f- Utility Permit 1990-01009_16305_12907.pdf

DIGITIZATION FILE COVER SHEET

Clearly Print Each Field on Form

INDEX FIELDS ~

Amlicant Name

/ 7 9 0 - o l007 Application Number

Permit Number

Permit Issued Date

Box Number

S. Schumach JJ i 6 fl4y I/

Prepared by (Name) (Initials) (Date) ar &'

', DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

NEW YORK DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS

JACOB K. JAVlTS FEDERAL BUILDING NEW YORK. N.Y. 10278-0090 BUTTS/hq/3913

November 25, 1991 n r m

Regulatory Branch

SUBJECT: Department of the Army Permit No. 16305

M r . Ben Wright, P.E.

Ch ie f , Engineering/Construction Suf fo l k County DPW 335 Yaphank Avenue Yaphank, New York 11980

Dear Mr. Wright:

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.

is found necessary, please contact us immediatelv to discuss If for any reason, a change in your plans or construction methods modification of are undertaken.

Enclosure your permit. Any changes

Sincerely, must be- approved before they

Joseph J. Seebode Chief, Regulatory Branch

HAGGERT KLE18

.’ . ! . ( - . a ’ t.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT

Permittee

Permit No. 16305 Tel. No.: (516)282-1600

Suf fo l k County Department o f Publ ic Works - D i v i s i o n o f Sani tat ion, P.O. Box 59, Yaphank, New York 11980 lssuingOffice New York D i s t r i c t - Corps of Engineers (PN # 14291-90-1009-L4)

NOTE: The term “you” and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term “this office” refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers 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.

ProjectDescription: I n s t a l l two rows o f s tee l sheeting, each approximately 350 f e e t long, on e i t h e r s ide .o f an e x i s t i n g o u t f a l l p ipe p r i o r t o dredging o f a t rench approximately 350 f e e t long t o access the e x i s t i n g o u t f a l l p ipe t o a depth o f 12 f e e t below mean low hater, removing approximately 600 cubic yards o f mater ia l t o be sidecast and used as b a c k f i l l upon completion o f the pro ject .

an upland l o c a t i o n where i t w i l l be s u i t a b l y re ta ined t o prevent i t s reen t ry i n t o the waterway.

two rows o f s tee l sheeting, and i n s t a l l 2 cathodic p ro tec t i on cables beneath the concrete slabs.

s t ructure and terminate 150 f e e t t o the east and 150 f e e t t o the west o f two anodes, approximately 18 inches i n diameter and 6 f e e t i n length. The top o f the anodes and cables w i l l be a minimum o f 10 f e e t below the e x i s t i n g grade o f the ocean bottom.

A l l work w i l l be done i n accordance w i t h the attached drawings.

Any excess mater ia l w i l l be disposed o f a t

Place precast concrete slabs, approximately 18 inches th i ck , between the

Cathodic p ro tec t i on cables w i l l e x i t a t the seaward end of the e x i s t i n g o u t f a l l

Project Location:

IN: A t l a n t i c Ocean

AT: Cedar Beach, Town o f Babylon, Su f fo l k County, New York

Permit Conditions:

General Conditions:

1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on . If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached.

November 25, 1994

2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance.with the terms and condi-tione of this permit. You are not relieved of thii 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 coordina-tion 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.

ENG FORM 1721, NOV 86

1145-2-303b ( A t l a n t i c Ocean/SCDPW - D iv i s ion o f Sani tat ion/Steel Sheet P i les, Cables, EDITION O F SEP 8 2 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix 4)

Anodes , Dredge) 1

Z

-sasnita pinqeu ur013 io sa!qp!qa8 pqq!uuadun io pqq!uuad iaqqo 30 q p a i e SB joaiaqq sasn io qaafoid paqq!uuad aqq oq sa%urea B

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 coat.

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 permitt icates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.

(DATE)

ated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.

November 25, 1991

(DATE)

R . M . Daniel son Colonel, Corps o f Engineers

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.

i r' *+ ;

3 -

(DATE)

*US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1986 - 717-425

L . c

' . I

I n

v) aJ

Id

P n n

v) a P .I-n C, a, -aJ c m

Q) aJ C, m E:

C, Iu C, E:' Id m rc

E:

v)

.P

.r

.I-

.r

*r n I

3 n n u m E:

Id aJ V V

C, E:

(c1 c, e

.I-v n m m I

(u I m cf s-l s-l f J

UI

J

, c

CENAN-OP-RE 10 October 1991

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 90-1009-L4 by Suffolk County Department of Public Works/ Division of Sanitation

1. On 19 December 1990, this office received an application for a Department of the Army permit from Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW)/ Division of Sanitation, P.O. Box 59, Yaphank, New York, 11980. The application requested Department of the Army authorization to install sheet piling, cathodic protection, anodes and cables for an outfall pipe and to dredge and backfill to grade in the Atlantic Ocean at Cedar Beach, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York.

The applicant proposes to install two rows of-steel sheeting, each approximately 350 feet lonq, on either side of an existing outfall pipe. The length of the existing outfall pipe involved in this project is approximately 700 feet long with approximately 350 feet of the piping seaward of the Spring High Tide Line (SHTL). The work would also involve dredging a trench approximately 350 feet long, seaward of the SHTL, in order to access the existing outfall pipe to install the steel sheeting, anodes and cables. The applicant would place precast concrete slabs, approximately 18 inches thick, between the two rows of steel sheeting and install 2 cathodic protection cables beneath the slabs.

These cables would exit at the seaward end of the outfall structure and terminate 150 feet to the east and 150 feet to the west at two anodes, which would be approximately 18 inches in diameter and 6 feet in length. The top of the anodes and cables would be a minimum of 10 feet below the existing grade of the ocean bottom. Approximately 600 cubic yards of material would be dredged for placement of the steel sheeting, anodes, and cables and the same material would be used as backfill and regraded to existing conditions upon completion of the proposed project. The steel sheet piles proposed for the protection of the existing outfall pipe would be placed approximately 3 feet, at the landward end, to 12 feet, going seaward, below mean low water.

The stated purpose of this project is to protect an outfall pipe in the Suffolk County Sewer District No. 3, Southwest.

2. Regulatory Authority: The application was submitted pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

3. Complete Application: The application was originally considered complete for processing on 23 January 1991. The application was suspended on 5 March 1991 (42 days processing time) pending issuance of the required Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency concurrence from the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) and the Water Quality Certificate from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The final completion date of 4 August 1991, is 42 days prior to our 14 September 1991 receipt of a letter from the FWS in which they notified this office that they concur with the work restrictions set by the NYSDEC.

4. Public Notice: Public notice number 14291-90-1009-L4 describing the proposed activity was published on 31 January 1991, for a 30-day comment period. Copies of the public notice were mailed to the adjacent property owners as supplied by the applicant, to interested members of

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 90-1009-L4 by Suffolk County Department of Public Works/ Division of Sanitation the public, and to Federal, state and local officials or agencies included in our computerized public notice mailing list for the Atlantic Ocean.

5. Public Hearing: The district did not receive any requests for a public hearin? on the subject application, nor is a public hearing needed for this permit decision.

6. Responses to the Public Notice: Three letters were received during the 30-day comment period. Two of the letters recommended work windows because of the presence of Roseate Terns and Piping Plovers at the site. One of these letters, dated 4 March 1991, from the National Audubon Society, Scully Science Center strongly recommended that no work be conducted from March 1 through September 1 to allow the aforementioned birds enough time to complete the nesting cycle. The other letter, dated 1 March 1991, from the Great South Bay Audubon Society, Inc., recommended that no activity take place from March 15 to September 15 and that all equipment should be removed before March 15, and the area restored to its natural state by that date. This letter also stated that the same conditions were asked for when the pipe was originally laid and the request was granted.

The third letter, dated 1 March 1991, from the Deputy Commissioner for Planninq and Development of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Peter Buttner, stated that they would like to offer information and analysis on the proposed project.

The letter enclosed approximately 2 pages of written information with 15 pages of figures and was an analysis of shoreline dynamics in the vicinity of the corridor of the sewer outfall pipe that crosses eastern Jones Island at Cedar Beach, Suffolk County, New York. The letter stated that the Jones Island barrier is recessing landward and attempts to replenish the sand resources displaced as a result of this transgression have provided short-term, expensive alfixesnn and that recent sand replenishment programs appear to have about a 3-year life span in the eastern region'of Jones Island. In general, the letter states, that the average recession value for eastern Jones Island during the 180-day interval between May and November, 1990, was between 50 and 60 feet and that all interests, public and private, are advised to take notice of this trend: Jones Island is migrating landward and if this recessional trend continues, all fixed facilities will be at risk.

With regard to the sewer outfall pipe, the letter states that it would seem that deeper burial of the outfall pipe would be a much better 1810ng-termtv alternative. While the structure proposed would protect the pipe over the short-term, sooner or later the offshore end will most likely ngfall away" as the barrier migrates landward. Moreover, the letter continues, any structure placed at that position along eastern Jones Island will cause severe downdrift (westerly erosion) and enhance the possibility of the formation of a new inlet in the Gilgo area and even without this structure the conditions were such that Governor Cuomo announced an Emergency Declaration in 1988. With such a fixed structure in place, eastern Jones Island will surely be a candidate for breaching by natural episodic storms. The remainder of the letter offered supplementary information supporting the trends and statistics outlined above. The threealetters were forwarded to the

CENAN-OP-RE

SUBTECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 90-1009-L4.

by Suffolk County Department of Public Works/ Division of Sanitation applicant on 15 March 1991 and a response requested.

7. A letter, dated 14 August 1991, was received in response to the letters outlined above. The consulting engineers handling the project stated that SCDPW have agreed to the March 15 to September 15 work restriction in order to protect the terns and plovers. The letter also included a response to the comments presented in the letter from the N.Y. State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. The response was as follows: "The writer of the report, Mr. Buttner, suqgests a 8Blong-term18 solution of deeper burial of the.outfal1 pipe.

This solution has theoretical merit but is economically unrealistic.

To achieve this solution, a second new outfall pipe would have to be constructed parallel to the present outfall, thereby permitting the mandatory full-time operation of the Bergen Point Plant. The information contained in the letter indicates that Jones Beach island is miqrating landward, and Inif this trend continues, all fixed facilities will be at risk1#. Mr. Buttner also concedes that the proposed project (sheet piling and pre-cast concrete slabs) 8@would protect the pipe over the short-term1@. Provided the Corps of Engineers continues to dredqe Fire Island Inlet to permit boat navigation, and the dredged material used to replenish the westward beaches as needed, our lnshort-termgl solution might be the tvlong-termtt desired. In the event that the protective structure is exposed by a receding sand line, then the structure will serve its purpose and prevent the pipe from rupturing in the surfline and discharging treated sewage at the beach line. Therefore at this time, we strongly recommend that the present project be constructed as designed."

In a conversation, on 21 August 1991, with the engineer who drafted the response letter, a few points of clarification were obtained.

According to the engineer, a projected cost of 25 to 30 million dollars is estimated for replacing the outfall pipe and burying it deeper.

This is because one cannot replace just the seaward part of the outfall pipe but would have to replace the many miles of piping which leads to the Bergen Point Plant and the 3 plus miles of pipe leading out to the end of the outfall where the treated sewage is discharged.

engineer also stated that the points raised in Mr. Buttner's letter about Jones Beach Island receding is precisely why they need the protection for the outfall pipe. Currently, without the protection, if the pipe is exposed to surf action, it could rupture and th'e results of that would be catastrophic. The economics of replacinq the pipe are prohibitive, therefore the only alternative at this time is to protect what is currently there and functioning.

8. The concerns raised by the Audubon Society letters have been adequately addressed by the applicant conforming to the work windows presented by federal and state agencies, as well as the Audubon Society. The applicant is willing to adhere to a stricter work restriction from March 15 as opposed to April 1 as recommended by the federal agencies (see paragraph 9). The March 15 date covers the recommendation put forth by the Audubon Society. The points and concerns expressed in Mr. Buttner's letter are valid points and support the need for the project. We concur with the applicant, that at this point replacement of the pipe would appear to be economically

The

CENAN-OP-RE

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 90-1009-L4 by Suffolk County Department of Public Works/ Division of Sanitation prohibitive. The proposal appears warrented for the protection of what is there and to avoid an environmental disaster, if the outfall pipe, unprotected, were to be exposed to the surf and rupture. The applicant has adequately addressed the concerns raised about the proposed project and has provided information to justify the need for the project whether it be a short-term or long term solution.

9. Federal Review Agencies' Comments: At the joint permit processing meeting held on 19 February 1991, the three Federal environmental review agencies, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce (NMFS) stated they had no objections to the proposal and did not oppose permit issuance provided that the sheet piling for the project is driven first, before dredging, in order to minimize turbidity in the aquatic environment. FWS also recommended that no work take place between April 1 and September 14 of any calendar year to protect the piping plover and roseate tern, since both species are known to nest in the project area. These recommendations were re-iterated in the FWS's letter of 28 February 1991. By letter dated 25 February 1991, the recommendations by the Federal agencies', along with a letter received from New York Telephone Company, were sent to the applicant.

The applicant responded to the concerns raised by the federal agencies by agreeing to adhere to a work restriction from March 15 to September

15. In a letter dated 2 August 1991 the engineer for the applicant stated that the steel sheet piling will be driven prior to. dredging an backfilling, thereby minimizing s nd/water disturbance. Thts k h A d J d

% tb ? &s zfice contacted FWS and enclosed By letter dated 26 A gust 1 9 a copy of the NYSDEC permit issued for the subject proposal. It was noted that special condition number 4 of the permit states that in order to protect areas of active tern nesting sites, no work is authorized to occur between March 15 and September 1. This work restriction differs slightly from the restriction requested by the FWS for the same resource. At a Federal Interagency Coordination meeting held on 19 February 1991, the FWS stated that they did not oppose the work provided no in-water work is performed from April 1 through September 14. This modification was requested to avoid interference with the breeding activities of piping plovers, a Federally listed threatened species along the Atlantic coast, and the roseate tern, a Federally listed endangered species. In view of the discrepancies between FWS and NYSDEC restrictions for the protection of the same resource, this office requested that FWS consider deferring to the restrictions provided by the NYSDEC permit so that there is consistency in the work restrictions for the regulated public. This office requested a response within 15 days of the date of this letter.

In response, by letter dated 10 September 1991, FWS notified this office that upon further review of the subject proposal, FWS does not oppose the use of the restriction period requested by the NYSDEC.

;m +L A zc4 d f h - . m

SUBJECT: Statement of Findings for Application Number 91-1009-L4 by Suffolk County Department of Public Works/ Division of Sanitation

10. State and Local Approvals: By permit number 1-4720-00355/00001-0, NYSDEC authorized the subject proposal. - / .t. - - -

11. Water Quality Certification: The proposed activity does include a discharge of dredged or fill material, and received the required water quality certificate on 13 June 1991. The Water Quality Certification has 4 special conditions attached to the permit.

12. Coastal Zone Management Concurrence: The proposed activity would be located within the coastal zone, and complies with the New York State Coastal Zone Management Program (CZM), as indicated by letter from the New York State Department of State on 24 June 1991. CZM has a condition attached which states that it is recommended that Suffolk County Department of Public Works try to maintain the protective sand envelope a minimum of 3 feet between structures and the grade of beach and ocean.

13. Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Guidelines: The proposed activity does include a discharge of dredged or fill material under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which has been found to comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines as indicated by the enclosed evaluation.

14. The enclosed environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with the policy and procedures set forth in the rules governing the regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers, 33 CFR Part 320 et. seq., and the policies and procedures for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act at 33 CFR 230. The environmental assessment concludes that the proposed activity will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human environment and as such an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this permit decision.

15. As specified at 33 CFR Part 320.4(a) (2), the following general criteria will be considered in the evaluation of every application:

proposed outfall protection would satisfy the applicants- need to provide safe and protected sewage treatment facilities to the public and to prevent ecological degradation by avoidance of accidental \ rupturing. Prevention of sewage accidents and provision of safe and economical sewage treatment facilities are of public concern and interest, of which the proposed activity has no conflicting values.

a. Private and public need for the proposed acti,vity: The

b. Appropriate Alternatives: The "no actionv1 alternative would allow existing erosion to expose an unprotected treated sewage pipe and permit the possibility of the pipe rupturing by exposure to the surf.

The applicant has adequately addresdthe concerns raised about the proposal and has agreed to adhere tathe recommendations put forth by the federal and state agencies. Modifying or prohibiting the proposed d

Q ..

' L l

,- activity does not appear necessary.

CENAN-OP-RE

SUBTECT: Statement 'of Findings for Application Number 90-1009-L4 by Suffolk County Department of Public Works/ Division of Sanitation

c. Extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects which the proposed activity may have on the private and public uses to which the area is suited: Permanent beneficial effects, such as the protection of a sewage discharge pipe would result upon completion of the proposed project. Some minor and short-term detrimental effects include turbidity and the presence of heavy equipment during construction and dredging activities.

16. As specified at 33 CFR 320.4(a)(l), the subject application has been evaluated in light of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity and its intended use upon the public interest. This evaluation reflects the national concern for both the protection and utilization of important resources. It includes all factors relevant to the proposal including the cumulative effects thereof: among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.

17. Based upon the foregoing analysis, a review of the administrative record and after a weighing of all factors relevant to the application, it is concluded that it is in the public interest to issue a Department of the Army permit to the subject applicant to perform the work described in paragraph one of this statement of findings.

Prepared by:

Larry 'Klein Area- Manager-, Eastern Permits Section n

Recommended by:

Enclosures:

1. EA

2. 404 (b) (1) Eva1

' Y

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

APPLICATION NO.

APPLICANT:

A. PRELIMINARY REVIEW

There a r e no known p r o p e r t i e s w i t h i n t h e p e r m i t area t h a t a r e e i t h e r l i s t e d i n o r e l i g i b l e f o r l i s t i n g i n t h e N a t i o n a l Reg is te r o f H i s t o r i c Places.

[ ] The f o l l o w i n g p r o p e r t i e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e p e r m i t area a r e e i t h e r l i s t e d i n o r e l i g i b l e f o r l i s t i n g i n t h e N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r :

Note: A t t a c h a d d i t i o n a l documentation as r e q u i r e d

2. Endangere@ Species

[ d B a s e d on t h e r e v i e w o f a v a i l a b l e da ta t h e proposed a c t i o n w i l l n o t a f f e c t a species proposed o r des ignated b y t h e U.S . Depart-ment o f t h e I n t e r i o r as threatened o r endangered n o r w i l l i t a f f e c t t h e c r i t i c a l h a b i t a t o f such a species.

[ ] The proposed a c t i o n w i l l have an e f f e c t on a species proposed or designated as threatened o r endangered

Species :

. Evidence o f c o n s u l t a t i o n pursuant t o Sect ion 7 o f t h e Endangered Species Ac t i s a t tached.

3 . N a t i o n a l l w i l d and Scenic R ivers *

The proposed a c t i v i t y w i l l n o t i n v o l v e a n a t i o n a l w i l d o r scenic r i v e r system l i s t e d i n the c u r r e n t nat ionwide i n v e n t o r y .

I:

[ 3 The proposed a c t i v i t y i s l o c a t e d on a n a t i o n a l w i l d or scenic r i v e r l i s t e d i n t h e c u r r e n t nat ionwide i n v e n t o r y ; no adverse impacts a r e a n t i c i p a t e d ( a paragraph must be added t o t h e p u b l i c n o t i c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t an i n v e n t o r y r i v e r i s i n v o l v e d and t h e reasons s u p p o r t i n g the p r e l i m i n a r y f i n d i n g of no adverse e f f e c t )

[ ] The proposed a c t i o n w i l l adverse ly a f f e c t an i n v e n t o r y r i v e r .

Add paragraph t o p u b l i c n o t i c e and f o l l o w c o o r d i n a t i o n procedures.

r e q u i r e d by Execut ive Order 11514.

* Refer t o P . 59191-59192 of t h e 8 September 1980 Federal Reg is te r f o r guidance.

4. Marine SancJuaries and W i l d l i f e Refuges

[ / 7 / T h e proposed a c t i o n w i l l n o t t a k e p l a c e i n a marine sanctuary as e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Secre tary o f Commerce under t h e A u t h o r i t y o f t h e Marine Research and Sanctuar ies A c t o f 1 9 7 2 , a s amended, o r i n a N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e Refuge.

The proposed a c t i o n w i l l t a k e p l a c e i n a des ignated marine sanctuary.

cons is tency w i t h T i t l e I 1 1 o f t h e Marine P r o t e c t i o n , Research and Sanctuar ies Act o f 1972 must be obta ined.

The views o f t h e S e c r e t a r y o f Commerce r e g a r d i n g

[ ] The proposed a c t i o n w i l l t a k e p l a c e i n a N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e Refuge. The views o f t h e U.S. Department of t h e I n t e r i o r must be obta ined.

5. Specia l Aquat ic S i t e s

[ ] The a c t i v i t y s u b j e c t t o r e g u l a t i o n w i l l occur i n a s p e c i a l a q u a t i c s i t e (check a p p r o p r i a t e t y p e )

[ ] Sanctuary and Refuge

[ ] Wetlands

[ ] Mudf la ts

[ ] Vegetated Shallows

[ ] R i f f l e and Pool Complexes j/ The a c t i v i t y s u b j e c t t o r e g u l a t i o n does n o t appear t o be i n a s p e c i a l a q u a t i c area.

6. Other P e r t i n e n t I n f o r m a t i o n

[ A o t appl i c a b l e

[ ] An E I S has been prepared b y another agency on a l a r g e r a c t i o n which i n c l u d e s t h i s proposal

Agency

Date FEIS f i l e d w i t h EPA

P r e l i m i n a r y E v a l u a t i o n

.Prel i m i n a r y Review b 24Tk.

$9. : * Y

. .-. 0 . .

c

1.

2.

3.

B. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

inspection was performed.

[ 1 A field inspection was conducted by

Water Quality Certification

Army permit was on by the for the work regulated by Department of the

13 [?q( following

[ 3 New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection d New 'fork State Department of Environmental Conservation

[ 3 Connecticut State Department of Environmental Protection

[ J Water Quality Certification for the work regulated by Department of the Army permit is not applicable with established Coastal Zone Plan on gL/ TuU k?q/ by :

[ ] New Jersey

[ ] Certification of Consistency with established Coastal Zone Plan not applicable.

< - . . e

c. I n d i v i d u a l and Cumulative ImpactE of the Proposed Action on the P u b l i c Interest: ---

StiOiiT TERM It4PACT

LONG TERM I HPACT

- x

- 0

-rrr=J k., MAGNITUDE OF PROBABLE I!.ITXCT*

NO

INCREASING h P P RE C I ABLE RXLEASING

BENEFICIAL

I WACT . IMPACT

ADVERSE EFFECT

If a check mark is placed in the "significant" or " s u b s t a n t i a l " colunn a written cxplanation must be attached to this EA.

GENCY NO

ED/STATE OBJECTION

JSEPA

JSFW5

N&FS

dWw5

13V59EG

* NO COMMENT OF CONCURRENCE SUBJLCI

TO CONDITIONS * OB~!XTlOr\ r ACTION TAKEN

14 FER 19qJ I t

1 1

2 S V V E lqsl !s C w € I%!

required based on c r i t e r i a contained i n 33 CFR 320.4(a) (see a1 te rna t ives discussion i n statement o f findings f o r subject appl icat ion) .

( r e f e r t o documentation on pract icable supplied by the applicant:

[ 3 Alternatives analysis required based on c r i t e r i a . contained in 40 CFR 230.10

[ 3 Documentation c l ea r ly demonstrates t h a t no prsct icable a l t e rna t ives a re ava i lab le .

[ 3 Documentation does n o t demonstrate t h a t practicable alte 'rnatives are unavailable ( the reasons fo r t h i s determination shal l be s e t fo r th i n writ ing and appended t o this assessment).

[ 3

Alternatives Analysis n o t required (As per E R 200-2-2, Appendix B para. 8 a , when there a re no unresolved conf l i z t s concerning al ternat ive uses of avai lable resources, the project i s wa%er dependent, aiid th is EA confirms the impacts of the appl icant ' s proposal t o be insignif icant) a I:odif i c a t i o n s . t o the Proposod Action nnscd on t h e Assessment of Ewlroraenta l Xnpact ( a t t a c h w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n of m i t i g a t i o n p lnn o r incor7o;zte by r e f e r e n c e if such document a l r e a d y e x i s t c ) , -

1 '

- - L J

.; 1

. c. . - G. I n 3 i v i d u a l s 'Responsible f o r F i n a l P r e p a r a t i o n a h Review . . : I i . e.* . . . .. . ! .

; - Prepa red by :

P o s i t i o n : @ m m ~ A P @ a Date: %\' AVb. 1941 . .

RevieKed by:

- Position : ( \ - C , L € N r ; + O f - w a -d .. . . . . ' .. -: .

. r -.. . -_ . . .

i.

FI>7.4L DETEPWNKIION REGARDING THE HEED FOR AN EhVIPOX4EMTW, UIPACT'' S?ATEkElz:

Id Find ing of N o S i g n i f i c a n t Impact (FONSI)

Bas.ed on the informat ion presented i n t h i s Env i ronaen ta l XssessEi+nt and i

. ' I ' infornatioxi-contained i n t h e p e r n i t f i l e , I have concluded tha t t h t proposld ac t ion

.;.. . - w i l l heve no s igni . f ican t .impact on t h e q u a l i t y of t h e huailan cnvirorz5;lt and t h a t an I \ ..

:.%p.-- . 1 ! . L- ;nvironmental Impact Statemeut-'is. not requi red . . . - .

: ..,_. ._.. . .. ,:- [ ) EIS Required .I -

Based on t h e informat ion presented i n t h i s Environmental Assessment and in fo rma t ion gene ra t ed through t h e pub l i c i n t e r e s t review as conta iz22 in the pern i t f i l e , 1 have concluded t h a t t h e proposed a c t i o n w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t th; qua l i t y .

of, the huzan environment, t h a t a permit may be warranted, and t h a t an Environmental

<, I n p a c t S ta tement i s requi red .

* . . [ ) EIS Not Required; I s suance Not Warranted

Based o n t h e informat ion presented i n th i s Environmental :.ssessnent and i n fo rma t ion con ta ined i n t h e p e r n i t f i l e , ,I have concluded t h a t t h e proposed p ro jec t will have s i g n i f i c a n t impacts on t h e human environnent but s u f f i c i z a t evidence i n &ppor t of permit d e n i a l e x i s t s and a n J h v i r o n m n t a l Impact S t a t e z s n t is not

. warranted.

L . .

-e , - '

. WNW-E

NALWTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE WIDELIES

PKiMJLCATED UNDER XCTION 404 (b) (1) OF TI€ CLEAN WATER ACT 40 CFR 230 , .

d l

A. Canpllance Review (40 CFR 230.10 '(a) - (d) )

uo. Cr i t e r i a

1. The discharge represents t h e l e a s t cnv l ronnenta l ly damaging prac t icab le a l t e rna t i ve and I f located I n 4 specia l aquat ic s i t e (40 CFR 230, Subpart E) t h e a c t i v i t y associated w i t h the discharge must have d i r e c t access or prox lm i t y to, of be located wlthin the aquatic ecosystem t o f u l f i l l I t s basic purpose

2. The a c t i v i t y does not appear to: .

(a) v i o l a t e appl icable State w a t e r qual i ty standards or eff luent standards promulgated under Section 307 o f t h e Clean Water Act;

(b) jeopardize the existence o f a f e d e r a l l y 1 i s ted threatened or endangered species or i t s habi t a t ;

(c) v i o l a t e the requirements o f any Federa l ly designated m a r i ne sanctuary

3. The a c t i v i t y w i l l not cause or c o n t r l b u t e 4 o s ig -n i f i c a n t degradation o f waters of the U.S. Including adverse e f fec ts on hunan health, l i f e stages o f organisms dependent on the aquatic ecosystem, s o -system d i ve rs i t y , p r o d u c t i v i t y and s t a b i l i t y , and recreat ional , aesthetic, and economic values

1. Appropriate and prac t icab le steps have been taken t a minimize t h e po ten t i a l adverse Impacts o f t h e discharge on the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR 230, Subpart H)

J

J J J

J

Fl n a l d Yes Nc

J

J

J

J

J

J -

*Negative responses t o my o f t h e cmpl lance c r l t e r l a a t t h e p+ellmlnary stage s l g n i f i e s the need for a more thorough l e v e l of analysis m d attachment of the r p p m p r l a t e supporting docunentation. Send l e t t e r t o t h e appl icant which docucn ts reasons fa the pre l im inary detenninatfon. of non-compllance.

*A negatlve response t o one of t h e canpliance c r i t e r i a a t t h e f i n a l stage Ind ica tes t h a t the proposed p ro jec tdoes not comply with the gufde'llnes.

navigation and anchorage are to be evaluated (404 (b) (2) dec i r lon making process, &tach the appropriate ruppot t lng data and evaluation.

If the cconanics of a Part of t h e

P r e l i m i nary Eva1 uatim pre 1 i m i nar y Eva 1 wt i on ate: /124ql ate: a? Job I pi) t Scc.

.t .- , +If a check matk i s placed i n t h e ' s ign i f i can t ' colunn, a deta i led explanation must be attached behind th i s sheet. The impacts must be i d e n t i f i e d and evaluated and referenced by i t e m number (i.e. B - ~ ( c ) , 8-4 (a), etc.) Whenever poss ib le these e f fec ts s h a l l be quanti f ied.

C. Evaluation o f Dredqed and F i l l M a t e r i a l (40 CFR 230. Subpart 6)

1. The f o l l w i n g i n f o t m a t i m has been considered i n evaluatlng t h e b io log i ca l a v a i l a b i l i t y o f possible contaminants I n dredged or f i l l mate r ia l (check appropr la te .Items):

a.

b.

C.

d.

Physical Character is t ics Hydrography r e l a t i v e to know or ant ic lpated sources of a n t ami nant s Results frm previous tes t ings o f t h e mater ia l or simi lar mater ia l I n the v i c i n i t y o f the pro jec t r l t e Known, s ign i f i can t , sources of pers is ten t pest ic ides from land runoff or percolat lon.

-2-

WNW-E .a e.

f.

g.

S p i l l records for petroleun products or designated hazardous substances (Section 311 o f the Clean Water Act)

Public records o f s igni f icant In t roduct ion of contaminants

Known existence of substant ia l mater ia l deposits of substances which could be released i n harmful quant l t ies to the aquatic envirorment by man-induced discharge a c t i v i t i e s ( 1 frun Industries, a tmic ipa l i t ies , or other sources 0

h. Other sources (specify)

References collsul ted:

2. Dete i n a t i o m based on the review of the data i den t i f i ed I n Section C-1:

( J An evaluation of the appropriate In fomat ion I d e n t i f i e d I n the preceding sect ion indicates that there i s reason t o bel ieve the dredged or f i l l mater ia l i s not a carrier o f contaminants or that leve ls o f contaminants are substantively s imi lar a t the extract ion and disposal s i te . Constraints are avai lable t o reduce contamination t o acceptable l i m i t s or l i m i t the transport o f contaminants outside the disposal s i te.

( ) Insu f f i c i en t data were avai lable t o determine the presence or absence of contaminants and test ing was required. A sumnary of the t e s t methods and an evaluati’on of the resul ts i s attached.

section indicates that there i s reason t o believe that the dredged or fill mater ia l i s a potent ia l ca r r i e r of contaminants or that the levels o f contaminants w e not substantival ly s imi lar at the extract ion and disposal si tes. Constrai nts are not avai lable t o reduce contamination t o acceptable leve ls w i th in the disposal s i t e or t o prevent contaminants fm being transported beyond the boundaries of the disposal s i te. Testing was required and a sumnary of the methods used and an evaluation of the r e s u l t s i s attached. P

( ) An evaluation of the appropriate information l i s t e d i n the preceding

0. Disposal S i t e Delineation (40 CFR 230.11 (f))

1. The fol lowing factors, as appropriate, have been considered i n evaluating the disposal s i te:

. J ( ) Depth of water a t disposal s i te.

( ) Current velocity, direction, and v a r i a b i l i t y a t disposal Site.

( ) Degree of turbulence.

( h b i e n t ahcentrat ion of const i t rants of interest.

-3-

L ~.

. . . . .a

WNW-E

( ) Water colunn s t r a t i f i c a t i o n .

( ) Discharge vessel speed and direct ion.

( ) Rate o f discharge.

( d Character ist ics of the &edged mater ia l (constituents, mount, types H

( ) Nmber of discharges per rnit time.

( ) Other ckatacter is t ics of the disposal s i t e that r f f c c t rates m d patterns mater ia l , s e t t l i n g velocit ies, etc.)

o f mixing (specify)

References consul t e d :

2. Deter inations based on the review o f the data I d e n t i f i e d i n 0-1:

( J An evaluation of the appropriate factors I d e n t i f i e d i n the previous subsection and the data contained i n the State Water Q u a l i t y C e r t i f i c a t i o n (required under Section 401 of t he Clean Water Act) Indicates t h a t t h e disposal s i t e and/or size o f the mixing zone w e acceptable.

( ) An evaluation o f the available data including the State Water Q u a l i t y Cer t i f i ca t i on indicates that the disposal s i t e and/or size o f the mixing zone are unacceptable.

E. Actipns t o M in im ize Adverse Ef fect (40 CFR 230. Subpart H)

Througcl application of the recommendations contained i n 40 CFR 230.70 -

230.77 appropriate and pract icable conditions have been fonnulated t o mini-m i z e or mit igate the adverse e f fec ts o f the discharge. Special conditlons are included i n the5’5rde-o~~rJY &.dk&u+,j.for t h i s application.

conditions are wquired t o minimize the adverse effects of t he discharge.

( ) The nature and magnitude o f the i s such that no special

f. Factual Determination (40 CFR 230.11)

A review o f the appropriate data I d e n t i f i e d i n Sections A - E above Indicates that the re I s minimal potent ia l f o r my s ign i f i can t short or long-term environmental ef fects o f the discharge as re la ted to:

1. Physical Substrate a t the Disposal S i t e (Reviw Sections B-1, C, D, and E)

(Revlet Sections B-1, C, D, and E)

3. Suspended Part iculates/Turhidl ty ( No* (Revim Sections 8-1, C, D, and E)

4-

( v/ Yes ( 1 l o *

2. Yater Circulat ion, Fluctuation, S a l i n i t y ( d y e s ( 1 NO*

. *e

4. Contami nant A v a i l a b i l i t y

,I . ,A .-#i (Review Sections B-1, C, and D)

(Revfew Sections 8-2, B-3, C, m d E )

(Revim Sections B , D, and E)

Cumulative Impact on the Aquatic Ecosystem

Secondary Impact on the Aquatic Ecosystem

5. M u a t i c Ecosystem Structure and F m c t i o n ( $ Y e ( 1b*

6. Disposal S i te ( J ( 1

( 1 NO*

7.

8.

When the response i s negative the effects must be Ident i f ied, quantifted (where possible), and evaluated. Attach the analysis t o t h i s form. A negative response nray indicate that the discharge i s not I n compliance w i th the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines. A

6. F i ndi nqs

F ina l Evaluat

F ina l Review ate 19 Oeic-ISSl s Sec.

( d T h e proposed disposal s i t e f o r the discharge o f dredged or f i l l mater ia l cmp l ies wi th the Section 404 (b) (1) gufdelines.

( ) The proposed disposal s i t e for the discharge of dredged or f i l l material cmplies 4 t h the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines wi th the inclusion of appropriate conditions l i s t e d i n the statement of findings.

) The proposed disposal s i t e f o r the dischar e o f dredged or f i l l mater ia l ( does not comply wi th the Section 404 (b) ( 9 ) guidelines for the fo l lowing reasons :

( ) There i s a 1ess.damaging pract icable alternative.

( ) The proposed discharge w i l l r e s u l t i n s ign i f icant degradation o f t h e aquatfc ecosstem.

( ) The proposed discharge cbes not include a l l practicable and apkmpri ate measures t o minimize potent ia l ham t o the aquatic h

[pq] Public Notice US Army Corps of Engineers New York District 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y. 10278 ATTN: Regulatory Branch

In replying refer to:

Public Notice No. 14291-90-1009-L4 Published: 31 JAN 91 Expires: 4 MAR 9 1

To Whom It May Concern:

The New York District, Corps of Engineers has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).

APPLICANT: Suffolk County Department of public Works

Division of Sanitation 335 Yaphank Avenue Yaphank, New York 11980 cables for an outfall pipe; dredge and backfill to grade ACTIVITY: Install sheet piling, cathodic protection, anodes and

WATERWAY: Atlantic Ocean

LOCATION: Cedar Beach, Babylon, Suffolk County, New York

A detailed description and plans of the applicant's activity are enclosed to assist in your review.

The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources.

The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the activity must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the activity will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food production and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.

The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity.

the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.

are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above.

an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.

Any comments received will be considered by

To make this decision, comments

Comments are used in the preparation of

Comments are also

ALL COMMENTS REGARDING THE PERMIT APPLICATION MUST BE PREPARED IN

WRITING MAILED REACH THIS OFFICE BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE OF

THIS NOTICE, otherwise, it will be presumed that there are no objections to the activity.

Any person may request, in writing, before this public notice expires, that a public hearing be held to collect information necessary to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons why a public hearinq should be held.

It should be noted that information submitted by mail is considered just as carefully in the permit decision process and bears the same weight as that furnished at a public hearing.

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531) and based upon a review of the latest published version of the threatened and endangered species listing, a preliminary determination is that the activity under consideration will not affect those species listed or their critical habitat.

Based upon a review of the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places, there are no known sites eligible for, or included in, the Register within the permit area.

archaeological, scientific, prehistorical or historical data may be lost by work accomplished under the required permit.

Reviews of activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will include application of the guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under authority of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act and the applicant will obtain a water quality certificate or waiver from the appropriate state agency in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act prior to a permit decision.

Presently unknown

Pursuant to Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended [16 U.S.C. 1456(c)], for activities under consideration that are located within the coastal zone of a state which has a federally approved coastal zone management program, the applicant has certified in the permit application that the activity complies with, and will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with, the approved state coastal zone management program. By this public notice, we are requesting the state's concurrence with, objection to, or waiver of the applicant's certification. No permit decision will be made until one of these actions occur. For activities within the coastal zone of New York State, the applicant's certification and accompanying information is available from the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, Coastal Zone Management Program, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12231 Telephone (518) 474-3642. Comments regarding the applicant's certification should be so addressed.

In addition to any required water quality certificate and coastal zone management program concurrence, the applicant has obtained or requested the following governmental authorization for the activity under consideration:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Tidal Wetlands Permit

It is requested that you communicate the foregoing information concerninq the activity to any persons known by you to be interested and who did not receive a copy of this notice.

If you have any questions concerning this application, you may contact this office at (212) 264-6730 and ask for Ms. Gail Terzi.

FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER:

Enclosures

1. Work Description

2. Project Drawings

APPLICATION NUMBER: 90-1009-L4

PUBLIC NOTICE NUMBER: 14291-90-1009-L4

DESCRIPTION - OF WORK

The applicant, Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Division of Sanitation, has requested Department of Army authorization to install sheet piling, cathodic protection, anodes and cables for an existing outfall pipe and dredge and backfill to grade in the Atlantic Ocean at Cedar Beach, Babylon, Suffolk County, New York.

The applicant proposes to install two rows of steel sheeting, each approximately 350 feet long, on either side of an existing outfall pipe.

pipe is approximately 700 feet long with approximately 350 feet of…