requirements of both statutes.

DEFINITION OF THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT

An integral part of the Section 106 process is the delineation of the area within which archaeological and architectural resources would be affected or are likely to be affected. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(d) represents:

the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties [i.e. NRHP-eligible resources], if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.



For the purposes of assessing effects through the Section 106 review process, direct effects include, but are not limited to, areas of construction resulting in the partial or complete demolition of NRHP-eligible buildings or structures or the physical disturbance of NRHP-eligible archaeological resources. Indirect effects include, but are not limited to, visual, audible, or atmospheric effects, which alter the character or use of any of the physical aspects of integrity which contribute to the resource’s ability to meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP. The seven aspects of integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Separate APEs were developed for the archaeological and architectural resources associated with this project.

The APE for archaeology for this project, shown in Figure IV-22, “Archaeological Area of Potential Effect,” takes into account the potential construction requirements for the proposed improvements to this section of the BQE. It encompasses the limits of construction (both horizontal and vertical) of all of the bridge components, approach ramps and new park construction for all of the Build Alternatives under consideration. The APE is represented by a 91 m (300 ft) wide corridor across most of the project area; the APE corridor narrows southwest of Porter Avenue in Brooklyn and multiple APE corridors occur at the interface with the LIE in Queens. The depth of the archaeology APE varies by construction feature or activity, as detailed in Table IV-17. NYSHPO concurred with this APE on February 3, 2005 (Douglas Mackey to Robert Laravie, letter, February 3, 2005).

TABLE IV-17: DEPTH OF ARCHAEOLOGY APE BY CONSTRUCTION FEATURE OR ACTIVITY

Construction Feature/Activity Area of Disruption

(approximate) Depth of Excavation below

current grade (approximate)

New Bridge Abutment (each) 445.9 m2 (4,800 ft2) 4.3 m (14 ft)

Permanent Pile Footing (each) 72.3 m2 to 273.5 m2 (778 ft2 to 2,944 ft2)

4.3 m (14 ft)

Permanent Spread Footing (each) 7.5 m2 (81 ft2) 3.0 m (10 ft)

Temporary Spread Footing (each) 7.5 m2 (81 ft2) 1.2 m (4 ft)

Demolition of Existing Footing (each) 117.2 m2 to 563.4 m2 (1,261 ft2 to 6,064 ft2)

0.6 m (2 ft)

A preliminary APE for architectural resources was developed in September 2004 that included the area 150 m (500 ft) east and west of the center line of the current BQE, from the LIE at the northern end of the project area to a point 150 m (500 ft) beyond the proposed limits of disturbance at the project's southern terminus. This preliminary APE, concurred with by the NYSHPO on February 3, 2005 (Douglas Mackey to Robert Laravie, letter, February 3, 2005), was designed to conservatively estimate all potential physical, audible, or visual impacts of the project alternatives under consideration.

This APE was refined in November 2005 based on observations during subsequent site visits and a better understanding of the construction impacts of the various project alternatives and is presented in Figure IV-23, “Architectural Area of Potential Effect.” The revised APE for architectural resources was decreased in width along the Brooklyn portion and eastern edge of the Queens portion of the project area. The APE was expanded substantially west of the BQE



in Queens. The NYSHPO concurred with this revised APE on March 6, 2006 (Kathleen Howe to Robert Laravie, letter, March 6, 2006).

IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES

Background research was conducted to identify the presence of known archaeological sites and architectural resources within the corresponding APEs. A brief summary of prehistoric (Native American prior to European contact) and historic (since European contact) development within the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens was developed to help place cultural resources within a historic context and to aid in predicting the types of resources that may be expected to occur within the project area and is included in (Appendix M-1). Efforts to identify historic properties included, but were not limited to:

Input obtained from public scoping meetings and other public meetings;

Meetings or contact with other interested parties and agencies, including the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (NYCLPC) and NYSHPO;

Contact with individuals knowledgeable about known or potentially historic properties;

Historic literature and map research;

Historic context information from state and local guidelines and secondary sources;

Reviews of key file materials, such as NRHP and National Historic Landmark nomination forms; files and inventories for locally significant properties online through the New York State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange (SPHINX) system, housed at the Queens Public Library, the Brooklyn Public Library, the Queens Historical Society, the Brooklyn Historical Society, the New York City Public Library, and the Institute Archives and Special Collections research library at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; information from the Library of Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Archives; and previous investigations (e.g., surveys and compliance-related reports);

Review of architectural resource files provided by NYCLPC;

Review of archaeological resource maps and files housed at the NYCLPC, archaeological sensitivity maps available online through the SPHINX system, and reports of previous investigations; and

Architectural survey of the APE.

Archaeological sensitivity maps were prepared based on archival research. An architectural survey of the APE was conducted, and the NRHP and New York State Register (NYSR) eligibility of previously unrecorded architectural resources was evaluated. The results of these analyses are summarized below and documented in detail in Appendix M-1.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Properties that qualify for inclusion in the NRHP must meet at least one of the following four criteria:



Criterion A: be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;

Criterion B: be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;

Criterion C: embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

Criterion D: have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4).

Properties that qualify for the NRHP also must possess integrity, defined by the following seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The term “eligible for inclusion in the NRHP” includes properties designated as eligible and all other properties determined to meet NRHP criteria. Cemeteries, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures moved from their original locations, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are usually not considered eligible for the NRHP. Cemeteries are not usually considered eligible for the NRHP because “familial and cultural descendants of the interred often view graves and cemeteries with a sense of reverence and devout sentiment that can overshadow objective evaluation” (Potter and Boland 1992). However, there are exceptions as outlined in 36 CFR 60.4, including a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance or a religious property that derives its primary significance from architectural, artistic distinction, or historical importance.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The project area on both sides of Newtown Creek consists of a highly disturbed urban landscape. In addition to the residential and commercial development activities undertaken since the late nineteenth century, the margins of Newtown Creek have been filled in to create additional land, and a Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) spur was constructed parallel to the creek on the Queens side.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

A search of master maps for archaeological sites within or near the project area was conducted at the NYCLPC in Manhattan on September 20, 2004, to identify archaeological resources within the project area and to aid in predicting types of resources that may be present. No archaeological sites have been formally identified within the APE.

Archaeological sensitivity maps were prepared based on Phase 1a archival research (Appendix M-1). Documentary and cartographic research were used to identify the land use and depositional history in each block in order to determine the likelihood for the presence of intact archaeological resources. Data sources consulted include maps, local histories, archival information, and cultural resource management reports. Archaeological potential has two aspects, the archaeological sensitivity for the presence of different site types on the landscape, and the level of subsequent ground disturbance (surface and subsurface) that affects the likelihood for encountering intact subsurface archaeological remains. Information on the level of disturbance contributed to the potential ratings for each block. The results of this analysis and the archaeological sensitivity of blocks within the APE are shown in Table IV-18.

TABLE IV-18: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY AND CURRENT CONDITIONS

Prehistoric Historic

Block Archaeological Site Types Disturbance Sensitivity

Archaeological Site Type Disturbance Sensitivity

Current Conditions

2799 Fish weirs Twentieth century fill (9 feet thick)

Low Landfill Stabilization features and cribbing; Scattered refuse

Twentieth century fill (9 feet thick)

Low Paved

2802 Fish weirs Demolition of 1920s garage; construction of garbage recycling building

Low Secondary refuse deposits associated with late 19th century tallow factory

Demolition of 1920s garage; construction of garbage recycling building

Low Building

2803 Fish weirs Twentieth century fill; bridge approach concrete piers

Mixed Low Landfill Stabilization features and cribbing; Scattered refuse

Twentieth century fill; bridge approach concrete piers

Mixed Low Paved

2804 Construction of 1939 Kosciuszko Bridge; reconstruction of the bridge approach in 1970s

None Construction of 1939 Kosciuszko Bridge; reconstruction of the bridge approach in 1970s

None Paved Roadway

2805 Demolition of 1933 manufacturing building; construction of 1939 Kosciuszko Bridge; reconstruction of the bridge approach in 1970s

None 1866-1888 dwelling rear yard with possible wells and privies

Demolition of 1933 manufacturing building; construction of 1939 Kosciuszko Bridge; reconstruction of the bridge approach in 1970s

Mixed Moderate

Paved; Building

2806 Temporary and permanent campsites; special use and resource processing areas

Reconstruction of the bridge approach in 1970s

Mixed Moderate

North Road to Newtown; road or field fencelines

Reconstruction of the bridge approach in 1970s

Mixed Moderate

Paved


Demolition, grading and construction activities

Mixed Low Secondary deposits associated with industrial facilities (e.g., 1933 fat rendering plant)

Demolition, grading and construction activities

Mixed Low Paved; Building


Nineteenth century fill; modern building construction; construction of curbing; excavation of underground utilities

Mixed Moderate

Historic industrial foundations, primary and secondary refuse deposits associated with late nineteenth century carbon works or 1933 fish rendering operation

Nineteenth century fill; modern building construction; construction of curbing; excavation of underground utilities

Mixed Moderate

Paved; Building

Final Environmental Im

pact Statement

Section IV.B

Kosciuszko B

ridge Project IV-89

September 2008




Current Conditions

2809 Fish weirs Nineteenth century fill; modern building construction

Low Primary and secondary refuse deposits associated with late nineteenth century carbon works, piers, docks, landfill stabilization features

Nineteenth century fill; modern building construction

Low Paved; Building

2810 None Bridge and modern building construction and excavation

None None Bridge and modern building construction and excavation

None Paved; Building


Construction of sidewalks and curbing; excavation of underground utilities

Mixed Low Scattered refuse Construction of sidewalks and curbing; excavation of underground utilities




Mixed Moderate

194 7 building foundations Construction of sidewalks and curbing; excavation of underground utilities

Mixed Moderate

Paved; Building



Mixed Moderate

North Road to Newtown; road or field fencelines


Mixed Low Paved


Construction and excavation of modern building

Mixed Moderate

Scattered refuse Construction and excavation of modern building

Low Paved; Building


Fill; modern building construction and demolition

Mixed Low Scattered refuse Fill; modern building construction and demolition

Low Paved; Building

2817 None Bridge and modern building construction and excavation

None Secondary refuse scatters; privies, wells, cisterns, and historic activity areas

Bridge and modern building construction and excavation

Mixed Moderate

Paved; Building

2511 None Fill; modern building construction and demolition

None Secondary refuse scatters; privies, wells, cisterns, and historic activity areas

Fill; modern building construction and demolition

Low Paved Roadway

2514 None Modern building construction and demolition

None None Modern building construction and demolition

Mixed Low Paved: Building

2515 Campsites, middens, and activity areas


Mixed High Secondary refuse scatters; privies, wells, cisterns, and historic activity areas


Mixed Moderate

Paved; Building

2516 Campsites, middens and Bridge construction Mixed Secondary refuse scatters; privies, wells, cisterns, and

Bridge construction Mixed Building


pact Statement

Section IV.B

Kosciuszko B

ridge Project IV-90

September 2008




Current Conditions

activity areas Moderate historic activity areas Moderate

2517 Campsites, middens and activity areas


Mixed High Secondary refuse scatters; privies, wells, cisterns, and historic activity areas



2519 Campsites, middens and activity areas

Modern building construction Mixed Moderate

Domestic and farm activities for early to mid-nineteenth century residences; activity areas related to adjacent church

Modern building construction Mixed Moderate

Concrete/ Paved; Building

2520 (3)

Fish weirs, shell middens, Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites; Campsites, middens and activity areas

20 foot thick fill; LIRR construction

Mixed Moderate

Landfill cribbing structures; domestic and farm activities for early to mid nineteenth century residences; activities associated with craft and industrial businesses; railroad related features

20 foot thick fill; LIRR construction

Mixed Moderate

Paved; Building

2520 (4)

Campsites, middens and activity areas

LIRR construction Mixed Moderate

Domestic and farm activities for early to mid-nineteenth century residences; industrial activities associated with chemical manufacturing and copper refining; Phelps Dodge electric railway features (pre-1929); railroad-related features

LIRR construction Mixed Moderate

Concrete; Contaminated Soil (Superfund Site)

2521 None 20-25 foot thick fill; LIRR construction; bridge construction and excavation

None None 20-25 foot thick fill; LIRR construction; bridge construction and excavation

None Concrete; Bridge

2529 Fish weirs, shell middens, Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites

20-25 foot thick fill Mixed Low Landfill cribbing structures; Phelps Dodge electric railway features (pre-1929), ore crusher features (pre-1929); acid tank foundations (1902+);activities related to nineteenth and twentieth century crafts, industries and businesses such as stone cutting

20-25 foot thick fill Mixed Moderate

Concrete; Contaminated Soil (Superfund Site)


pact Statement

Section IV.B

Kosciuszko B

ridge Project IV-91

September 2008



Prehistoric Resources

NYSHPO considers the entire APE archaeologically sensitive for prehistoric sites because of its proximity to water, topography that features high ground overlooking historic wetlands (no longer present), the presence of abundant food resources, and the area’s known use by Native Americans at contact. However, the high levels of ground disturbance present in many parts of the project area lowers the potential of locating intact prehistoric sites. Prehistoric sites that might be present in the Kosciuszko Bridge Project APE include the remains of fish weirs along former creek and stream edges, temporary or permanent habitations and campsites on high ground, shell middens, activity areas, lithic scatters, and possibly the remains of terrestrial sites that were submerged following the rise of sea level after the end of the Pleistocene (e.g., Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites).

The project area consists of urban landscape that has been divided up into blocks, and subdivided into lots. Documentary and cartographic research were used to identify the land use and depositional history in each block, in order to determine the likelihood for the presence of intact prehistoric archaeological resources. Archaeological potential has two aspects, the archaeological sensitivity for the presence of different site types on the landscape, and the level of subsequent ground disturbance that affects the likelihood for encountering intact subsurface archaeological remains. Based on documentary and cartographic background research conducted for the project, the study area was characterized as having a mixed sensitivity for the presence of prehistoric resources, with areas of low, moderate, and high potential all identified within the APE (Figure IV-24, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Prehistoric Resources in the Area of Potential Effect” and Table IV-18).

The project area is covered by pavement and/or concrete roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and driveways; concrete loading docks, existing buildings and storage facilities; or contains contaminated soil; all archaeological survey areas are inaccessible at this time. As a result, no archaeological testing has been conducted. Archaeological sites, some of which may be considered NRHP-eligible, may be located during construction.

Historic Resources

In the Brooklyn portion of the APE, expected historic site types include industrial foundations, industrial and commercial secondary refuse deposits, and roads. Historic domestic deposits such as wells, privies, and primary and secondary refuse deposits dating from the late nineteenth century to the 1930s also may be expected. In the Queens portion of the APE, expected historic site types include industrial foundations, commercial structure foundations, greenhouse foundations, industrial and commercial secondary refuse deposits, roads, foundations of sheds, outbuildings, privies, stables, and garages. Numerous dwelling foundations are likely present, including those of detached houses, farmhouses, and apartment buildings. Primary and secondary domestic refuse deposits related to domestic occupations may also be present in middens, pits, privies, wells, and as broadcast scatters in yards.

Based on the documentary and cartographic background research conducted for the project, the study area was characterized as having a mixed sensitivity for the presence of historic resources, with areas of low and moderate potential identified within the APE (Figure IV-25, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Historic Resources in the Area of Potential Effect” and Table IV-18).



Because the project area is covered by pavement and/or concrete roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and driveways; concrete loading docks, existing buildings and storage facilities, or contains contaminated soil, all archaeological survey areas are inaccessible at this time. Due to the developed nature of the project area (covered by pavement and/or concrete roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and driveways; concrete loading docks, existing buildings and storage facilities; or contains contaminated soil) all archaeological survey areas are inaccessible at this time, no archaeological testing has been conducted. Archaeological sites, some of which may be considered NRHP-eligible, may be located during construction.

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

Architectural resources and/or districts include NRHP-listed or eligible resources, as well as properties listed in or eligible for the NYSR or as a New York City Landmark. Research determined that there are no architectural resources within the APE that are listed in or have been deemed eligible for listing in the NRHP. In addition, there are no NYSR or New York City Landmark properties within the APE.

Architectural field survey in the Kosciuszko Bridge project APE identified 97 previously unrecorded resources (Appendix M-1). Only two resources were considered potentially NRHP-eligible: Old Calvary Cemetery and the Kosciuszko Bridge.

Old Calvary Cemetery, overlooking Newtown Creek in Queens (Figure IV-26, “Old Calvary Cemetery, Looking West with Distant View of the Manhattan Skyline from Kosciuszko Bridge”), was acquired by the New York Roman Catholic Diocese in 1845 and served as the primary Catholic burial ground in New York City until the early twentieth century. Throughout the nineteenth century, the landscape evolved to include stone walls and wrought iron fences to enclose the cemetery and some individual plots within it. In 1892 and 1895 respectively, a substantial Queen Anne style gatehouse and a Roman-Byzantine style chapel were built. Old Calvary Cemetery is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. It derives its primary significance under Criterion C, for its distinctive design values. The mortuary art and sculpture associated with many of the burials contribute to the character of this designed landscape. Architecturally, the gatehouse on Greenpoint Avenue and the chapel are significant examples of their respective styles. They are exemplary illustrations of the Queen Anne and Roman-Byzantine styles that represent high degrees of craftsmanship, embody the distinctive characteristics of the period, and possess high artistic value. Within this setting, the gatehouse, chapel, related outbuildings, headstones and mausoleums which, although burial markers, display distinctive architectural styles and merit, together convey the historical trend in nineteenth century burial practices. The NYSHPO concurred with this NRHP determination in July 2006 (Kathleen A. Howe to Robert Adams, letter, July 21, 2006). Old Calvary Cemetery is also considered eligible under Criterion A by the NYSHPO because it served as a primary burial ground for Roman Catholics in New York City and as an example of the design of the popular rural cemetery movement.



FIGURE IV-26: OLD CALVARY CEMETERY, LOOKING WEST WITH DISTANT VIEW OF THE MANHATTAN SKYLINE FROM KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE

The Kosciuszko Bridge is a fixed, multiple span, combination (deck and through) Warren truss bridge with overhead bracing (Figure IV-27, “Kosciuszko Bridge, Looking West from 56th Road”). Part of the six-lane BQE, the bridge spans Newtown Creek and the truss spans extend northeast from Meeker Avenue and Varick Street in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, to Laurel Hill Boulevard and 54th Avenue in Maspeth, Queens. Originally constructed as the Meeker Avenue Bridge in 1939, the bridge was renamed the Kosciuszko Bridge in 1940 to commemorate the Polish-born Revolutionary War hero, Thaddeus Kosciuszko. In 1960, with the completion of the BQE, the Kosciuszko Bridge was officially linked to the completed highway system. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 38 m (125 ft) over Newtown Creek, and rises 53 m (175 ft) in height at its highest point and 1,835 m (6,021 ft) in length with a total of 22 spans that rest on 21 cast-in-place, segmental arched, reinforced concrete piers. The Main Span over Newtown Creek measures 91 m (300 ft), while the approach spans vary from 37 to 70 m (120 to 230 ft). There are 10 deck truss spans on the Brooklyn side, 11 deck truss spans on the Queens side, and one through truss span over Newtown Creek. Bridge piers rest on concrete foundations. Constructed of reinforced concrete, shafts for the piers were cast in sections according to the height of the piers—taller piers are made up of four sections, for example. The tallest piers are those supporting the Main Span. These piers are double cross braced, riveted steel towers on concrete bases. The pattern of the cross bracing on the Main Span piers has a lattice-like pattern. The truss spans connect to abutments located at Meeker Avenue and Varick Street in



Brooklyn and at 54th Avenue in Queens. These abutments lead to low level reinforced concrete approaches which are clad in brick in a stretcher bond pattern. The approaches are further decorated with interspersed panels approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) wide that feature sawtooth detailing. A roll-up metal garage bay and a single-leaf metal door are located at the east elevation of the Brooklyn side of the bridge, providing access to the storage areas located within the abutments. Windows for the storage spaces in Brooklyn are located beneath the roadway and remain at both the Brooklyn and Queens sides of the bridge. Window openings are enclosed by metal grills and rest on concrete sills. The Brooklyn viaduct has concrete rigid frames that provide vehicular access to the Morgan Avenue, Vandervoort Avenue, Varick Avenue and Stewart Avenues, which pass under the bridge.

FIGURE IV-27: KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE, LOOKING WEST FROM 56TH ROAD

The main superstructure element of the bridge is of the Warren deck truss type. The riveted steel deck truss extends from the abutments to the main bridge spans at each side of the bridge. The bridge’s roadway is supported by concrete filled steel grating and topped by asphalt to create the road surface. The roadway is cantilevered over the trusses, supported by cross bracing beneath the I-beam-supported roadway. The roadway is lined by concrete curbs with a metal railing and 0.9 m (3 ft) steel panels or splash guards. The roadway of the Main Span is lined with open metal railings. Light for the bridge is provided by light posts spaced evenly at the sides of the bridge. The Warren through truss Main Span of the bridge features a superstructure made of polygonal top riveted steel chords and overhead cross bracing. Centrally located on the overhead bracing at the Brooklyn side and the Queens side are commemorative plaques. Installed when the bridge was renamed in 1940, the plaques bear the crests of the United States and Poland in addition to the “new” name of the bridge, the Kosciuszko Bridge. J. Frank Johnson is also recognized on the plaque as the Chief Engineer.



The original bridge was designed with sidewalks at the deck to provide pedestrian access across the bridge to either borough. These sidewalks were removed in 1967 to accommodate a widening of the road. The original center island was replaced during the 1967 renovations, and the original concrete slab at the deck has been subsequently replaced and resurfaced since 1967. As originally designed, the Main Span was approached from both Brooklyn and Queens by elevated Warren deck truss spans. Concrete rigid frames provided vehicular access to the areas west and east of the elevated roadways at Morgan Avenue, Vandervoort Avenue, Varick Avenue and Stewart Avenue. These bridges have been altered by the removal of the decorative parapet walls at the elevated roadway surface. The concrete viaduct, enclosed in curtain walls between these bridges, has been re-faced with brick in some sections.

The Kosciuszko Bridge has been formally evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP and is eligible under Criterion C and more specifically, under NYSDOT Criterion C-6 (demonstrates individuality or variation of features within a particular bridge type) (Mead & Hunt, and Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. 2002). Built in 1939, this fixed, multiple span, Warren combination (deck and through) truss bridge with overhead bracing represents a significant and unusual variation of the Warren truss type. Whereas most eligible bridges have one feature of individuality considered to be a significant variation within the post-standardization Warren truss type, the Kosciuszko Bridge possesses several including its multiple spans, Warren combination (deck and through) trusses, and polygonal top chords with overhead bracing. The NYSHPO concurred with this NRHP determination in July 2006 (Kathleen A. Howe to Robert Adams, letter, July 21, 2006).

PROJECT IMPACTS

Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties (i.e. NRHP-eligible resources). An undertaking is considered to have an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may alter characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP. An effect is considered adverse when it diminishes the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects on historic properties (i.e., NRHP-listed or eligible resources) would include, but not be limited to:

physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property;

isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property’s setting when that character contributes to the property's qualification for the NRHP;

introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting;

neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and

transfer, lease, or sale of the property (36 CFR 800.9[b]).

For the purposes of this document, a significant impact to cultural resources under NEPA is defined as an ‘adverse effect’ to cultural resources under Section 106 of the NHPA.

Impacts or adverse effects to NRHP-eligible resources might include damage or destruction from ground disturbing activities such as excavation/construction of bridge piers and roadways and use of heavy equipment at construction staging areas; demolition of standing structures;



architecturally incompatible alteration of architectural resources; vibration from heavy construction equipment; and auditory or visual intrusions to associated historic settings. Impacts or adverse effects might include construction activities that involve disturbance of intact archaeological deposits would destroy the research potential and physical integrity of such sites and subsequently, their NRHP eligibility.

Cultural resources impact analysis was conducted by comparing individual APEs for each alternative with the boundaries of known NRHP-eligible or listed resources and the locations of archaeological sensitivity areas. The archaeological potential of each block, based on sensitivity and previous disturbance (shown earlier in Figures IV-24 and IV-25), was compared with the preliminary design locations and excavation depths for the permanent and temporary footings, and abutments to determine potential effects to intact archaeological deposits.

NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE

No physical or operational improvements to the Kosciuszko Bridge would occur under the No Build Alternative although the existing NYSDOT maintenance program would continue to keep the bridge in a state of good repair. All maintenance work would be accomplished in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67). Therefore, the No Build Alternative would have no effects on NRHP-eligible archaeological or architectural resources.

ALTERNATIVE RA-5

Eight blocks within the APE (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520, 2806, 2808, 2812, 2813, and 2814) are designated moderate potential for prehistoric resources; two additional blocks within the APE (Blocks 2515 and 2517) are designated as high potential (Figure IV-28, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Prehistoric Resources, Alternative RA-5”). Preliminary design locations indicate that seven permanent pile footings, one permanent spread footing, the Brooklyn side abutment, and six temporary spread footings would be excavated and one new park constructed in blocks designated as moderate potential for prehistoric resources (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520(4), 2806, 2808, 2813, and 2814). One permanent pile footing would be excavated and one new park constructed in Block 2515, designated as a high potential area for prehistoric campsites, middens, and activity areas.

Ten blocks within the APE (Blocks 2515, 2516, 2519, 2520, 2805, 2806, 2808, 2810, 2812, and 2817) associated with this alternative are designated with moderate potential for historic resources (Figure IV-29, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Historic Resources, Alternative RA-5”). However, preliminary design locations of the permanent pile and spread footings, Brooklyn side abutment, and temporary spread footings would not affect any specific areas in each block which may contain intact historic resources. One new park would be constructed in Block 2515 and 2516 which could affect intact historic resources.

Old Calvary Cemetery could be affected by ground disturbing activities associated with the permanent or temporary construction of this alternative. Construction activities causing vibration effects (vibration in excess of 65 VdB, the threshold for impacts to historic structures) include pile driving, excavation, and demolition. Stone mortuary art and sculpture, headstones, and mausoleums, which are contributing elements to this NRHP-eligible site, have the potential to be cracked, toppled, or displaced by vibration impacts from construction activities occurring closeby.



Visual effects to the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed would occur because a new parallel bridge (built at a lower elevation) would be constructed adjacent to (and directly east of) the existing structure. Although built on the opposite side from the cemetery, the new bridge approach and supporting columns would be visible through the columns of the existing bridge. However, these visual effects would not alter the character of the Old Calvary Cemetery’s setting, which has been previously compromised by urban development, resulting in no effect to the viewshed of this NRHP-eligible resource. To address any visual impact issues, the final design process would ensure the new parallel structure has a “contextual design,” so that it would contribute to the same place making function of the current bridge. Increased intrusions to the pastoral setting of the cemetery would occur for the duration of construction but would be temporary.

The existing Kosciuszko Bridge would be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67). The existing bridge structure would remain intact: a steel truss bridge with deck truss supported by concrete piers on both approaches and a Warren through truss Main Span supported by steel piers. All architectural features of the Kosciuszko Bridge which characterize its NRHP eligibility would remain intact. Visual intrusions to the Kosciuszko Bridge would occur with the addition of new structural columns, discontinuous profiles from the construction of a new, lower bridge, and differences in design and materials between the two bridges. However, these visual intrusions would not alter the character of the Kosciuszko Bridge, resulting in no effect to the viewshed of this NRHP-eligible resource.

ALTERNATIVE RA-6

Six blocks within the APE (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520, 2806, 2808, and 2813) associated with this alternative are designated moderate potential for prehistoric resources; two additional blocks within the APE (Blocks 2515 and 2517) are designated as high potential (Figure IV-30, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Prehistoric Resources, Alternative RA-6”). Preliminary design locations indicate that seven permanent pile footings, one permanent spread footing, the Brooklyn side abutment, and six temporary spread footings would be excavated and one new park constructed in blocks designated as moderate potential for prehistoric resources (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520(3), 2806, 2808, and 2813). No project excavation is expected for intact areas in Block 2517, designated as high potential for prehistoric resources. One new park would be constructed in Block 2515 which could effect intact prehistoric resources. Excavation of the permanent pile footings in Block 2520(3) would occur in fill; intact prehistoric resources are unlikely to occur in this area.

Nine blocks (Blocks 2515, 2516, 2519, 2520, 2805, 2806, 2808, 2810, and 2817) associated with this alternative are designated with moderate potential for historic resources (Figure IV-31, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Historic Resources, Alternative RA-6”). However, preliminary design locations of the permanent pile and spread footings, Brooklyn side abutment, and temporary spread footings would not affect any specific areas in each block which may contain intact historic resources. One new park would be constructed in Blocks 2515 and 2516 which could affect intact historic resources.




Visual effects to the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed would occur because a new parallel bridge (built at a lower elevation) would be constructed adjacent to the existing structure. The new bridge approach and supporting columns would be built closer to the cemetery above Laurel Hill Boulevard. However, these visual effects would not alter the character of the Old Calvary Cemetery’s setting, which has been previously compromised by urban development, resulting in no effect to the viewshed of this NRHP-eligible resource. To address any visual impact issues, the final design process would ensure the new parallel structure has a “contextual design,” so that it would contribute to the same place making function of the current bridge. Increased intrusions to the pastoral setting of the cemetery would occur for the duration of construction but would be temporary.

The existing Kosciuszko Bridge would be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67). The existing bridge structure would remain intact: a steel truss bridge with deck truss supported by concrete piers on both approaches and a Warren Through truss Main Span supported by steel piers. All architectural features of the Kosciuszko Bridge which characterize its NRHP eligibility would remain intact. Visual intrusions to the Kosciuszko Bridge would occur with the addition of new structural columns, discontinuous profiles from the construction of a new, lower bridge sited closer to this NHRP-eligible resource, and differences in design and materials between the two bridges. However, these visual intrusions would not alter the character of the Kosciuszko Bridge, resulting in no effect to the viewshed of this NRHP-eligible resource.

ALTERNATIVE BR-2

Seven blocks within the APE (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520, 2806, 2808, 2813, and 2814) associated with this alternative are designated moderate potential for prehistoric resources; two additional blocks within the APE (Blocks 2515 and 2517) are designated as high potential (Figure IV-32, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Prehistoric Resources, Alternative BR-2”). Preliminary design locations indicate that eighteen permanent pile footings, one permanent spread footing, the Brooklyn side abutment, and twenty-two temporary spread footings would be excavated in blocks and one new park constructed designated as moderate potential for prehistoric resources (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520, 2806, 2808, and 2813). One permanent pile footing would be excavated and one new park constructed in Block 2515, designated as a high potential area for prehistoric campsites, middens, and activity areas. Demolition of existing footings would occur in areas previously disturbed by the original construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge; intact prehistoric resources are not likely to occur in these areas.

Nine blocks within the APE (Blocks 2515, 2516, 2519, 2520, 2805, 2806, 2808, 2810, and 2817) associated with this alternative are designated with moderate potential for historic resources (Figure IV-33, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Historic Resources, Alternative BR-2”). However, preliminary design locations of the permanent pile and spread footings, Brooklyn side abutment, and temporary spread footings would not affect any specific areas in each block which may contain intact historic resources. One new park would be constructed in Blocks 2515 and 2516 which could affect intact historic resources. Demolition of existing footings would occur in areas previously disturbed by the original construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge; intact historic resources are not likely to occur in these areas.

Old Calvary Cemetery could be affected by ground disturbing activities associated with the permanent or temporary construction of this alternative Construction activities causing vibration effects (vibration in excess of 65 VdB, the threshold for impacts to historic structures) include pile driving, excavation, and demolition. Stone mortuary art and sculpture, headstones, and



mausoleums, which are contributing elements to this NRHP-eligible site, have the potential to be cracked, toppled, or displaced by vibration impacts from construction activities occurring closeby.

Visual effects to the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed are expected to be limited, since the new bridge would not be built any closer to the cemetery than the existing bridge. To address any visual impact issues, the final design process would ensure the new structure has a “contextual design,” so that it would serve the same place making function of the current bridge. Increased intrusions to the pastoral setting of the cemetery would occur for the duration of construction but would be temporary.

The existing Kosciuszko Bridge would be demolished resulting in an adverse effect to this NRHP-eligible resource.

ALTERNATIVE BR-3

Seven blocks within the APE (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520, 2806, 2808, 2813, and 2814) associated with this alternative are designated moderate potential for prehistoric resources; two additional blocks within the APE (Blocks 2515 and 2517) are designated as high potential for prehistoric resources (Figure IV-34, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Prehistoric Resources, Alternative BR-3”). Preliminary design locations indicate that eighteen permanent pile footings, one permanent spread footing, the Brooklyn side abutment, and thirteen temporary spread footings would be excavated and one new park constructed in blocks designated as moderate potential for prehistoric resources (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520, 2806, 2808, and 2813). One permanent pile footing would be excavated and one new park constructed in Block 2515, designated as a high potential area for prehistoric campsites, middens, and activity areas. Demolition of existing footings would occur in areas previously disturbed by the original construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge; intact prehistoric resources are not likely to occur in these areas.

Nine blocks within the APE (Blocks 2515, 2516, 2519, 2520, 2805, 2806, 2808, 2810, and 2817) associated with this alternative are designated with moderate potential for historic resources (Figure IV-35, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Historic Resources, Alternative BR-3”). However, preliminary design locations of the permanent pile and spread footings, Brooklyn side abutment, and temporary spread footings would not affect any areas in each block which may contain intact historic resources. One new park would be constructed in Blocks 2515 and 2516 which could affect intact historic resources. Demolition of existing footings would occur in areas previously disturbed by the original construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge; intact historic resources are not likely to occur in these areas.


Visual effects to the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed would occur because the new bridge approach and supporting columns would be constructed closer to the cemetery above Laurel Hill Boulevard. However, these visual effects would not alter the character of the Old Calvary



Cemetery’s setting, which has been previously compromised by urban development, resulting in no effect to the viewshed of this NRHP-eligible resource. To address any visual impact issues, the final design process would ensure the new structure has a “contextual design,” so that it would serve the same place making function of the current bridge. Increased intrusions to the pastoral setting of the cemetery would occur for the duration of construction but would be temporary.


ALTERNATIVE BR-5

Eight blocks within the APE (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520, 2806, 2808, 2812, 2813, and 2814) associated with this alternative are designated moderate potential for prehistoric resources; two additional blocks within the APE (Blocks 2515 and 2517) are designated as high potential for prehistoric resources (Figure IV-36, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Prehistoric Resources, Alternative BR-5”). Preliminary design locations indicate that twenty permanent pile footings, one permanent spread footing, and the Brooklyn side abutment would be excavated and one new park constructed in blocks designated as moderate potential for prehistoric resources (Blocks 2516, 2519, 2520, 2806, 2808, 2813, and 2814). Two permanent pile footings would be excavated and one new park constructed in Block 2515, designated as a high potential area for prehistoric campsites, middens, and activity areas. Demolition of existing footings would occur in areas previously disturbed by the original construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge; intact prehistoric resources are not likely to occur in these areas.

Ten blocks within the APE (Blocks 2515, 2516, 2519, 2520, 2805, 2806, 2808, 2810, 2812, and 2817) associated with this alternative are designated with moderate potential for historic resources (Figure IV-37, “Archaeological Sensitivity for Historic Resources, Alternative BR-5”). Preliminary design locations indicate that excavation of one of two permanent pile footings located in Block 2516 may affect possible historic archaeological resources such as privies, wells, cisterns, and activity areas associated with early twentieth century residential occupations. One new park would be constructed in Blocks 2515 and 2516 which could affect intact historic resources. Demolition of existing footings would occur in areas previously disturbed by the original construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge; intact historic resources are not likely to occur in these areas.


Visual effects to the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed are expected to be limited, since the new bridge would not be built any closer to the cemetery than the existing bridge. To address any visual impact issues, the final design process would ensure the new structure has a “contextual design,” so that it would serve the same place making function of the current bridge. Increased intrusions to the pastoral setting of the cemetery would occur for the duration of construction but would be temporary.




SUMMARY

No archaeological resources have been identified to date in the APE based on information gathered for the Phase Ia investigations (Appendix M-1). Due to the developed nature of the project area, no archaeological testing has been conducted. Archaeological potential based on sensitivity and previous disturbance has been identified for the blocks in the APE. This information has been compared with the preliminary design locations and excavation depths for the permanent and temporary footings and the Brooklyn side abutment. The potential to identify prehistoric resources during project excavation of footings occurs for all five Build Alternatives. The location of one permanent pile footing in Block 2516 for Alternative BR-5 may coincide with the location of historic archaeological resources such as privies, wells, cisterns, and activity areas associated with early twentieth century residential occupations.

Old Calvary Cemetery could be affected by ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of any of the Build Alternatives. Vibration effects from pile driving, excavation, and demolition during construction activities for all alternatives may displace, topple or crack stone mortuary art and sculpture, headstones, and mausoleums that are contributing elements to this NRHP-eligible site. Visual effects to the Old Calvary Cemetery would occur with three alternatives (RA-5, RA-6, and BR-3). However, these visual effects would not alter the character of the Old Calvary Cemetery’s setting, which has been previously compromised by urban development, resulting in no effect to the viewshed of this NRHP-eligible resource. Audible intrusions would occur during the construction phase but these effects would be temporary and would not affect any architectural elements of Old Calvary Cemetery.

Alternatives BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 would require demolition of the existing Kosciuszko Bridge, resulting in an adverse effect to this NRHP-eligible resource. Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6 would result in no adverse effect to the existing bridge.

Applying the criteria of adverse effect in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5(a), NYSDOT has determined this project will have an Adverse Effect on properties on or eligible for listing in the NRHP. While all five Build Alternatives may be technically feasible, only the three Bridge Replacement Alternatives (BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5) meet the project’s purpose and need in the four broad categories of Safety, Structural, Operational, and Environment/Community. Based on the analyses included in the FEIS and the Cultural Resources Findings Documentation (see Appendix M-2), developed in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11(e), NYSDOT concluded that every prudent and feasible alternative will constitute an adverse impact. Based on comments from and further coordination with NYSHPO, NYSDOT submitted the Cultural Resources – Supporting Material for Finding Documentation (see Appendix M-2) to NYSHPO on March 4, 2008. NYSHPO concurred that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives to the demolition of the bridge and concurred that the project will have an Adverse Effect (Beth Cumming to Peter Dunleavy, letter, March 13, 2008).

Because the identification, evaluation (NRHP-eligibility), and determination of effects on specific archaeological sites cannot be determined at this time, NYSDOT has prepared a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6. The MOA is provided in Appendix M-3. NYSDOT has prepared an archaeological work plan which follows established methodology and procedures identified in the March 2004 New York State Education Department Cultural Resources Survey Program Work Scope



Specifications for Cultural Resource Investigations on New York State Department of Transportation Projects (New York State Museum 2004). The Archaeological Work Plan is provided in Appendix M-4.

MITIGATION

If archaeological resources are identified within the APE of the selected alternative during monitoring of construction activities, and determined potentially eligible for the NRHP, mitigation measures would be developed in consultation with the NYSHPO. The preferred mitigation under federal guidelines is avoidance. Avoidance may be accomplished through redesign of the proposed construction footprint and relocation of construction staging areas. Avoidance preserves the integrity of archaeological sites and protects their research potential (i.e., NRHP eligibility). Avoidance also avoids costs and potential construction delays associated with data recovery. Traditionally, data recovery of archaeological sites through professional techniques such as mapping, photography, subsurface excavation, technical report preparation and dissemination, has been the standard mitigation measure. However, data recovery is labor intensive (i.e., costly) but may be necessary if NRHP-eligible sites cannot be avoided. Data recovery of archaeological information is now considered, in and of itself, an adverse effect under the revised Section 106 regulations (36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(i)). If NRHP-eligible resources occur and cannot be avoided through project redesign, Phase III data recovery investigations and/or targeted archival research on historic occupations should be developed in consultation with NYSHPO and implemented prior to construction.

Mitigation for the vibration effects to contributing elements of the Old Calvary Cemetery may include use of different construction methods such as use of low-impact equipment, minimizing multiple construction operations in the same time period to reduce cumulative vibration effects, and special control measures such as a pre-construction vibration survey and a vibration monitoring program during construction.

Mitigation for the demolition of the existing Kosciuszko Bridge may include coordination with the NPS on documentation to Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards, HAER documentation including 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.

B.3.e. Visual Resources

This section discusses the impacts of the Build Alternatives on the visual environment of the project area including the visual resources of the area, established districts, key viewpoints, and user groups within the project area. A summary of the existing visual environment is included in Section II.C.1.u. A more comprehensive discussion of the visual environment and visual impacts is provided in Appendix J, Visual Resource Assessment (VRA).

METHODOLOGY

This section utilizes methodology adopted from the FHWA’s Office of Environmental Policy “Visual Impact Assessments for Highway Projects, 1981” guidance. The VRA process is outlined below:

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV - dot.ny.gov · Final Environmental Impact...

Documents

Transcript of Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV - dot.ny.gov · Final Environmental Impact...