APPENDIX B: AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

This page intentionally left blank.

B-1

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments led to the creation of National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for six criteria air

pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM),

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead. There are two types of NAAQS—primary standards and

secondary standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of

sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits

to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals,

crops, vegetation, and buildings (EPA 2018a). Table 1 summarizes the primary and secondary

NAAQS for the criteria pollutants. The six criteria pollutants are briefly described below, including

a brief discussion of the relevance of each pollutant to the emissions sources involved with the

Proposed Project.

Carbon monoxide. CO is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from combustion processes, including

engine exhaust. Elevated CO concentrations can cause adverse health impacts by reducing oxygen

delivery to vital organs. Very high concentrations can cause death (EPA 2018b). CO is primarily

a consideration in the vicinity of congested intersections with very high traffic volumes.

Lead. Lead is a toxic heavy metal that can have numerous adverse health impacts, including

neurological damage to children and cardiovascular effects in adults (EPA 2018c). Lead emissions

can contribute to exposure through the air directly or indirectly by causing soil/water

contamination. Prior to the phase out of leaded gasoline, automobiles were a source of lead

emissions. According to the EPA, the major sources of lead emissions to the air today are ore and

metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline (EPA 2018d).

The Proposed Project does not involve lead emissions.

Nitrogen dioxide. NO2 is one of a group of reactive gases called nitrogen oxides or NOx. NO2

forms small particles that penetrate deep in the lungs, and can cause or worsen existing respiratory

system problems such as asthma, emphysema, or bronchitis. NO2 emission sources associated with

the Proposed Project include autos and trucks, construction equipment, and natural gas boilers,

among others. NOx are also a precursor to the formation of ozone (EPA 2018e).

Ozone. Ground-level O3 is an important component of smog and is formed through reactions of

nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight.

Sources of NOx and VOC emissions include both mobile and stationary sources. Health effects of

O3 exposure include respiratory irritation, reduced lung function, worsening of diseases such as

asthma. People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors may

be particularly sensitive to O3. Elevated O3 can also impact sensitive vegetation (EPA 2018f). O3

formation is a regional air quality concern; therefore, the potential impacts in terms of O3 formation

are addressed by quantifying the contribution of the Project to precursor emissions rather than

predicting project-specific O3 concentrations.

Particulate matter. PM is a broad class of air pollutants that exist as liquid droplets or solids, with

a wide range of size and chemical composition. Smaller particulates that are smaller than or equal

to 10 and 2.5 microns in size (PM10 and PM2.5) are of particular health concern because they can

get deep into the lungs and affect respiratory and heart function. Particulates can also impact

visibility; damage soil, plants, and water quality; and stain stone materials (EPA 2018g). PM

emissions are primarily a concern for heavy-duty trucks and other equipment with diesel engines,

although PM emissions also occur from gasoline and natural gas combustion.

B-2

Sulfur dioxide. SO2 is part of a group of reactive gases called oxides of sulfur. Health effects of

SO2 exposure include adverse respiratory effects, such as increased asthma symptoms (EPA

2018h). The largest sources of SO2 emissions nationally are from fossil fuel combustion at power

plants/industrial facilities, electrical utilities, and residential/commercial boilers. Mobile sources

are not a significant source of SO2 emissions (EPA 2018i).

Table 1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Primary/

Secondary Averaging Time Level Form

Carbon

Monoxide primary

8-hour 9 ppm not to be exceeded more

than once per year 1-hour 35 ppm

Lead primary and

secondary Rolling 3-month average

0.15

μg/m3 not to be exceeded

Nitrogen

Dioxide

primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile,

averaged over 3 years

primary and

secondary Annual 53 ppb annual mean

Ozone primary and

secondary 8-hour

0.070

ppm

annual fourth-highest

daily maximum 8-hr

concentration, averaged

over 3 years

Particulate

matter

PM2.5

primary Annual 12 μg/m3 annual mean, averaged

over 3 years

secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 annual mean, averaged

over 3 years

primary

and

secondary

24-hour 35 μg/m3 98th percentile,

averaged over 3 years

PM10

primary

and

secondary

24-hour 150 μg/m3

not to be exceeded more

than once per year on

average over 3 years

Sulfur

dioxide

primary 1-hour 75 ppb

99th percentile of 1-

hour daily maximum

concentrations,

averaged over 3 years

secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm not to be exceeded more

than once per year

Source: EPA (2018a)

Notes: ppm – parts per million, μg/m3 – microgram per cubic meter, ppb – parts per billion

The NAAQS for CO, annual NO2, and SO2 have also been adopted as the ambient air quality

standards for New York State, but are defined on a running 12-month basis rather than for calendar

years only.

Federal ambient air quality standards do not exist for hazardous air pollutants; however, the New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has issued standards for

B-3

certain non-criteria compounds, including non-methane hydrocarbons, fluorides, beryllium, and

hydrogen sulfide. The Project would not involve industrial operations or other potential sources of

fluoride or beryllium emissions. Hydrogen sulfide emissions are a consideration in the odor

assessment of the advanced wastewater treatment facility. The NYSDEC 1-hr hydrogen sulfide

standard is 0.01 ppm (14 μg/m3) (6 CRR-NY 257-10.3).

Non-methane hydrocarbons are a concern in terms of contributing to O3 formation at a regional

level and not localized concentrations at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site.

Therefore, non-methane hydrocarbons are addressed for this DEIS by quantifying the total project-

related emissions of hydrocarbon ozone precursors (VOC).

NYSDEC has also developed short-term and annual guideline concentrations (SGCs and AGCs)

for numerous non-criteria pollutants (NYSDEC 2016). The NYSDEC guidance thresholds

represent ambient levels that are considered safe for public exposure.

REFERENCES

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

2018a Criteria Air Pollutants. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants#self.

2018b Carbon Monoxide (CO) Pollution in Outdoor Air. Available at

https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution.

2018c Learn about Lead. Available at https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#effects.

2018d Lead Air Pollution. Available at https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/basic-

information-about-lead-air-pollution#how.

2018e Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Pollution. Available at https://www.epa.gov/no2-

pollution/basic-information-about-no2%23What%20is%20NO2.

2018f Ozone Pollution. Available at https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/basic-

information-about-ozone%23what%20where%20how.

2018g Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution. Available at https://www.epa.gov/pm-

pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#effects.

2018h Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Pollution. Available at https://www.epa.gov/so2-

pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics%23what%20is%20so2.

2018i Air Emission Inventories. National Emissions Inventory. Available at

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.

NYDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation)

2016 DAR-1: Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Ambient Air Contaminants

under Park 122. Available at https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/dar1.pdf.

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants#selfhttps://www.epa.gov/co-pollutionhttps://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#effectshttps://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2%23What%20is%20NO2https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2%23What%20is%20NO2https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/basic-information-about-ozone%23what%20where%20howhttps://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/basic-information-about-ozone%23what%20where%20howhttps://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#effectshttps://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#effectshttps://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics%23what%20is%20so2https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics%23what%20is%20so2https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventorieshttps://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/dar1.pdf

B-4

This page intentionally left blank.

 Construction Emissions 

 

CCSSD3 EA

Peak Construction Year Emissions Summary (tons)

NOx(tons)

VOC(tons)

PM2.5(tons)

CO2(metric tons)

Off-Road Heavy Equipment 1.6 0.2 0.1 431.39On-Road Haul Trucks and Worker Commutes 5.0 0.3 0.2 1,139.73

Fugitive Dust NA NA 1.4 NA

Total 6.6 0.6 1.7 1,571.12

de minimis threshold 100.0 50.0 100.0

Assume 1/2 emissions of peak year in off-peak years 785.56 Off-peak emissions for three years 1,571.12

Total Construction period CO2 emissions 3,142.24

3 87 90 110Nox VOC CO2 PM2.5

Excavator 1,044233 0.59 Diesel 0.831719

0.162977 536.387370 0.033521

Bulldozer 0236 0.59 Diesel 1.036710

0.170611 536.363838 0.053225Front-End

Loader 1,044230 0.59 Diesel 1.360376

0.183676 536.324874 0.082537

Backhoe 1,04487 0.21 Diesel 3.625299

0.772333 693.785179 0.621971Air

Compressors 8,35284 0.43 Diesel 2.284888

0.257385 589.648237 0.192590

Grader 0231 0.59 Diesel 1.005164

0.169356 536.368081 0.050422

Roller 1,044132 0.59 Diesel 1.480944

0.193993 536.295010 0.143015

Generator 033 0.43 Diesel 4.269649

0.381068 589.265346 0.255931

Sewer Vac* 1,044 115 0.69 Diesel 3.588014 0.348190 530.044966 0.215187

Total Emissions (grams) 1,487,348.56 186,330.45 431,387,551.22 115,865.21Total Emissions (tons) 1.64 0.21 475.52 0.13

* used 4-Stroke Commercial Pump for Load Factor and HPLoad Factor Source: Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modelinghttps://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10081RV.pdf

Horsepower SourceNonroad Engine Population Estimates- selected typical HP based on population by HP informationhttps://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10081T6.pdf

Type

Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)Off-Road

Equipment

Total Operating

Hours HPLoad

Factor

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10081RV.pdfhttps://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10081T6.pdf

3 87 90 1.1 116 117

NOx VOC CO2PM2.5

ExhaustPM2.5

BrakewearPM2.5

TirewearHaul Truck grams/VMT 9.381818 0.406907 1718.79 0.3918263 0.0128008 0.004825

Auto grams/VMT 0.253459 0.101402 288.536 0.0082704 0.00197862 0.001324

Total Grams 4,496,577 313,008 1,139,734,663 184,776 8,266 3,870 Total Tons 4.95663 0.34503 1,256.34205 0.20368 0.00911 0.00427

8,881See construction trips calculation sheet assumption 8880.61 Annual Haul Trips

50 26100 Annual Worker Trips

444,031

26,100100 employees over 261 days with no carpooling assumption

50

1,305,000

Peak Annual Employee Commutes (Roundtrips)Ave. Roundtrip Distance

(miles)Peak Annual Employee

Commute VMT

Peak Annual Haul Truck VMT

On-Road Trucks

Peak Annual Haul Truck Trips (Roundtrips)

Ave. Roundtrip Distance (miles)

AP 42 13.2.4 Loading and Unloading Material into trucks grams/lb453.592

PM10 PM250.35 0.053

Wind Speed (mph) 5 Truck LoadingMoisture Content 12.00% Emission Factor in lbs/ton

Silt Content 8.50% PM10 0.0575183PM2.5 0.0087099

Annual Truck Trips 8880.61

Cubic Yards per Truck 12.5

Soil tons 111,008

PM2.5 lbs - Loading 966.86738PM2.5 lbs - Loading and Unloading 1933.7348

PM2.5 Tons- Uncontrolled 0.9668674

Fugitive DustAssumptions

assuming 1 ton of soil per cubic yard

K

AP 42 11.9

Topsoil removal by scraper 0.058 lbs of TSP/tonTotal quantity of soil moved 228291 cubic yards

lbs of TSP 13240.878Tons of TSP 6.620439

Tons of PM2.5 0.695146095 0.105

Wind erosion of exposed areas 0.38 TSP tons/acre per year105.790404 total project acres

26.44760101 25% exposed at one timeTons of TSP 10.05008838

Tons of PM2.5 1.05525928 0.105

2.717272756

1.358636378

Total PM2.5 from fugitive dust- uncontrolled

With 50% Reduction for Dust BMPs

assuming 1 cubic yard of soil weighs 1 ton

Fugitive Dust

PM2.5 scaling factor

Operational Emissions 

GHG Total Emissionsmix grav + lp opt lp option

Wastewater Treatment (Methane) -1,212.4 -1,212.4Fuel Consumption (Backup Generators) 212.64 479.4

Electricity Consumption 8,967.75 9,281.98Net Change CO2e 7,967.94 8,548.93

GHG Treatment Emissions

5,961 parcels (households proxy) 2012 U.S. Pop2.94 2012 ACS 5-year estimates Total 318,000,000

1,000,000 metric tons per Tg Central Treatment 254,400,000 17,525 population Septic Treatment 63,600,000

CH4Centralized 2.8 1.10063E-08 0.01100629 192.89

Septic 5.1 8.01887E-08 0.08018868 1405.33

(1,212.44)

Per Capita Tg Per Capita Metric Tons

Total Emissions 2012 (Domestic) in Tg of CO2e

Percent Reduction- Septic to Centralized -86.27%

Electricity, Proposed Action Total - Gravity + Low PressureWWTP Energy Demand (kWh) 15,886,260 Grinder Pump Energy Demand (kWh) 4,000 Pump Station Energy Demand (kWh) 88,494.25

Total kWh 15,978,754 lbs CO2e per MWh 1,237.300 per EPA EGRIDMT CO2e per Mwh 0.561

CO2e Total 8,967.75

Electricity, Proposed Action Total - Low-Pressure OnlyWWTP Energy Demand (kWh) 15,886,260 Grinder Pump Energy Demand (kWh) 652,400 Pump Station Energy Demand (kWh) -

Total kWh 16,538,660 lbs CO2e per MWh 1,237.300 per EPA EGRIDMT CO2e per Mwh 0.561

CO2e Total 9,281.98

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/egrid_summarytables.pdfhttps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/egrid_summarytables.pdf

WWTP Energy Demand Increasefactor sourcedaily kWh per 1,000 gallons 26.00 22 to to 30, per Forge EA annual kWh per 1,000 gallons 9,490 net project flows (gpd) 1,674,000.00 PDannual kWh 15,886,260

Grinder Pump Energy Demand Increaseannual Kwh per household grinder pump 200 Citizens Energy Group 2013Carlls Grinder Pumps - if mixed gravity & lpCarlls Grinder Pumps 2,797 if low pressure onlyConnetquot Grinder Pumps 20 if mixed gravity & lpConnetquot Grinder Pumps 465 if low pressure onlySSD3 Grinder Pumps - if mixed gravity & lpSSD3 Grinder Pumps - if low pressure onlyannual kWh 4,000 if mixed gravity & lpannual kWh 652,400 if low pressure only

http://www.citizensenergygroup.com/pdf/STEP/Grinder_Pump_FAQs.pdf

Pump Station Elecricity Use assumes:Pump Stations 2Horsepower 25.00 % Run Time 25.00 Run Time Hours Per Day 6.00 hp mechanical; 746 watts equivalentWatts 18,650.00 General Operationg Power 111.90 assumes 2 starts per hourStartup Power per Hour 12.00 1000% startup power consumption for direct over line startStartup Power kWh/day 9.33

Total kWh per day 242.45 Total kWh per year 88,494.25

Combined Gravity and Low Pressure Option: Pump Stations diesel emergency backup generator

Horsepower 2 Pump Stations 500 hrs/year

402 Pollutant

Emission Factor

(lbs/hp-hr) SourceEmissions @500

hrs/year (lbs)

Annual Emissions in

Tons

2 pump stations in

tons

2 pump stations in metric tons

NOx 0.00881849 CAT C9 spec sheet, conveted to lbs 1772.51649 0.89 1.77 1.61VOC 0.0025141 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 (TOC- exhaust plus crankcase) 505.3341 0.25 0.51 0.46SOx 0.00205 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 412.05 0.21 0.41 0.37PM 0.0022 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 442.2 0.22 0.44 0.40CO2 1.15 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 231150 115.58 231.15 209.70

Horsepower 20 Grinder Pumps 20 hrs/year

15 Pollutant

Emission Factor

(lbs/hp-hr) SourceEmissions @20 hrs/year (lbs)

Annual Emissions in

Tons 20 grinders20 grinders in

metric tonsNOx 0.11 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 33 0.02 0.33 0.30VOC 0.01985 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 (TOC- exhaust plus crankcase) 5.955 0.00 0.06 0.05SOx 0.000591 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 0.1773 0.00 0.00 0.00PM 0.000721 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 0.2163 0.00 0.00 0.00CO2 1.08 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 324 0.16 3.24 2.94horsepower assumption from DEK model #6500 spec sheet, 8,130-watt, 6,500 continuous watt, 420 cc, 15 HP portable generatorassume generator operates 1 hour per day during power outages

TotalsPollutant MT

NOx 1.91VOC 0.51SOx 0.38PM 0.40CO2 212.64

Low-Pressure Option Grinder pumps gasoline backup generatorsHorsepower 20 hrs/year

15 Pollutant

Emission Factor

(lbs/hp-hr) SourceEmissions @20 hrs/year (lbs)

Annual Emissions in

Tons3,262

grinders3,262 grinders in metric tons

NOx 0.11 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 33 0.02 53.82 48.83VOC 0.01985 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 (TOC- exhaust plus crankcase) 5.955 0.00 9.71 8.81SOx 0.000591 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 0.1773 0.00 0.29 0.26PM 0.000721 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 0.2163 0.00 0.35 0.32CO2 1.08 AP-42 Table 3.3-1 324 0.16 528.44 479.40horsepower assumption from DEK model #6500 spec sheet, 8,130-watt, 6,500 continuous watt, 420 cc, 15 HP portable generatorassume generator operates 1 hour per day during power outages

I/A OWTS Electricty Demand980 kWh per year Reclaim Our Water Initiative

5,961 parcels5,841,780 total kWh per year1,237.300 lbs CO2e per MWh

0.561 MT CO2e per Mwh3,278.58 CO2e Total

http://reclaimourwater.info/Portals/60/docs/VendorRankingDocument_6_29_17_DRAFT.pdf

APPENDIX C: EIGHT-STEP FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS REVIEW PROCESS

This page intentionally left blank.

C-1

FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS EIGHT-STEP PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990: WETLANDS

New York Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and Southwest Sewer District #3 Project

Thomas J. King, Certifying Environmental Officer February 28, 2019

Suffolk County, (subrecipient), has applied to the Department of Homeland Security-Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for funding of the Suffolk County Coastal Resiliency Initiative (the Initiative). The New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services is the recipient partner. The Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and Southwest Sewer District #3 Project (Proposed Action), located in the hamlets of North Babylon, West Babylon, Wyandanch, and Great River and the townships of Babylon and Islip in Suffolk County, New York, are three of the projects included in the Initiative (Appendix A, Figure 1). The Proposed Action would involve the extension of sanitary sewer service that would decommission the existing on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) of approximately 5,961 parcels in the project area and connect the parcels to new sewer collection systems that would flow to an existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). These parcels would be primarily residential, with fewer commercial and non-residential parcels. The total wastewater or sanitary flow from the project area is projected to be approximately 1.6 million gallons per day. Additionally, the existing OWTS would be pumped out, filled with clean sand, and abandoned in place. The project area consists of three sub-areas: Carlls River Watershed (Carlls River Expansion Area), the Connetquot River Watershed (Connetquot River Expansion Area), and the Southwest Sewer District #3 (SSD #3 Laterals Area). If approved, construction of the sewer project could be started in 2019 and completed within approximately 1.5 to 3 years. This project must be conducted in accordance with conditions for federal actions in the floodplain as set forth in Presidential Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and the implementing regulation found at 44 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands. These regulations apply to all Agency actions which have the potential to affect floodplains or wetlands or their occupants, or which are subject to potential harm by location in floodplains or wetlands. Additionally, all HMGP grant-funded projects carried out in the floodplain or affecting the floodplain must be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator for floodplain development permit and the action must be undertaken in compliance with all relevant, applicable, and required local codes and standards and thereby will reduce the risk of future flood loss, minimize the impacts of floods on safety, health, and welfare, and preserve and possibly restore beneficial floodplain values as required by EO 11988.

C-2

Step ONE: Determine whether the action is located in a 100-year floodplain (or a 500-year floodplain for critical actions) or wetland. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map panels 36103C0855H, 36103C0860H, and 36103C0640H (effective September 25, 2009) indicate that the Carlls River Expansion Area does not contain any floodplains. The area is in Zone X and is considered an area of minimal hazard. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map panels 36103C0881H, 36103C0882H, 36103C0883H, and 36103C0884H (effective September 25, 2009) indicate that approximately 21.6 acres (6.3 percent) of the Connetquot River Expansion Area is located within the 100-year floodplain. Specifically, the 100-year floodplain is Zone AE with base flood elevations of 5 or 7 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88]). Twenty-three FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map panels1 (effective September 25, 2009) indicate that approximately 3,476.7 acres (10.9 percent) of the SSD #3 Laterals Area is located within the 100-year floodplain (Zone A, AE, and VE). Of this total, approximately 252.9 acres (0.8 percent) is within Zone A (areas within the 100-year floodplain for which the base flood elevation has not been calculated), approximately 3,101.2 acres (9.7 percent) is within Zone AE (areas within the 100-year floodplain for which base flood elevations have been calculated) with base flood elevations of 4-7 feet (NAVD88), and approximately 122.6 acres (0.4 percent) is within Zone VE (coastal areas within the 100-year floodplain that are also subject to storm-induced velocity wave action) with base flood elevations of 6-10 feet (NAVD88). Zone VE, in addition to having a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding, also has an additional velocity hazard associated with storm waves. Additionally, approximately 286.5 acres (0.9 percent) of the SSD #3 Laterals Area is located in the 500-year floodplain, Zone X [shaded], and described as an area of 0.2 percent chance annual flood. An evaluation of direct and indirect impacts associated with construction within a floodplain and wetland is required. This analysis considers the natural functions of wetlands and floodplains as well as the impacts on flood levels, flood risk, or the flow of floodwaters in the project area or to surrounding areas. Step TWO: Notify the public for early review of the proposal and involve the affected and interested public in the decision making process. Because a portion of the Proposed Action would be located in the floodplain and wetlands, the New York Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR) must publish an early notice that allows the public an opportunity to provide input into the decision to provide funding for the project activities in this area. Early public involvement is occurring during the 30-day public review of the draft environmental assessment (Draft EA). Internal scoping for the project indicated that the Proposed Action would

1 Panels 36103C0620H, 36103C0665H, 36103C0670H, 36103C0835H, 36103C0841H, 36103C0842H, 36103C0843H, 36103C0853H, 36103C0854H, 36103C0855H, 36103C0858H, 36103C0859H, 36103C0860H, 36103C0861H, 36103C0862H, 36103C0866H, 36103C0867H, 36103C0876H, 36103C0877H, 36103C0878H, 36103C0879H, 36103C0881H, and 36103C0883H.

C-3

be located in a floodplain and wetlands. Additionally, the Draft EA more specifically details the modification of land located in a 100-year or 500-year floodplain. After the early public notice and Draft EA comment period is complete, GOSR will assess, consider, and respond to the comments received individually and collectively for the project, then proceed to Step Three. Step THREE: Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives. The alternative actions considered are as follows: No Action, Proposed Action, and On-site Treatment and Disposal – Replacing Existing On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems with Innovative/Advanced On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (I/A OWTS) Alternative.

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the project area would continue to use the existing sub-performing and non-performing conventional OWTS. Surface water and groundwater flooding would continue to result in OWTS failures and untreated wastewater entering local waterbodies. Additionally, there would be no reduction in nitrogen and pathogen pollution in the regional waters. The untreated wastewater and high levels of nitrogen and pathogens would reduce the ability of the wetlands and floodplains within the project area and the Great South Bay to reduce wave height and provide natural protection against storm surge and flooding. This alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need of the Proposed Action.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would upgrade existing sewer collection systems and extend sanitary sewer service to approximately 5,961 parcels within and adjacent to the SSD #3, connecting them to the Bergen Point WWTP. For the Carlls River Expansion Area, the new system would be either a gravity system or a low-pressure system, or a combination of both. Approximately 205,000 linear feet of 8- to 48-inch diameter sewer main piping would be installed for the gravity collection sewer extension within existing paved public rights-of-way, new 6-inch service lateral piping would be installed to connect 2,797 unsewered parcels to the system, two pump stations would be constructed, and an existing interceptor line under the Southern State Parkway would be extended to connect the new collection system to SSD #3. The low-pressure system would install 2- to 6-inch force mains, 1.25-inch service connections to houses, and a simplex grinder pump on each residential property, including a supervisory control and data acquisition system to allow monitoring and control of the pumps. For the Connetquot River Expansion Area, the new system would be either a gravity system or a low-pressure system, or a combination of both. Approximately 43,300 linear feet of 8- to 24-inch diameter sewer main piping would be installed for the gravity collection sewer extension within existing paved public rights-of-way, new 6-inch service lateral piping would be installed to connect 465 unsewered parcels to the system, and the new collection system would be connected to the existing SSD #3 interceptor No. 120 along Schoolhouse Road in East Islip. The low-pressure system would install 35,000 linear feet of 2- to 6-inch mains, service laterals, and grinder pumps. For the SSD #3 Laterals Area, the Proposed Action would install service laterals to connect approximately 2,699 residential parcels to existing collection and conveyance systems terminating at the Bergen Point WWTP.

C-4

Additionally, in all three areas, the existing OWTS would be pumped out, filled with clean sand, and abandoned in place.

Alternative 3: On-site Treatment and Disposal – Replacing Existing On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems with Innovative/Advanced On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (I/A OWTS)

Alternative 3 would provide on-site treatment and disposal by replacing and upgrading the existing on-site cesspools and conventional OWTS in the project area I/A OWTS. Several types of I/A OWTS would be available for installation, with all using a variation of the activated sludge process and some form of biological treatment prior to discharge. Although upgrades to I/A OWTS would likely alleviate some of the long-term degradation of coastal floodplains and wetlands and their functions in the region due to contamination from nitrogen and pathogens, they would not accomplish the primary purpose of the Proposed Action, which is to mitigate short-term and repetitive, adverse impacts on human life and property associated with OWTS failures caused by natural hazards. The I/A OWTS would provide effective nitrogen removal under shallower water table conditions. However, most of the I/A OWTS types available would still be susceptible to failure from inundation from rising groundwater, storm or tidal surges, or sea level rise because they would be installed underground and require the use of leaching pools. The system failures would result in biological and nutrient contamination of groundwater, and potentially surface water, localized flooding, and sustained flood risks to human life and property. Step FOUR: Identify Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts Associated with Floodplain and Wetland Development. GOSR has evaluated the alternatives to the proposed project activities in the floodplain and wetlands, and has determined that the proposed activities must take place in the floodplain and wetlands. There would be direct and indirect impacts on floodplains and wetlands during construction and operation of the proposed project. Construction of one of the new pump stations for the gravity sewer system in the Carlls Rier Expansion Area would result in ground and vegetation disturbance and new impervious surface. Approximately 2,500 square feet of freshwater forested/shrub wetland and its New York State 100-foot regulated adjacent area next to the Carlls River would be removed, resulting in long-term, minor, adverse impacts that would be mitigated by creating or restoring wetlands through compensatory mitigation to replace the lost functions and values of the affected wetlands. Although some of the proposed alignments for the sewer mains traverse wetlands, the disturbance of and direct, long-term adverse impacts on wetlands would be avoided through the use of the construction techniques of pipe jacking for gravity sewers or directional drilling for low-pressure sewers. There would be no direct impact on floodplains in the Carlls River Expansion Area. Construction of all elements of the sewer collection and conveyance system would result in ground and/or vegetation disturbance within the Connetquot River Expansion Area from excavation. However, most of this disturbance would be located outside the floodplain within the previously disturbed existing rights-of-way or landscaped portions of developed lots and would not affect floodplain functions. Less than 250 linear feet of proposed sewer mains and service

C-5

laterals would be constructed in a 100-year floodplain associated with the Connetquot River, resulting in less than 0.01 acre of temporary floodplain, ground, and/or vegetation disturbance. Some grinder pumps for the low-pressure sewer may also have to be installed within floodplain areas. The excavation activities could temporarily disturb soil and vegetation, resulting in short-term, direct, adverse impacts on floodplains. There would be no direct impact on wetlands in the Connetquot River Expansion Area. Construction of the service laterals would disturb the ground surface and vegetation within the SSD #3 Laterals Area; however, most of this disturbance would be located outside the floodplain or a wetland within the previously disturbed existing rights-of-way or landscaped portions of developed lots, and would not affect floodplain or wetland functions. Of the total 2,699 unconnected parcels in the SSD #3 Laterals Area, approximately 277 parcels are located in a 100-year floodplain and/or a 500-floodplain, which would likely result in the construction of service laterals in floodplains associated with the many coastal tributaries draining to the Great South Bay. Approximately 170 unsewered parcels are located partially within a wetland; however, most of the parcels are situated such that the majority of the parcel area is located outside a wetland. Therefore, the construction activities to install service laterals and abandon the existing OWTS in place could temporarily effect wetlands or adjacent areas, resulting in indirect, short-term, adverse impacts on wetlands. Within the Connetquot River Expansion Area and the SSD #3 Lateral Area, these segments of the sewer collection and conveyance system must be constructed in the floodplain because the properties that need to be connected to the sewer system are located in the floodplain. Specifically, the mains and laterals would be buried underground or located within existing areas of impervious surface such as roadways. Construction (e.g., excavation and directional drilling) and the use and storage of heavy equipment within floodplains would result in temporary, adverse impacts from soil compaction, vegetation and soil disturbance, and degradation of floodplain functions. The impacts would not be permanent because the existing elevations and ground surfaces of the disturbed areas would be restored following completion of construction. Similarly, construction of service laterals to unsewered parcels in the SSD #3 Laterals Area would excavate and disturb the ground surface, although it is anticipated that direct impacts on wetlands or wetland functions would be avoided or minimized because construction would likely occur within previously disturbed existing rights-of-way or landscaped portions of developed lots. Excavation activities could temporarily disturb soil and vegetation resulting in increased potential for indirect, short-term, adverse impacts on wetlands from erosion and sedimentation. Temporarily disturbed areas would be returned to pre-construction conditions to avoid long-term impacts. Construction activities would comply with permitting and regulatory requirements and the use of best management practices, stormwater management techniques, and sediment and erosion control plans, which would minimize the temporary, adverse impacts on floodplains and wetlands and associated flood risks. In accordance with permit requirements, floodplain and wetland areas temporarily disturbed by excavation would be filled and revegetated or paved over, depending on the location, to restore original conditions upon completion of construction to avoid long-term impacts. The removal of the existing failing OWTS would benefit floodplains and tidal wetlands and decrease flood risks and hazards to the local communities. The removal of failing OWTS would

C-6

decrease the discharge of pollutants that degrade the floodplains and tidal wetlands in the region. Reducing regional floodplain and wetland degradation would allow these resources to better dissipate wave energy and mitigate flooding associated with tidal surge, which in turn would reduce hazards to human health caused by flooding and storm-related failure of OWTS. However, the elimination of OWTS would also reduce the amount of recharge into the shallow groundwater layer and affect wetland hydrology. Overall, there would be indirect, long-term, beneficial effects on floodplains from a reduction in the degradation caused by pollutants as well as the decrease in the risk of flood loss and impacts of floods on human life and property. There would also be indirect, long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on wetlands by reducing a potential source of hydrology for the local wetlands. Step FIVE: Where practicable, design or modify the Proposed Action to minimize the potential adverse impacts to lives, property, and natural values within the floodplain and to restore, and preserve the values of the floodplain. Implementation of every part of the Proposed Action outside the floodplain or wetlands would not meet the primary purpose of the project because the properties in the floodplain or wetlands are at risk of OWTS failure during floods and storm events. The failures result in nutrient and pathogen discharges and could potentially lead to human health impacts. The proposed project is intended to enhance the coastal resiliency of the Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and the Southwest Sewer District #3, and therefore provision of benefits to the coast and associated floodplains and wetlands would require proposed actions that impact those same coastal areas. Some properties that are located in the floodplain or wetlands need to be connected to the sewer system and the existing WWTP. Therefore, temporary adverse impacts associated with construction activities would need to occur within the floodplain or wetlands. Although some temporary disturbance would occur within the floodplain or wetlands during installation of the gravity and/or low-pressure sewer mains and service laterals, construction methods and mitigation measures would be selected to minimize impacts. Mitigation measures and practices for activities in floodplains or wetlands would reduce or offset potential adverse impacts from construction of the upgraded and extended sewer system. Construction must comply with New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control and local soil erosion and sediment control guidance. Construction in state-regulated wetlands or areas adjacent to state-regulated wetlands would be regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Permit Program to ensure that impairment of wetlands functions is avoided or minimized. All wetlands, regulated by the state or not, would require compliance with wetland regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Long-term adverse wetland impacts from the construction of the pump station would be mitigated by compensatory mitigation in compliance with applicable federal and state standards. Construction would temporarily disturb more than one acre of soil. Therefore, the actions would require coverage under the New York State General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities as well as preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would highlight techniques to prevent discharge of construction-related pollutants to waters of the state. The specific information and contents of a SWPPP will be determined during the engineering design process; however, the general requirements include descriptions of stormwater and erosion and sediment control practices during construction, any required post-construction stormwater management including a stormwater modeling and analysis report, identification of any potential

C-7

pollution sources, pollution prevention measures for construction chemicals, and soil stabilization measures. The erosion and sediment control practices must comply with the technical standard, New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. The standard erosion and sediment control best management practices include silt fences, brush mattresses, check dams, debris and sediment basins and traps, grading and seeding/revegetation, swales, and storm drain inlet protections. Best management practices to control stormwater runoff quantity and quality include detention and wet ponds, constructed wetlands, infiltration trenches and basins, filtration practices such as bioretention and sand filters, swales, and underground storage. In addition to controlling erosion, these best management practices could also indirectly provide floodplain or wetland functions, such as slowing and capturing runoff flows, promoting infiltration, improving water quality, and reducing downstream flooding and property damage. Step SIX: Re-evaluate the Proposed Action. Although the proposed project is located in floodplains and wetlands, the project would be designed to minimize effects on floodplains and wetlands and their values, and would seek to provide coastal resiliency and flood mitigation benefits to the human community. The replacement of OWTS with sewer systems would reduce OWTS failures during storm events benefiting the community and reducing localized flooding associated with OWTS. Additionally, improving the health and associated natural functions of floodplains and tidal wetlands in the Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and Great South Bay would enhance coastal resiliency and flood mitigation benefits. GOSR has reevaluated the Proposed Action and determined that the Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and Southwest Sewer District #3 Sewer Expansion Project is still practicable in light of its exposure to flood hazards in the floodplain and its potential to disrupt floodplain and wetland values. The project activities located within the floodplain and wetlands are installation of subsurface sewer mains and laterals and other associated infrastructure through trenching or potentially directional drilling and pipe jacking. The disturbed areas would be restored to pre-construction vegetated or impervious conditions resulting in no long-term adverse impacts. Temporary construction impacts on floodplains and wetlands and their values would be mitigated through implementation of best management practices and other techniques described in Step Five. Long-term impacts on wetlands from the construction of the pump station would be mitigated through compensatory mitigation. Therefore, the project would not aggravate current hazards to the floodplain, nor would the project disrupt floodplain or wetland values. GOSR has also reconsidered the alternatives discussed in Step Three and determined the best practicable alternative is the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative is not practicable because it would not prevent or minimize temporary adverse impacts on human life and property and long-term degradation of floodplain and wetlands from OWTS failures, the discharge of untreated wastewater into local waterbodies, or localized flooding. Although upgrades to I/A OWTS under Alternative 3 would likely provide benefits by alleviating some of the long-term degradation of coastal floodplains and tidal wetlands and their functions in the region resulting from contamination, they would not accomplish the primary purpose of the Proposed Action, which is to mitigate short-term and repetitive, adverse impacts on human life and property associated with OWTS failures caused by natural hazards. The installation of I/A OWTS is not preferred or practical because it would provide proportionally less beneficial effects on floodplain and wetland health and flood mitigation than the proposed project.

C-8

This section may be modified following public comment on the Draft EA and this eight-step evaluation if substantive comments are received regarding floodplain or wetland impacts. Step SEVEN: Issue Findings and a Public Explanation. Step 7 requires that the public be provided with an explanation of any final decisions that the Proposed Action in a floodplain or wetland is the only practicable alternative, potential impacts of the Proposed Action on floodplains or wetlands, and associated mitigation measures. In accordance with 44 Code of Federal Regulations 9.12, this notice is provided with the notice of availability of the Draft EA for public review and comment. The public would be provided a “Notice for Final Public Review of a Proposed Activity in a 100-Year Floodplain and Wetland” either through the Notice of Availability of the Draft EA or through a standalone notice. Under each option, the public would have the opportunity to review and comment on the determination that the Proposed Action is practicable, and the potential impacts and mitigation measures. Step EIGHT: Implement the Proposed Action. GOSR will ensure that this plan, as modified and described above, is executed and that necessary language is included in all agreements with participating parties. Further, GOSR will see that all mitigation measures described in Step 5 of this eight-step review and in the Draft EA will be implemented. The Proposed Action will be conducted in accordance with applicable floodplain and wetland management requirements.

APPENDIX D: COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

This page intentionally left blank.

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF STATE O N E C O M M E R C E P L A Z A 99 W A S H I N G T O N A V E N U E ALBANY, NY 12231-0001 WWW.DOS.NY.GOV

ANDREW M. CUOMO GOVERNOR

RO S S A N A R O S A D O SECRETARY OF STATE

December 20, 2018

Anne Bink

NYS Division of Homeland Security

and Emergency Services

1220 Washington Avenue

Building 7A – Floor 4

Albany, New York 12242

Re: F-2018-1336

Applicant – NYS Department of Homeland Security and

Emergency Services

Federal funding to assist Suffolk County with the construction

of a new collection and conveyance systems.

FEMA Funding Action

General Concurrence - No Objection to Funding

Dear Ms. Hale,

The Department of State (DOS) received the information you submitted regarding the above proposed federal

financial assistance and has completed its review. Based on this review, the Department of State has no objection to

the release of the FEMA funding in support of the proposed project as identified in your submittal

This concurrence pertains to the federal financial assistance for this project only. If a federal permit or other form

of federal agency authorization is required for the above activities, the Department of State will conduct a separate

review for those permit activities. In such a case, applicants must forward a copy of the federal/ state joint

application for authorization, a completed Federal Consistency Assessment Form (FCAF), project drawings and

details and all other supporting information to the Department at the same time application is submitted to the federal

agency from which the necessary authorization is requested.

When communicating with us regarding this matter, please contact us at (518) 474-6000.

Sincerely,

Matthew P. Maraglio

Supervisor, Consistency Review Unit

Office of Planning, Development and Community Infrastructure

MM/dc

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA Region II 26 Federal Plaza. Suite 1307 New York, New York 10278

December 13, 2018 Anne Bink Deputy Commissioner for Recovery Programs Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Services 1220 Washington Ave., Bldg. 7A Albany, NY 12224

Re: State’s Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of FEMA-4085-DR-NY Super Storm Sandy: Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and Southwest Sewer District #3 Project, Suffolk County, New York Dear Ms. Bink: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is proposing to provide federal funding from its Public Assistance (PA) Program to assist Suffolk County (Sub-Grantee) with the Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and Southwest Sewer District #3 project. The applicant proposes to construct a new collection system to connect construct new collection and conveyance systems to connect portions of the hamlets of West Babylon, North Babylon, Wyandanch, Deer Park, and Great River, and the townships of Babylon and Islip to the existing Bergen Point Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The overall project area consists of three locations, one each in the Carlls River Watershed (Carlls River Expansion Area), the Connetquot River Watershed (Connetquot River Expansion Area), and the SSD #3 (SSD #3 Laterals Area). Under the project, Suffolk County would upgrade existing sewer collection systems and extend sanitary sewer service to approximately 5,961 parcels within and adjacent to the existing SSD #3 service area and connect them to the Bergen Point WWTP:

2,797 parcels in the Carlls River Expansion Area 465 parcels in the Connetquot River Expansion Area 2,699 parcels in the SSD #3 Laterals Area

The SSD #3 boundary would then be extended to incorporate the newly connected parcels in the Carlls River and Connetquot River Expansion Areas. (The SSD #3 boundary already includes the SSD #3 Laterals Area.) A new sewer district would not be created for these parcels.

The Bergen Point WWTP is currently undergoing a 10 mgd expansion to increase its capacity from 30.5 mgd to 40.5 mgd. The expanded WWTP would be able to accommodate the additional combined capacity of approximately 1.674 mgd of wastewater from the project without any further expansion (approximately 854,000 gallons per day [gpd] from the Carlls River Expansion Area; 150,000 gpd from the Connetquot River Expansion Area; and 670,000 gpd from the SSD #3 Laterals Area). The Bergen Point WWTP expansion is expected to be completed by December 2018.

Page | 2

The project would include decommissioning existing on-site sewage treatment systems (such as septic systems and cesspools); construction of new gravity or low-pressure sewer mains and collectors, service laterals; extension of an interceptor line under Southern State Parkway; on-site house connection piping and low-pressure sewer grinder pump stations to connect all flow from the proposed residential properties within the project area. Service to commercial properties would be provided to the curb. The Carlls River Expansion Area would include pump stations.

The primary purpose of this project is to minimize short-term and repetitive, adverse impacts on human life and property associated with OWTS failures. The secondary purpose is to minimize long-term, adverse impacts associated with such failures on surface waters and coastal wetlands that reduce the ability of these waters and wetlands to provide natural protection against storm surge.

New York State Coastal Policies 1 through 44 have been reviewed with respect to the proposed mitigation measure to be performed per FEMA’s disaster recovery operations. Based on this review, FEMA has determined that the above referenced proposed activities are consistent with the policies of the New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP) and will not hinder the achievement of those policies. A summary of the proposed project’s consistency with the State Coastal Policies is included as an attachment.

FEMA is seeking the New York Department of State’s (NYDOS) concurrence with FEMA’s Coastal Zone Consistency Determination, in accordance with the requirement of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (15 CFR Part 930), prior to the release of federal funding to the grant recipient.

FEMA Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) looks forward to your office’s feedback within 60 days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (347) 574-1467 or brock.giordano@fema.dhs.gov. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.

Sincerely, Brock Giordano EHP Supervisor, NY Sandy DR-4085 iPhone: (347) 574-1467 Email: brock.giordano@fema.dhs.gov BG/kb Encl: Federal Consistency Policies Assessment Figure – Coastal Boundary

BROCK A GIORDANO

Digitally signed by BROCK A GIORDANO Date: 2018.12.13 12:38:57 -05'00'

Page | 3

ATTACHMENTS

Page | 4

Summary Table for Project’s Consistency with Coastal Policies of New York State

Policy 1 Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultural, recreational, and other compatible uses. Consistent. Proposed project seeks to mitigate impacts from wastewater treatment and disposal systems failures caused by natural hazards. Policy 2 Facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. N/A. Installation of the sewer line laterals and low-pressure lines will not affect the current and/or future siting of coastal water dependent uses at the water’s edge. The only above ground facility near a regulated water is one of the two proposed pump stations (east of the intersection of Brook Avenue and Jefferson Avenue in Wyandanch) that is located adjacent to a regulated freshwater wetland and within the NYSDEC 100-foot adjacent area buffer. As this is a freshwater wetland outside the coastal zone, there will be no impacts to coastal waters. Policy 3 Further develop the state's major ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdensburg, and Oswego as centers of commerce and industry, and encourage the siting, in these port areas, including those under the jurisdiction of state public authorities, of land use and development which is essential to, or in support of, the waterborne transportation of cargo and people. N/A. Proposal is not under a port authority nor interferes with port authority land-uses. Policy 4 Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of those traditional uses and activities which have provided such areas with their unique maritime identity. N/A. Proposal does not affect positively or negatively the economic base of surrounding water-dependent facilities due to existing zoning requirements. Policy 5 Encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate. Consistent. Proposal would not be considered a major development activity because it is sewage systems to existing properties.

Page | 5

Policy 6 Expedite permit procedures in order to facilitate the siting of development activities at suitable locations. Consistent. FEMA will provide a 60-day consistency determination review period to the NYSDOS Coastal Management Program before processing the federal disaster relief grant specifically for declaration of NY-4085. Policy 7 Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected, preserved, and where practical, restored so as to maintain their viability as habitats. Consistent. The majority of the proposed project’s construction impacts will be confined within road right-of-ways and landscaped portions of developed lots within previously disturbed areas. Therefore, no expected negative impacts to habitats for species regulated by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have been identified in these areas. However, there are two proposed pump stations in Wyandanch, outside the coastal zone. One pump station is adjacent to wetlands west of Brook Avenue. Construction of these two pump stations will remove trees that the federally threatened northern long-eared bat may use as habitat (potential bat habitat identified through correspondence with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). These two viable habitats will be protected by complying with land use permit requirements prescribed for protecting state and federally listed natural resources. Coordination will occur to listed species or their habitat in the area and required restoration of the area to pre-construction conditions that will incur temporary impacts. Mitigation for permeant impacts to habitat could consist of seasonal construction windows or other means identified by regulatory agencies. Policy 8 Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sub lethal or lethal effect on those resources. Consistent. Proposal would not introduce hazardous wastes or other pollutants into the abutting aquatic ecosystem based on implementing Best Management Practices such as employing barrier controls at locations adjacent to aquatic resources. It is anticipated that activities will not likely adversely impact environmentally sensitive vegetation, soils, and/or animal resources. Policy 9 Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks, and developing new resources. N/A. Proposal is not related to natural resources/wildlife conservation management plan.

Page | 6

Policy 10 Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish, and crustacean resources in the coastal area by encouraging the construction of new, or improvement of existing on-shore commercial fishing facilities, increasing marketing of the state's seafood, maintaining adequate stocks, and expanding aquaculture facilities. N/A. Policy is not proposal’s purpose. Policy 11 Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. Consistent. The sewer line laterals will be below grade and designed to be water-tight. This will ensure that no leakage/damage will occur to the environment. Because the lines will be below grade, flooding will not be a factor, and floodplain function and values will not be affected. The two above ground pump stations are not within the FEMA Flood Zone, although one is proposed adjacent to a wetland at the intersection of Brook Avenue and Jefferson Avenue. These structures will be constructed so as to not be affected by flooding, or to affect the function and values of the floodplain. With the proposed residential pumps and generators, they will be designed to withstand flooding if located within the Flood Zone area. During construction and post construction, controls will be in place to reduce/eliminate erosion. Although the area with sewer lines could again be affected by potential flooding or erosion (portions of it are located in the coastal area), measures will be taken in the design to prevent damage to existing building/structures. Further, the purpose of the project is to reduce hazards to human health that result from existing on-site sewage systems overflow or failure during floods and storms. Policy 12 Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and bluffs. Consistent. The proposed project has been sited to avoid encroaching on any area of potential effects. Construction activities will occur within disturbed and/or improved properties and follow best management practices listed in NYSDEC permits for minimizing erosional/flooding damages to surrounding natural resources. Also see response to State Policy 11. Policy 13 The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures shall be undertaken only if they have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion for at least thirty years as demonstrated in design and construction standards and/or assured maintenance or replacement programs. Consistent. Applicant will obtain state permit(s) related to proposal’s construction activities which address use of erosion protection structures.

Page | 7

Policy 14 Activities and development, including the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations. Consistent. Proposal is not anticipated to increase erosion/flooding since work activities will follow Best Management Practices. Policy 15 Mining, excavation or dredging in coastal waters shall not significantly interfere with the natural coastal processes which supply beach materials to land adjacent to such waters and shall be undertaken in a manner which will not cause an increase in erosion of such land. N/A No dredging and/or filling in coastal waters are identified for this proposal.

Policy 16 Public funds shall only be used for erosion protective structures where necessary to protect human life, and new development which requires a location within or adjacent to an erosion hazard area to be able to function, or existing development; and only where the public benefits outweigh the long term monetary and other costs including the potential for increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural protective features. Consistent. FEMA’s environmental analyses of disaster assistance grants include these factors. Policy 17 Non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible. Consistent. While the proposed project will not directly implement non-structural measures to minimize damages from flooding and erosion, the project is intended to improve conditions for the development of protective tidal marshes that increase community resilience to flooding.

Policy 18 To safeguard the vital economic, social and environmental interests of the state and of its citizens, proposed major actions in the coastal area must give full consideration to those interests, and to the safeguards which the state has established to protect valuable coastal resource areas. Consistent. Proposal protects the economic and social interests of the state and its citizens through employing a risk reduction measure to reduce impacts from future high-energy events. All work will be done using construction best management practices per state/federal permit requirements.

Page | 8

Policy 19 Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities. Consistent. The proposed project does not change existing access to public water-related recreation resources or facilities. Policy 20 Access to the publicly-owned foreshore and to lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the water's edge that are publicly-owned shall be provided and it shall be provided in a manner compatible with adjoining uses. Consistent. The proposed project does not change existing access to public water-related recreation resources or facilities. Policy 21 Water-dependent and water-enhanced recreation will be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given priority over non-water-related used along the coast. Consistent. The proposed project does not change land use along the water, but does provide improvements to wastewater treatment and the potential for improved water quality to facilitate water-related recreation. Policy 22 Development, when located adjacent to the shore, will provide for water-related recreation, whenever such use is compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such activities, and is compatible with the primary purpose of the development. Consistent. The proposed project will not change existing land uses and will not positively or negatively affect them. Because the project will occur in existing rights-of way, mostly in existing roadways, and on private property, there will not be opportunities to provide for water-related recreation, such as a new trail, which would not be compatible with the primary purpose of the project. Policy 23 Protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the state, its communities, or the nation. Consistent. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred by letter dated February 13, 2018 with FEMA’s determination that the proposed undertaking will have No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties listed in the State & National Register of Historic Places, with the following condition: “For eligible properties or properties within an eligible historic district; replace any landscaping elements such as walls, fences and mature trees in-kind (match existing) that is disturbed by the undertakings.” They also concurred with FEMA’s conclusions and recommendations outlined in FEMA's January 18, 2018 letter to the State Historic Preservation Office and concurred that Phase IB subsurface archaeological testing may be necessary for select portions of the proposed work. FEMA will continue to consult

Page | 9

with the State Historic Preservation Office and Participating Tribes per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, to address any effects on any archeological resources from proposed ground disturbing activities as identified in submitted project plans. Any identified adverse effect(s) for standing structures will be mitigated through the Abbreviated Consultation process outlined in the New York Programmatic Agreement. Policy 24 Prevent impairment of scenic resources of statewide significance. Consistent. Proposal does not impact known scenic resources of statewide significance. Policy 25 Protect, restore or enhance natural and man-made resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. Consistent. Proposal purpose is to protect improved public property and minimize damages to man-made coastal resources. Policy 26 Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the state's coastal area. N/A. No agricultural land is present in the vicinity of the proposal. Policy 27 Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities with the environment, and the facility's need for a shorefront location. N/A. Policy is not the proposal's purpose since it does not involve siting and construction of energy facilities. Policy 28 Ice management practices shall not interfere with the production of hydroelectric power, damage significant fish and wildlife and their habitats, or increase shoreline erosion or flooding. N/A. The proposed project does involve ice management practices in the proposed construction activities. Policy 29 Encourage the development of energy resources on the outer continental shelf, in Lake Erie and in other water bodies, and ensure the environmental safety of such activities. N/A. Policy is not the proposal's purpose since project activities do not include development of energy resources.

Page | 10

Policy 30 Municipal, industrial, and commercial discharge of pollutants, including but not limited to, toxic and hazardous substances, into coastal waters will conform to state and national water quality standards. Consistent. The purpose of the proposed project is to prevent the discharge of raw sewage into surface and ground waters. Sewage will be collected from the project area and routed to the local treatment plant before discharge. The location of discharge will change (from failing on-site systems to a regional treatment plant), and the quality of the discharge will be improved significantly. Policy 31 State coastal area policies and management objectives of approved local waterfront revitalization programs will be considered while reviewing coastal water classifications and while modifying water quality standards; however, those waters already overburdened with contaminants will be recognized as being a development constraint. Consistent. Proposal does not involve review of or modification to coastal water classifications or water quality standards. Policy 32 Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste systems in small communities where the costs of conventional facilities are unreasonably high, given the size of the existing tax base of these communities. Consistent. Project seeks to mitigate impacts from wastewater treatment and disposal systems failures caused by natural hazards. Policy 33 Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of storm water runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters. Consistent. Best management practices will be used to control storm water runoff. Policy 34 Discharge of waste materials into coastal waters from vessels subject to state jurisdiction will be limited so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas. N/A. Policy is not the proposal’s purpose since this project will have no impact on vessel discharges.

Page | 11

Policy 35 Dredging and filling in coastal waters and disposal of dredged material will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State permit requirements, and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands, and wetlands. N/A. The project does not involve dredging and filling in coastal waters, nor disposal of dredged material. Wetlands/open waters will be crossed using pipe jacking or directional drilling with access points outside wetland areas, and no impacts to wetland resources are anticipated. Policy 36 Activities related to the shipment and storage of petroleum and other hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner that will prevent or at least minimize spills into coastal waters; all practicable efforts will be undertaken to expedite the cleanup of such discharges; and restitution for damages will be required when these spills occur. Consistent. This project does not involve shipment and storage of petroleum and other hazardous materials. Construction equipment will likely include petroleum-powered equipment; therefore, a spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be developed and implemented, pursuant to state and federal regulations, during the use and/or storage of petroleum containing equipment. Surface and groundwater resources, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, and scenic resources will be protected by implementing management of any petroleum and hazardous materials during all construction activities. Policy 37 Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into coastal waters. Consistent. Best management practices will be utilized during construction of the project to reduce the potential discharge of soils into coastal waters. When the project is completed, no changes to the nature, amount, or location of the discharge of stormwater from the project location are anticipated. Policy 38 The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the quality of surface and groundwater by reducing the discharge of untreated sewage from on-site treatment systems. However, the collection of wastewater into a sewer system will potentially reduce the amount of recharge into the shallow groundwater layer as compared to the existing condition by a negligible amount. The project will also reduce nitrogen and other wastewater related pollutants in surface waters. Therefore, the project will be both consistent (treating sewage) and inconsistent (reducing recharge) with this policy.

Page | 12

Policy 39 The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, within coastal areas will be conducted in such a manner so as to protect groundwater and surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural land, and scenic resources. Consistent. The proposed project will use best management practices listed in federal/NYSDEC permits for transport, storage, treatment and disposal of all construction and demolition debris, hazardous waste, etc. during the construction. There are no anticipated significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources, surface and groundwater quality, recreation areas, scenic resources or agricultural land. Policy 40 Effluent discharged from major steam electric generating and industrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to fish and wildlife and shall conform to state water quality standards. N/A. The proposed project does not involve effluent from major steam electric or industrial facilities, although it will ultimately involve discharge of treated wastewater into coastal waters. Policy 41 Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause national or state air quality standards to be violated. Consistent. Proposal did not impact state or national air quality standards.

Policy 42 Coastal management policies will be considered if the state reclassifies land areas pursuant to the prevention of significant deterioration regulations of the federal clean air act. N/A. Policy is not the proposal's purpose or function as it does not propose reclassifying land areas pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. Policy 43 Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the generation of significant amounts of acid rain precursors: nitrates and sulfates. Consistent. Proposal is not anticipated to cause acid rain precursors. Policy 44 Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. Consistent. The proposed project will not adversely impact tidal or freshwater wetlands, and the project’s purpose is to improve conditions for the development and maintenance of tidal marshes, and increase the benefits derived from these areas. Wetlands/open waters crossings

Page | 13

will be accomplished using pipe jacking and directional drilling, and no impacts to wetland resources are anticipated.

Sources: Suffolk County GIS Data;ESRI BING Map Service.

Suffolk

Nassau

At la nt i c Ocea n0 5 10 15 20 Miles

F

Carlls River Expansion AreaConnetquot River Expansion Area Southwest Sewer District #3 Laterals Area

# Pump StationBergen Point WastewaterTreatment PlantCoastal Boundary

Coastal BoundaryCarlls River, Connetquot River,and Southwest Sewer District #3Sewer Project0 1.5 3 Miles

[

APPENDIX E: NEW YORK NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM CORRESPONDENCE

This page intentionally left blank.

25 Beaver Street, New York, NY 10004 │ Recovery Hotline: 1-855-NYS-Sandy │www.stormrecovery.ny.gov

ANDREW M. CUOMO Governor

LISA BOVA-HIATT Executive Director

April 4, 2017

Mr. Nicholas Conrad New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources New York Natural Heritage Program – Information Services 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, New York 12233-4757

VIA EMAIL: NaturalHeritage@dec.ny.gov

Re: Natural Heritage Compliance Process Request for the Suffolk County Coastal Resiliency Initiative - Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and Southwest Sewer District #3 Sewer Extension Project, Suffolk County, New York

Dear Mr. Conrad:

Suffolk County has applied to the Department of Homeland Security-Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for funding of the Suffolk County Coastal Resiliency Initiative (the Initiative). The Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and Southwest Sewer District #3 Sewer Extension Project (the Project) is one component of the Initiative. As part of the environmental review process, an Environmental Assessment of the Project is being prepared. FEMA is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related laws for the environmental review. The Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR) acting under the auspices of New York State Homes and Community Renewal’s (HCR) Housing Trust Fund Corporation (HTFC), on behalf of the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), is the lead agency pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and related laws for the environmental review of the proposed Project.

The Initiative seeks to mitigate impacts on human life and property, surface waters, and coastal wetlands associated with wastewater treatment and disposal systems (OSWS) failures caused by natural hazards. The Project is needed because OSWS in the Project area are susceptible to both capacity and treatment or disposal failures during floods and heavy rain events. The Project would address nitrogen and pathogen pollution by reducing the total net nitrogen load into surface and ground water from existing sanitary disposal systems.

As depicted in the attached figures, the Project area is non-contiguous and is located in the Village of Amityville, Hamlet of Copiague; Village of Lindenhurst, Village of Babylon; Town of Islip, Hamlets of Bay shore and Great River, Suffolk County, New York. The proposed activity within each area is described below.

• Carlls River Watershed: The Carlls River is located in Babylon and flows into the Great South Bay on the mainland sideof Long Island just north of the Fire Island Inlet. The Project comprises three sub-areas: North Babylon, West Babylon,and Wyandanch, and it would construct a new collection system to connect approximately 2,601 parcels, including 2,361residential, 67 commercial, and 173 non-residential properties to existing conveyance and treatment systems.

• Connetquot River Watershed: The Connetquot River is located on the south shore of Long Island in Great River andflows into the Great South Bay. The Project would construct a new collection system to connect approximately 465

mailto:NaturalHeritage@dec.ny.gov

25 Beaver Street, New York, NY 10004 │ Recovery Hotline: 1-855-NYS-Sandy │www.stormrecovery.ny.gov

parcels, including 452 residential, 3 commercial, and 10 non-residential properties, to existing conveyance and treatment systems.

• Southwest Sewer District #3: SSD #3 is south and west of the Southern State Parkway from the Nassau County line tothe hamlet of East Islip, in the townships of Babylon and Islip. The Project would install service laterals connectingapproximately 2,232 residential parcels in SSD #3 to existing collection and conveyance systems terminating at SuffolkCounty’s Bergen Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.

GOSR is contacting your office for assistance in identifying the potential presence of any rare or federal and/or state threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species in the vicinity of the proposed Project. In addition, information regarding the presence of any other species or habitats of special concern, including significant natural communities, in the vicinity of the proposed Project is also requested.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (212) 480-6265 or matt.accardi@stormrecovery.ny.gov. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Matt Accardi Bureau of Environmental Review and Assessment Governor's Office of Storm Recovery 25 Beaver Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004

Attachments

Wyandanch

Souther

n State

Pkwy

De

er P

ark

Ave

Co

mm

ack

Rd

Ud

all R

d

Belmont LakeState Park

231

Wyandanch Ave

Carl l

s Ri v

er

Str

aig

ht

Path

Little East N

eck Rd

Be

lmo

nt

Ave

August Rd

Weeks Rd

Prairie

Dr

Bay Shore Rd

Ca

rlls

Pa

th

Grand Blv

d

Acorn St

Bro

okd

ale

Ave

Sam

paw

ams C

r eek

Southern State Pkwy

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Suffolk County GIS Data;NYS Department of Environmental Conservation; ESRI World Imagery; ESRI Street Map

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles

Existing Sewage Treatment Plants

Existing Sewer Districts

Carlls River Expansion Area

Southwest Sewer District # 3 Laterals

0 0.5 1 1.5Miles

Carlls River, Connetquot River,

and Southwest Sewer District #3

Sewer Project

Project AreaCarlls River Expansion Area

Atlant ic Ocean

Great R

iver Rd

River R

dTimber Point Rd

HeckscherState Park

Bayard Cutt ingArboretumState Park

Heck

scher

Pkw

y

C o n n e t q u o t R i v e r

27A

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Suffolk County GIS Data; NYS Department of Environmental Conservation; ESRI World Imagery; ESRI Street Map

At la nt i c Ocea n

0 2.5 5 7.5 10Miles

Existing Sewer Districts

Connetquot River Expansion Area

Southwest Sewer District # 3 Laterals

Project AreaConnetquot River Expansion Area

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000Feet

Carrls River, Connetquot River,

and Southwest Sewer District #3

Sewer Project

111

110

Deer Park

Babylon

Lindenhurst

West Isl ip

BayShore

27A

Great South Bay

27

Amityvil le

Brentwood

Central Isl ip

HeckscherState Park

Is l ipEastIs l ip

Sa

gti

ko

sP

wky

Southern S

tate P kwy

Robert M

oses P

kw

y

Southern State

Pwky

Bergen Point WastewaterTreatment Plant

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Suffolk County GIS Data;NYS Department of Environmental Conservation; ESRI World Imagery; ESRI Street Map

Suffolk

Nassau

At la nt i c Ocea n0 5 10 15 20

Miles

Existing Sewage Treatment Plants

Existing Sewer Districts

Carlls River Expansion Area

Connetquot River Expansion Area

Southwest Sewer District # 3 Laterals

Project AreaSouthwest Sewer District #3 Laterals

0 1.5 30.75Miles

Carlls River, Connetquot River,

and Southwest Sewer District #3

Sewer Project

Co

un

ty L

ine

Rd

Matt Accardi

Governor's Office of Storm Recovery

25 Beaver Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY 10004

Carlls River and Connetquot River Watersheds and Southwest Sewer District #3 Sewer Re:Extension Project

County: Suffolk Town/City: Babylon, Islip

Dear Mr. Accardi:

425

Nicholas Conrad

Information Resources Coordinator

New York Natural Heritage Program

Sincerely,

May 1, 2017

In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program database with respect to the above project.

Enclosed is a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants, and significant natural communities that our database indicates occur within or in the vicinity of the project site.

Given the large extent of the project area, many records of rare plants and rare animals are found within the project area. Details on exactly where within the project area work would be connected was not provided. However, most records are on public park lands or on undeveloped land. We recommend that work be conducted so as to avoid impacts to the locations listed in the enclosed reports.

The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in this project requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance, and for information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), please contact the NYS DEC Region 1 Office, Division of Environmental Permits, as listed at www.dec.ny.gov/about/39381.html.

For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted; the enclosed report only includes records from our database. We cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communities. Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site, further information from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resources.

New York Natural Heritage Program

The following state-listed animals have been documentedin the vicinity of the project site.

The following list includes animals that are listed by NYS as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern; and/or that are federally listed or are candidates for federal listing.

Report on State-listed Animals

For information about any permit considerations for the project, contact the Permits staff at the NYSDEC Region 1 Office. For information about potential impacts of the project on these species, and how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any impacts, contact the Wildlife Manager.A listing of Regional Offices is at http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/558.html.

FEDERAL LISTINGCOMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME NY STATE LISTING

Sternula antillarum ThreatenedLeast TernBreeding

9008

The following species has been documented nesting adjacent to the Connetquot River Expansion Area Project Area, in Bayard Cutting Arboretum State Park, Town of Islip.

SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL LISTINGNY STATE LISTINGCOMMON NAME

Haliaeetus