1995-00250_1995-00250_1071.pdf

DIGITIZATION FILE COVER SHEET

Clearly Print Each Field on Form

~-~------~-~l L_ ..... =-"_ ..... _~_. ,-__ ... _ T_~ ===m, ...... ""' ...... "'=..."", .... ....""

IVY Cfly Depf of El7v ?'ofedOn

Applicant Name

Application Number Iq qs- DO:J 50

Permit Number

Waterway . !3Rv IllY 18: vel

Permit Issued Date r2 J JUN J r q b

Box Number

1( /(l}rJe" Prepared by (Name) jelL (Initials)

&/f /10 (Date)

Permittee:

Permit No.:

Issuing Office:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT

Hew York City Department of BnviroDlDenta1 Protection, Bureau of EnviroDlDenta1 Engineering, 96-05 Horace Barding Expressway, 5th P100r, Corona, H.Y. 11368 (718) 595-5965

95-00250

Hew York District Corps of Bngineers

NOTB: The term WyouW and its derivatives. as used in this permit. means the permittee or any future transferee. The term Wthis office w refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Bngineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.

You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.

Project Description:

Insta11 a f10ating bopm approximate1y 185 feet in 1ength and two stee1 B-pi1es to form a contaiDlDent barrier. The f10ating boom sha11 consist of a f10atation c011ar and an 18-inch skirt. The H-pi1es sha11 be equipped with se1f-adjusting mechanisms, or -tide s1ides, - to a110w the f10ating boom to rise and fa11 with the tide. The f10ating boom sha11 be secured at both shore1ines of the Bronx River by H-pi1es and tide s1ides. A11 work sha11 be performed in accordance with the attached drawings.

Project Location: IH: Bronx River

AT: Borough of Bronx, Bronx County, Hew York

Permit Conditions:

General Conditions:

1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on Jun~ 28, 1999 If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized ac::-:t-:;i;-:v':':i~t;:::y=:"'-. -:s:-ub.....-=m-:;i;-;t~y::o:-u::r::-::r::e-:qu=-:e:-:s::-;t::-:;;f;-:o-::r:--a----;-t .... i--m-:-e extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached.

2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conliitions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity. although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer. you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office. which may require restoration of the area.

3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit. you must immediately notify this office of what you have found.

We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

4. If you sell the property associated with this permit. you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.

5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project. you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions· to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions.

6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit.

ENG FORM 1721. Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A»

114S-2-303b (Bronx River - NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection - miscellaneous, pilings)

, PERMl:~E:

I .

NYC Department of Environmental Protection

PERMr:t NO. ; 95-00250

Special Conditions:

a. The permittee shall remove, temporarily or permanently, the floatable portion of the authorized structures within 72 hours of permittee's receipt of written notification by the Rew York District Corps of Engineers ordering same. The permittee shall remove, temporarily or permanently, the remaining portions of the authorized structures within thirty (30) days of permittee's receipt of written notification by the New York District, Corps of Engineers ordering same.

b. The permittee shall provide access to areas upstream of the project site within 24 hours after permittee's receipt of a written or verbal request for such access from a waterway user. By the terms of this Department of the Army authorization, the Federal Government does not assume any liability that may result, directly or indirectly, from the waterway users' delay in awaiting passage and/or from permittee's failure to provide access within the aforementioned period.

c. Prior to cODllllencement of construction activities;

1.

ii.

iii.

The permittee shall attempt to deliver written notification of the construction to all owners of property contiguous to the effected waterway upstream of the authorized activity. This notification shall include the person(s), agency (ies) , organization(s) and telephone number(s) that the property owner(s) should contact to obtain access upstream of the site of the approved structure, and a description of the procedure that the property owner(s) should follow to secure such access.

The permittee shall submit to the New York District Corps of Engineers a sample of the written notification and proof, such as registered mail receipt or hand delivery receipt, that each upstream property owner received written notification.

In the event that the permittee is unable to deliver the notification to any upstream property owner(s), the permittee shall provide to the Rew York District Corps of 8ngineers a written statement indicating the nature of attempts to contact the property owner(s). Should any upstream property owner(s) refuse to accept such notification, the written statement shall state this.

d. The permittee shall remove all structures authorized herein within thirty

(30) days of the date the s,tructures are no longer required by the Order on Consent between the permittee and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (e.g., DEC Case Ro. R2-3351-90-12, et all which mandates construction of the containment booms and structures authorized herein.

e. By the terms of this Department of the Army authorization, the Federal Government does not assume any liability that may result, directly or indirectly, from the construction, installation, repair, maintenance, operation, or related activity associated with the authorized structures.

f. By execution of this Department of the Army authorization, the permittee agrees to indemnify and save harmless the United States of America and its agents from suits, actions, damages, and costs of every nature and description arising from the permitting, construction or maintenance of the authorized structures.

ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A»

PBRMl:TrBB: .

PBRMl:T NO. : .

Further Information:

RYC Department of BnviroiuDentai Protection 95-00250

1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:

(X) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S. Code 403) .

( ) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code 1344) •

( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U. S. C. 1413).

2. Limits of this authorization:

a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law.

b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.

c. This permit does not autho,rize any injury to the property or rights of others.

d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.

3. Limits of Federal Liability: In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following:

a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes.

b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest.

c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit.

d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.

e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.

4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.

5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision: This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.

b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above).

c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.

Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of· your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost.

ENG F0RII1721. Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A))

PBRMIftBB: .

PERMIT 'RO. :

f

RYC Department of Bnvironmental Protection 95-00250

6. Extensions: General Condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.

Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.

(DATE)

RYC Department of Environmental Protection

This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.

JUDe" 28, 1996

(DATE)

When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. A copy of the permit signed by the transferee should be sent to this office.

(TRANSFEREE) (DATE)

ENG FORM 1721. Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A»

PURPOSE: TO INSTAll STRUCTURE TO

CONTAIN AND REMOVE

FLOATING TRASH

DISCHARGED FROM NEW

YORK CITY COMBINED

SEWERS

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:

1. NYC DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL

SERVICES

2. T&G CIVETIA

3. !TALO MAlETTA

4. DELMAR SPECIALTIES COMPANY

LOCATION MAP

SCALE: 1" =500'

PROPOSED INTERIM FLOATABLES

CONTAINMENT PROGRAM

IN: BRONX RIVER

AT: THE BRONX

COUNTY OF: BRONX

STATE OF: NEW YORK

500' APPLICATION BY: HYDROQUAL, INC. ON

BEHALF OF THE NEW YORK CITY

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SHEET 1 OF 3 DATE:9/13/94

ACAD FILE: CEBRLM.DWG

o

\ : 1\ \ I

I ~ \ \ II

\ \ \ II

I

I I \ 1/

\ 1/1 I

3 I111 I~ I

I ~ BRzll1 .§ I

~ I 11\

;~ I III

I; / II

'/1 1\ !tc I I \ c

II ~

'0 o l a::\ \ l

~ \ ~Of/~

CJ

CC \

CO ~oll~ o "" 'i a:

I.U

Q.

vi ::i I.U

'/ II

II \ i 1 ~l1'· ~ "1"'"0 '''~ ,we, I~ D o.

PURPOSE:

DATUM:

I~ I

I (TYP.) ~

ACCESS POINT

,(Nt.\·y CONNECTOR>

II

TO INSTALL STRUCTURE ,0

CONTAIN AND REMOVE

FLOATING TRASH

DISCHARGED FROM NEW

YORK CITY COMBINED

SEWERS

MEAN LOW WATER

PLAN

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ~

1. NYC DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL 1':0 o

SERVICES ,

1, VIEW

SCALE: 1" =50'

3. HALO MAZEnA

PROPOSED INTERIM FLOATABLES

CONTAINMENT PROGRAM

IN: BRONX RIVER

AT: THE BRONX

COUNTY OF: BRONX .

STATE OF: NEW YORK

APPLICATION BY: HYDROQUAL, INC. ON

BEHALF OF THE NEW YORK CITY

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION 2. T&G CIVEDA 1

4. DELMAR SPECIALTIES COMPA:~Y _ --_. __________ ..1.-______________ --' DATE:9/13/94 SHEET 2 OF 3

ACAD FILE: CEBRPV.DWG

EXISTING

CONCRETE PAD

HP10x57 wi W6x12 ~ "SE' GO'DE ("e.)

EXISTING ROCK LEDGE

FLOATING BOOM (TYP.)

_ M. H. W. +7. 2'

M. L. W. 0.0' """--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------liP, .~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

III

Iii

III

III

III

'-o.Il!rr;U,l';-EXISTING MUDLlNE lj=iIEII~,,_,,'_ --------------.-------~illb.~~~~~~: . '=i i 1=111"'111 EI I I:='

II

l.J

PURPOSE: TO INSTALL STRUCTURE TO

CONTAIN AND REMOVE .

FLOATING TRASH

DISCHARGED FROM NEW

YORK CITY COMBINED

SEWERS

DATUM: MEAN LOW WATER

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:

1. NYC DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL

SERVICES

2. T &G CIVEnA

3. ITALO MAZEnA

4. DELMAR SPECIALTIES COMPANY

.'.0

EXISTING ROCK LEDGE (VARIES)

SECTION VIEW

o 30

SCALE: '''=30'

PROPOSED INTERIM FLOATABLES

CONTAINMENT PROGRAM

IN: BRONX RIVER

AT: THE BRONX

COUNTY OF: BRONX

STATE OF: NEW YORK

APPLICATION BY: HYDROQUAL, INC. ON

BEHALF OF THE NEW YORK CITY

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SHEET 3 OF 3 DATE:9/13/94

ACAD FILE: CEBRSV.DwC

RE~YTO

A TTl:NT'OI'O 0#' t .~

DEPARTMEN'Y' OF THE ARMY

NEW YORK DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS

JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING

NEW YORK. N.Y. 10278-0090

June 28, 1996

Regulatory Branch

BUTTS/hq/3913 ~

SUBJECT: Department of the Army Permit No. 95-00250

Mr. Les Kloman, P.E.

Chief of Water Quality Improvement New York City Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Environmental Engineering 96-05 Horace Harding Expressway, 5th Floor Corona, New York 11368

Dear Mr. Kloman:

Enclosed is a Department of the Army permit for your work.

Please display the enclosed Notice of Authorization sign at your work site.

You are required to submit to this office the dates of commencement and completion of your work. Enclosed are two forms for you to use to submit the required dates.

~ For permits authorizing construction and/or installation of pile supported or floating structures, the permittee hereby recognizes the possibility that the structure permitted herein may be subject to damage by wave wash from passing vessels. The issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee from taking all proper steps to insure the integrity of the structure permitted herein and the safety of boats moored thereto from damage by wave wash, and the permittee shall not'hold the United States liable for any such damage. Passing vessels will not be required to alter their current procedures to reduce the wake caused by their operation, which may impact the structure authorized by this permit.

If for any reason, a change in your plans or construction methods is found necessary, please contact us immediately to ~ discuss modification of your permit. Any changes must be approved before they are undertaken.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Seebode Chief, Regulatory Branch

Enclosure

T .. , CENAN-OP-RE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Numbers 94-09570-Yl, 95-00200-Yl, 95- 00220-Y5,95-00230-Yl, 95-00250-Y2, 95·01680-Yl, 95-01690-Yl, 95-01730-Y5, 95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

1. Permit Applications:

a. 94-09570-Yl: On 17 October 1994, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, Hydro Qual, Inc., One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in Gowanus Canal, at the Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. The applicant proposed to install a floating boom approximately 145 feet in length and two steel H-piles to form a containment barrier. The floating boom would consist of a floatation collar and an 18-inch skirt. The H-piles would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. The floating boom would be secured to the banks of Gowanus Canal by H-piles and tide slides.

b. 95-00200-Yl: On 7 January 1995, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, HydroQual, Inc., One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in Coney Island Creek, in the Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. The applicant proposed to install a floating boom approximately 96 feet in length, one steel H-pile, and approximately 40 linear feet of sheet piling to form a containment barrier. The floating boom would consist of a floatation collar and an 18-inch skirt. The H-pile would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. The floating boom would be secured to the existing fendering system on the southern abutment of the Cropsey Avenue Bridge, and to the proposed H-pile immediately adjacent to the proposed sheet piling on the northern side of Coney Island Creek. At both ends, the floating boom would have tide slides.

c. 95-00220-Y5: On 9 January 1995, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, HydroQual, Inc., One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in Maspeth Creek at Maspeth, Borough of Queens, Queens County, New York. The applicant

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 94-09570-Yl, 95-00200-Yl, 95- 00220-Y5,95-00230-Yl, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Yl,95-01690-Yl, 95-01730-Y5, 95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection proposed to install a floating boom approximately 75 feet in length, two steel H-piles, and two sections of steel sheet pile to form a containment barrier. The floating boom would consist of a flotation collar and an 18-inch skirt. The H-piles would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. The floating boom would be secured to th~ banks of Maspeth Creek by H-piles with the tide slides and the sheet pile structures.

d. 95-00230-Yl: On 9 January 1995, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, HydroQual, Inc., One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in English Kills, tributary to Newtown Creek, in the Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. The applicant proposed to install a floating boom approximately 185 feet in length and two steel H-piles to form a containment barrier. The floating boom would consist of a floatation collar and an 18-inch skirt. The H-piles would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. The floating boom would be secured at both banks of English Kills by H-piles and tide slides.

e. 95-00250-Y2: On 9 January 1995, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, HydroQual, Inc., One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in the Bronx River, in the Borough of Bronx, Bronx County, New York. The applicant proposed to install a floating boom approximately 112 feet in length and two steel H-piles to form a containment barrier. The floating boom would consist of a floatation collar and an 18-inch skirt. The H-piles would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. The floating boom would be secured at both banks of the Bronx River by H-piles and tide slides.

f. 95-01680-Yl: On 15 February 1995, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, HydroQual, Inc., SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 94-09570-Y1, 95-00200-Y1, 95- 00220-Y5, 95-00230-Y1, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, 95-01730-Y5,95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in Wallabout Channel, in the Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. The applicant proposed to install a floating boom approximately 164 feet in length, and three steel H-piles. The floating boom would be divided in two 82 foot long sections which would be secured in place by a navy pin connector on one of the proposed H-piles, and would consist of a floatation collar and an 18-inch skirt.

The H-piles would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. The floating boom would be secured to two of the proposed H-piles immediately adjacent to an existing bulkhead north and south of the existing outfall. At both ends, the floating boom would have tide slides.

g. 95-01690-Y1: On 15 February 1995, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of . Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, HydroQual, Inc., One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in a second location in Wallabout Channel, in the Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York.

The applicant proposed to install a floating boom approximately 96 feet in .

length and two steel H-piles to form a containment barrier. The floating boom would consist of two 48 foot long segments, each of which would consist of a floatation collar and an 18-inch skirt. The H-piles would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. The floating boom would be secured at both banks of Wallabout Channel by H-piles and tide slides.

h. 95-01730-Y5: On 16 March 1995, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, HydroQual, Inc., One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jer:sey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in the East Branch of Newtown Creek between Maspeth, Borough of Queens, Queens County and the Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. On the eastern bank, the applicant proposed to construct steel sheet piling and install approximately 91 linear feet of floatable boom. The floatable boom would be secured to an H pile located within the Federal Navigation Channel on the East Branch of

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 94-09570-Y1, 95-00200-Y1, 95- 00220-Y5,95-00230-Y1,95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, 95-01730-Y5,95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Newtown Creek. On the western bank, the applicant proposed to construct steel sheet piling and install approximately 119 linear feet of floatable boom.

The floatable boom would be secured to an H-pile within the Federal Navigation Channel on the East Branch of Newtown Creek. The distance between the proposed H-piles would be approximately 20 feet. The H-piles would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. Between the aforementioned floatable booms, the applicant proposed to install approximately 145 linear feet of floatable boom which wo~ld float in a relatively fixed, semicircular position.

This configuration would be secured by installing four "mushroom" anchors.

1. 95-01740-Y2: On 15 February 1995, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, HydroQual, Inc., One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in Westchester Creek, in the Borough of Bronx, Bronx County, New York. The applicant proposed to install a floating boom approximately 69 feet in length, two steel H-piles, and two sheet pile structures to form a containment barrier. The floating boom would consist of a floatation collar and an 18-inch skirt. The H-piles would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. The floating boom would be secured to the banks of Westchester Creek by H-piles with the tide slides and the sheet pile structures.

J. 95-06850-Y5: On 5 June 1995, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through their authorized agent, HydroQual, Inc., One Lethbridge Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The applicant requested authorization to install a floating containment structure in Flushing Creek, tributary to Flushing Bay, at Flushing, Borough of Queens, Queens County, New York. The applicant proposed to install a floating boom approximately 225 feet in length, two steel H-piles, and two sheet pile structures to form a containment barrier. The floating boom would consist of a floatation collar and an 18-inch skirt. The H-piles would be equipped with self-adjusting mechanisms, or "tide slides," to allow the floating boom to rise and fall with the tide. The floating boom would be secured to the banks of Flushing Creek by

00220-Y5, 95-00230-Y1, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, 95-01730-Y5, 95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

H-piles with the tide slides and the sheet pile structures.

2. Regulatory Authority: The applications were submitted pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).

3. Complete Applications: Application Numbers 94-09570-Y1,95-00200-Y1,95-00220-Y5, 95-00230-Y1, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, and 95-01740-Y2 were complete for processing on 26 May 1995. Application Number 95-01730-Y5 was complete for processing on 6 July 1995.

4. Public Notices:

94-09570-Y1: Public notice number 94-09570-Y1, describing the proposed activity was published on 6 June 1995 for a 30-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for Gowanus Bay.

95-00200-Y1: Public notice number 95-00200-Y1, describing the proposed activity was published on 6 June 1995 for a 3O-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for Coney Island Creek.

95-00220-Y5: Public notice number 95-00220-Y5, describing the proposed activity was published on 9 June 1995 for a 30-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for Newtown Creek.

95-00230-Y1: Public notice number 95-00230-Y1, describing the proposed activity was published on 6 June 1995 for a 3O-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to

00220-Y5, 95-00230-Y1, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1,95-01690-Y1,95-01730-Y5,95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for Newtown Creek.

95-00250-Y2: Public notice number 95-00250-Y2, describing the proposed activity was published on 7 June 1995 for a 30-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for the Bronx River. .

95-01680-Y1: Public notice number 95-01680-Y1, describing the proposed activity was published on 8 June 1995 for a 30-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for the East River.

95-01690-Y1: Public notice number 95-01690-Y1, describing the proposed activity was published on 8 June 1995 for a 30-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for the East River.

95-01730-Y5: Public notice number 95-01730-Y5, describing the proposed activity was published on 13 July 1995 for a 3O-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for the East River.

95-01740-Y2: Public notice number 95-01740-Y2, describing the proposed activity was published on 9 June 1995 for a 3O-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for Westchester Creek.

00220-Y5, 95-00230-Y1, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, 95-01730-Y5, 95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

95-06850-Y5: Public notice number 95-06850-Y5, describing the proposed activity was published on 19 September 1995 for a 3O-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as identified by the applicant, to interested members of the public, to all neighboring and upstream property owners and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for Flushing Bay.

5. Public Hearing: In a letter dated 9 July 1995, Mr. Andrew J. Willner, Baykeeper, requested a public hearing for the aforementioned proposals. He stated that because of the similarity of these proposals, and because of their potential for adverse cumulative impacts, they should be processed as one permit application. Mr. Willner requested that the he'aring address the potential cumulative impacts that would arise from the proposals.

In a letter dated 6 September 1995 addressed to Mr. Willner, Mr. James W. Haggerty, c, CENAN-OP-RE, stated the following:

a. During a telephone conversation held on or about 15 August 1995 with Mr.

Roberto Barbosa, CENAN-OP-RE Project Manager, Mr. Willner indicated that the main concern with the subject proposals was the cumulative impact of the floatable materials that would accumulate behind the proposed structures. Mr.

Willner stated this would be detrimental to local aesthetics, that it would severely degrade water quality in the immediate vicinity of the proposed activities, and that the water quality degradation would result in greater adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive waterways such as Jamaica Bay.

b. Mr. Willner also stated his concern that in the future, the applicant could argue that the proposed structures were sufficient to address the combined sewer outfall (C.S.O.) abatement problem facing the City of New York, and thus the applicant could avoid constructing permanent treatment and abatement facilities as required in an Order on Consent between The City and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservat'ion (N.Y.S.D.E.C.).

c. Mr. Barbosa indicated that this office did not believe the various proposed structures needed to be reviewed under a single permit application. He also stated this office believed it would not be appropriate to consolidate all current and subsequent applications into a single permit application, in part because the applicant may have relied on our initial decision to process them separately.

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 94-09S70-Yl, 9S-00200-Yl, 95- 00220-YS,9S-00230-Yl,9S-002SO-Y2, 9S-01680-Yl, 95-01690-Yl, 9S-01730-YS, 95- 01740-Y2, and 9S-068SO-YS by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

This office considered Mr. Willner's recommendation, but determined that processing of separate applications was consistent with Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 325.1 (d)(2) because each proposal was a single, stand alone project encompassing all the activities reasonably related to it.

d. Mr. Barbosa also noted that currently available information suggests that future C.S.O. abatement facilities would be constructed on uplands, and this agency would have no regulatory jurisdiction over such construction. Therefore, compliance with the terms of the Order on Consent, and Mr. Willner's concerns regarding the possibility that N.Y.C.D.E.P. may avoid constructing permanent treatment and abatement facilities, are issues that should be addressed directly by N.Y.S.D.E.C. However, Mr. Barbosa acknowledged the water quality concerns raised, and to address the cumulative impact he suggested that this agency could prepare a single decision document for all proposals in which cumulative impacts could be addressed. He also suggested that to address specific concerns, Mr. Willner should provide this agency with a letter stating both general concerns regarding the overall proposal, and site-specific concerns in those areas of greater environmental sensitivity. Mr. Willner seemed to agree to these measures: would provide this office with a letter detailing his objections in the manner described, and would rescind his request for a public hearing.

e. Mr. Willner was informed that he should provide this office with a letter addressing the issues raised within fifteen (15) days. Mr. Willner was also informed that a failure to respond within said would be taken to indicate that he no longer desired a public hearing on these proposals.

To date Mr. Willner has not responded to the aforementioned request. Therefore, his failure to respond is taken as meaning he no longer desires a public hearing to collect information regarding these proposals. It should be noted that extensive information regarding the project has been provided by letters and written dOqlmentation, and by consultation with correspondents. There is no indication that additional relevant information would be obtained by conduct of a public hearing, and therefore it is concluded that conduct of a hearing would serve no valid interest.

6. Responses to Public Notice: In addition to the letter described above, this office received the following responses:

00220-Y5, 95-00230-Y1, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, 95-01730-Y5, 95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

a. Application Number 94-09570-Y1:

1. By letter dated 9 June 1995, Mr. Mark A. Chaves, Assistant Vice President of Sackett River Corporation, objected to the proposed work.

He stated that the proposed activity would result in an accumulation of garbage behind the proposed boom which could cause health and aesthetic problems in the area. He also stated the proposed activity would result in birds picking out the garbage and adding droppings to the surrounding areas, bringing disease and contamination to the area.

He noted that the area surrounding the proposed work site was not zoned M-3 and therefore the work was in clear violation of current zoning laws. He also stated that an increase in rodents would result from the proposal, and that the proposed activity would diminish the value of the property which may cause its tenants to leave or have their rentals lowered. He concluded by stating that any future development of Gowanus Canal would be hindered by the proposal.

ii. By letter dated 9 June 1995, Mr. Herbert H. Chaves, Vice President of Nevins Canal Corporation, objected to the proposed work. He stated that the proposed activity would interfere with their access to the waterway, and that the corporation would never be able to use their bulkhead facilities to tie up, load, or unload vessels. He stated this would be a form of condemnation of a portion oftheir property without compensation. He also stated that the accumulation of garbage behind the float would result in an unsightly condition which would diminish the rental value of property, and would create a health hazard. Finally, he stated that any driving of H-piles adjacent to their building might undermine the bulkhead or the building itself.

111. By letter dated 13 June 1995, Sister Francis Gerard Kress expressed her support for the proposed activity.

IV. By letter dated 21 June 1995, Mr. George Magnifico, President of Amtronics, Inc. objected to the proposed activity. He requested that if a seawall is to be used and/or any excavation work is to be completed, a Consent Notice from this agency or our contractors be issued assuming

00220-Y5, 95-00230-Y1, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, 95-01730-Y5, 95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection full responsibility for any damage to the seawall, and agreeing to replace and! or repair the seawall if it is damaged. He also stated that construction of the proposed structure would impede access to Gowanus Canal and New York Harbor, and stated his company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and installing marine generators, which requires them to use the waterway "from time to time." The proposed structure would interfere with their ability to transport and/or install the generators in vessels. Finally, he stated that there are no provisions to remove the floatables that would accumulate behind the boom, resulting in an increase of localized pollution immediately adjacent to his facility. He requested that the applicant study other less intrusive and disruptive means of reducing debris in the waterway.

v. By letter dated 6 July 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard (U.S.C.G.)

, recommended that this agency postpone issuance of a permit until the impact to waterway users could be properly ascertained. U.S.C.G. also stated that they would employ their resources to gather information that would help them in the assessment of this impact. By letter dated 9 August 1995, U.S.C.G. stated that after conducting an inquiry with members of their agency familiar with the area, they found that the proposed structures will not have an adverse impact on the affected waterways or mariners.

b. Application Number 95-00200-Y1: No additional comments were received for this application.

c. Application Number 95-00220-Y5: No additional comments were received for this application.

d. Application Number 95-00230-Y1: No additional comments were received for '. this application.

e. Application Number 95-00250-Y2: No additional comments were received for this application.

f. Application Number 95-01680-Y1: No additional comments were received for this application.

00220-Y5, 95-00230-Y1, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, 95-01730-Y5, 95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

g. Application Number 95-01690-Y1: No additional comments were received for this application.

h. Application Number 95-01730-Y5: No additional comments were received for this application.

1. Application Number 95-01740-Y2: By letter dated 14 June 1995, Mr. Bruce Osgood, Assistant Vice President of Fred M. Schildwachter & Sons, Inc.

expressed concerns with regards to this application. Mr. Osgood indicated that at times the bow or stern of the barges at their site have pushed a temporary floating boom. This however, has not damaged the boom. However, Mr.

Osgood indicated that movement of the barge combined with ice in the waterway may damage or destroy the proposed floating boom. Mr. Osgood stated the corporation will not be held responsible if this happens.

J. Application Number 95-06850-Y5: By letter dated 27 September 1995, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation stated they did not anticipate any significant issue to arise regarding this application.

7. Reply of Applicant: By letter dated 10 August 1995, the applicant addressed the concerns raised in the preceding paragraphs as follows:

a. With regards to the concerns raised by Mr. Willner, the applicant stated that they were trying to schedule a meeting with Mr. Willner to address his concerns directly. They also stated that their agency had prepared environmental assessments for all sites under the auspices of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Coordinated environmental reviews were performed on an individual rather than a cumulative basis because it was determined during the environmental review that there were no significant negative cumulative impacts from installing booms in these separate waterbodies. The applicant also stated that the booms are an interim control' strategy to be relied upon while permanent solutions are evaluated, and will provide a positive near-term water quality improvement. In addition, the proposed structures are part of the controls mandated by the N.Y.S.D.E.C. Consent Order specifically to address floatable material.

b. With regards to the impact on bulkheads adjacent to the proposed H-piles, the

00220-Y5, 95-00230-Y1, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, 95-01730-Y5, 95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection applicant stated that the proposed floatables containment facility in Gowanus Canal will not require any excavation nor will it require any activities adjacent to the seawall in the vicinity of Amtronics. The applicant stated that it is unlikely that the proposed activities will impact on the Amtronics property.

c. The applicant stated that access to the head of Gowanus Canal would not be permanently restricted because the proposed facility would be temporary. The boom would also have a quick release connector to allow for the opening of the boom, and arrangements can be made to open the boom, similar to arrangements made for other water bodies. The applicant also stated it would be unlikely that Amtronics would be able to use the waterway at their site without dredging to attain adequate depths. The applicant stated that the skimmer vessels, which have "an exceptionally shallow freeboard" would not be able to navigate much further upstream from the proposed site. This, the applicant asserted, was a consideration in determining the location of the proposed structure.

d. With regards to the removal of floatable debris, the applicant stated it would be removed within approximately 48 hours of each rainfall event. Without the proposed structure most debris discharged from the combined sewer overflows (C.S.O.'s) within Gowanus Canal would remain in the Canal.

e. The applicant stated that mesh gates on the C.S.O.'s were considered as an alternative. However, this was deemed to be unacceptable because the debris could eventually block the outfall itself ("blinding" of the outfall). This could result in sewer surcharges through manholes and sewer grates in the surrounding neighborhood.

f. The applicant noted that the proposed facility in Gowanus Canal is completely bordered by land zoned M-1 and M-2, which allows for light and medium industrial uses, respectively. However, "zoning regulations do not limit the location and construction of the containment facilities. The applicant noted that some structures already installed are located adjacent to residential property.

g. Regarding the characteristics of the debris captured, the applicant stated that the overwhelming majority of floatable debris associated with the C.S.O.'s in Gowanus Canal is nonputrescible and is more representative of street litter

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 94-09570-Y1, 95-00200-Y1, 95- 00220-Y5,95-00230-Y1,95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Y1, 95-01690-Y1, 95-01730-Y5, 95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection

(e.g., plastic cups, papers etc.). The applicant also stated that similar operational facilities in Jamaica Bay have not resulted in any significant odors or complaints.

This type of waste would not present an attraction to birds or rodents because it does not provide a potential source of food. Mosquitos not necessarily require a source of garbage but stagnant water, which is not provided by the Canal due to the movements of the movement of the tides and the existing Canal traffic.

8. Site Visits: On 18 April 1996, members of this office and representatives for the applicant conducted a visit to the sites of the proposed Floatable Containment Facilities (F.C.F.). Present during this site were Mr. Roberto Barbosa, Regulatory Specialist, CENAN OP-RE, and Messrs. Kevin Keane and William Leo of HydroQual, Inc. as agents for the applicant. The purpose of the site visit was to ascertain the extent of encroachment into Federal navigation channels at the sites and the potential effect of such upon navigation in the vicinity of the proposed projects. The site visits were conducted in a vessel approximately 15 to 20 foot in length property of the applicant. The following is a summary of the findings and determinations at the various sites.

a. Application Number 94-09570-Y1 (Gowanus Canal F.C.F.): Water depths at the site appeared to be extremely limited; even though the boat's engine was generating a very low number of revolutions per minute, the propeller was creating a large amount of turbidity at the site. Immediately downstream of the proposed location, a large barge apparently owned by Bayside Fuel Corporation was moored adjacent to Bayside's facilities. A sunken barge adjacent to Nevins Canal and/or Sackett River Corporations was located upstream of the proposed work site. The barge apparently sank a considerable time in the past. This was confirmed by the applicant's agent, who stated that the barge had been sitting on the bottom for over ten years. However, there was no sign of current waterway use upstream of the proposed site. This office is of the opinion that the proposed structure would not interfe(e with current waterway use.

b. Application Number 95-00200-Y1 (Coney Island Creek F.C.F.): The applicant proposes to install an F.C.F. immediately downstream of the existing Cropsey Avenue Bridge. It was observed that a very limited clearance between the bridge and the top of our vessel. This leads us to believe that only extremely small vessels would have access upstream of this point. Furthermore, on 25 March 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard issued Public Notice Number 1-872, which

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 94-09570-Yl, 95-00200-Yl, 95- 00220-Y5,95-00230-Yl, 95-00250-Y2, 95-01680-Yl, 95-01690-Yl, 95-01730-Y5,95- 01740-Y2, and 95-06850-Y5 by New York City Department of Environmental Protection informed the public of a proposed modification to the Cropsey Avenue Bridge.

The proposal involves modifying the existing bridge to make it a fixed structure.

In addition, the applicant's agents stated there are no waterway users upstream of the proposed site. This office is of the opinion that the proposed structure would not interfere with current waterway use.

c. Application Number 95-00250-Y2 (Bronx River F.C.F.): The proposed site is approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the location of the existing, temporary structure at the Westchester Avenue Bridge. Approximately 200 feet upstream of this bridge, the Amtrak Railroad Bridge prevents navigation upstream of that point.