environmental assessment: sea gate community bulkhead ...environmental assessment sea gate community...

Environmental Assessment

Sea Gate Community Bulkhead Construction

Sea Gate, Kings County, New York

4085-DR-NY

May 2019

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency Region II

26 Federal Plaza, NY, NY 10278



i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ III

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. III

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ IV

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................................... 1

3.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................... 3

4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Bulkhead Construction ................................................................................... 3

4.3 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed .............................................................................................................. 6

4.3.1 Alternative 3: USACE Installed Rip-Rap .................................................................................................. 6

4.3.2 Alternative 4: Elevation of All Existing Roadways and Structures.......................................................... 6

4.4 Summary of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................... 6

5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ........................................... 6

5.1 Resource Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ............................................................................................ 7

5.2 Topography and Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 8

5.2.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 8

5.2.2 Potential Impacts on Topography and Soils ........................................................................................... 8

5.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.3.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 9

5.3.2 Potential Impacts on Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 10

5.4 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 10

5.4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 11

5.4.2 Potential Impacts on Water Quality .................................................................................................... 11

5.5 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................................... 12


5.5.2 Potential Impacts on Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 13

5.6 Floodplains ........................................................................................................................................................ 13


5.6.2 Potential Impacts on Floodplains ......................................................................................................... 14

5.7 Coastal Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 14


5.7.2 Potential Impacts on Coastal Resources .............................................................................................. 15

5.8 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................................... 16


5.8.2 Potential Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................. 17

5.9 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 17




ii

5.9.2 Potential Impacts on Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 19

5.10 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................................. 20

5.10.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 20

5.10.2 Potential Impacts on Environmental Justice ................................................................................... 20

5.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................. 21


5.11.2 Potential Impacts on Land Use and Planning .......................................................................................... 21

5.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................................................ 21


5.12.2 Potential Impacts of Noise .............................................................................................................. 23

5.13 Transportation ......................................................................................................................................... 23


5.13.2 Potential Impacts on Transportation .............................................................................................. 23

5.14 Public Health and Safety .......................................................................................................................... 24


5.14.2 Potential Impacts on Public Health and Safety ............................................................................... 24

5.15 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................ 25


5.15.2 Potential Impacts on Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 25

5.16 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 25

6.0 PERMITS AND PROJECT CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 26

7.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................... 27

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS......................................................................................................... 28

9.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 28

10.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 31



iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1. Evaluation Criteria for Potential Impacts ...................................................................... 7

Table 9-1. Summary of Impacts Table ......................................................................................... 28

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Figures

Figure 1-1 Regional Project Map

Figure 1-2 Project Limits

Figure 5-1 Soil Data

Figure 5-2 Digital Elevation Model

Figure 5-3 Depth to Water Table Surface

Figure 5-4 National Wetlands Inventory

Figure 5-5 NYSDEC Fresh and Tidal Wetlands

Figure 5-6 Flood Zones Map

Figure 5-7 Hurricane Sandy Surge Boundary Map

Figure 5-8 Zoning

Figure 5-9 Land Use

APPENDIX B: Project Plans

APPENDIX C: Floodplains and Wetlands 8-Step Decision-Making Process Summary

APPENDIX D: NYSDEC Consultations and Permitting

APPENDIX E: LWRP Consistency Letter, NYC Department of City Planning

APPENDIX F: US Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination

APPENDIX G: New York State Historic Preservation Office Review



iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACHP Advisory Council of Historical Preservation

ACS American Community Survey

AFS Air Facility Systems

APE Area of Potential Effects

BMPs Best Management Practices

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act

CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource System

CEHA Coastal Erosion Hazard Area

CEQ Council of Environmental Quality

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Information System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRIS Cultural Resources Information System

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan

dBA A-weighted decibels

EA Environmental Assessment

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EJ Environmental Justice

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation

Ldn Day night noise level

Leq Equivalent noise level

LPC Landmarks Preservation Commission

LWRP Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOX Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System



v

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Science

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetland Inventory

NYC New York City

NYCEDC New York City Economic Development Corporation

NYNHP New York National Heritage Program

NYS New York State

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDHSES New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services

NYSDOS New York State Department of State

NYSHPO New York State Historic Preservation Office

OPD Office of Planning and Development

OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PM Particulate Matter

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SCFWH Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SPL Sound pressure level

SOX Sulphur Oxides

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

ULSD Ultra-low-sulfur diesel

ULURP Uniform Land Use Review Procedure

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service



vi



1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy caused storm damage to several areas of New York State,

including the Sea Gate community in Kings County, New York. President Barack Obama declared

Hurricane Sandy a major disaster on October 30, 2012. The declaration authorized the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide assistance to the state per federal disaster

declaration DR-4085-NY and in accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 United States Code [USC] 5170c), as amended, the Sandy

Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, and the accompanying Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of

2013.

The Sea Gate Community Relief Fund (Subrecipient) has applied to FEMA for financial assistance

to build a new “Navy Sea Wall System” at the location of the damaged former seawall in Sea Gate,

New York. Sea Gate is a private gated community located on at the far western end of Coney

Island at the southwestern tip of the New York City borough of Brooklyn (Appendix A, Figure 1-

1, Figure 1-2). The New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services

(NYSDHSES) is the Recipient partner for the Proposed Action.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared in accordance with Section 102 of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Regulations for Implementation

of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 to 1508). FEMA is serving as the

lead agency. The purpose of the EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the

proposed action and a no action alternative and to determine whether to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). In accordance with above

referenced regulations and FEMA’s guidance for NEPA compliance, FEMA Directive 108-1 and

FEMA Instruction 108-1-1, FEMA is required, during decision making, to fully evaluate and

consider the environmental consequences of major federal actions it funds or undertakes.

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 USC

5170c), as amended, authorizes FEMA to provide funding to eligible grant applicants for activities

with the purpose of reducing or eliminating risks to life and property from hazards and their effects.

The purpose of the project is to reduce damages from storm surge flooding caused by coastal

storms like nor’easters, tropical storms, and hurricanes. The project is needed because the Sea Gate

community experienced damage to structures and sections of seawall bulkheads that resulted from

storm surge flooding during Hurricane Sandy. Because of the loss of protection from the

bulkheads, the community remains vulnerable to future storm surge flooding.



2

3.0 BACKGROUND

Sea Gate is a private gated community located on at the far western end of Coney Island at the

southwestern tip of the New York City borough of Brooklyn (Appendix A, Figure 1-1, Figure 1-

2). The community of Sea Gate covers all land west of West 37th Street and is bordered by water,

with Gravesend Bay to the north; Lower New York Bay to the west, the Atlantic Ocean to the

south, and mostly single-family residential neighborhoods to the east.

The project limits extend from just west of the Sea Gate Beach Club, roughly 200 feet east of

Beach 38th Street, to about 100 feet beyond Lindy Park, east of Beach 50th Street. Development

along the beachfront within the project limits is a combination of single family and multi-family

residential except for the following: Lindy Park, a community park under the jurisdiction of the

Sea Gate Association; the United States Coast Guard Station and Light House located to the south

of Beach 47th Street; and a few scattered vacant properties where buildings were destroyed by

Hurricane Sandy.

Hurricane Sandy is the most recent of coastal storms to damage the Sea Gate community. The Sea

Gate community experienced water levels at a height of 13.3 feet (North American Vertical Datum

of 1988 - NAVD88) during the peak storm surge with the entire area inundated to depths up to

approximately six feet. Hurricane Sandy brought direct wave impacts along ocean-facing areas

such as Sea Gate where coastal protections were lacking or inadequate. The severe wave impacts

caused the bulkhead at Lindy Park to collapse and destroyed other sections of existing bulkhead

scattered along the project length.

During Hurricane Sandy, brackish floodwater damaged over 750 homes behind the seawall. The

hurricane damaged roads and other infrastructure such as the electric and sewer systems. In

addition to the damage to Lindy Park, other critical community services were severely impacted,

including the Sea Gate Police Department and the Sea Gate Association Administration buildings,

which were completely flooded and beyond salvage. The community of Sea Gate also suffered

damages from flooding and storm winds during Tropical Storm Irene, Tropical Storm Lee, and

several smaller storm events. As cited in the Preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FEMA 2013),

previous storms that caused damage in Sea Gate included storms of December 12, 1992, March

1962, and November 1950.

The Sea Gate Community lies within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) “Project for

Shoreline Protection, Atlantic Coast of New York City from Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point

(Coney Island, NY).” The initial phase of the USACE project was constructed in 1994 and 1995

and included the construction of the West 37th Street terminal groin and placement of fill on the

beachfront from West 37th Street easterly. The placement of the terminal groin caused scouring of



3

beach areas on the south shore of Sea Gate. To combat the issue, USACE installed T-groins to the

west of the terminal groin (USACE 2014). USACE has completed subsequent phases of work,

with the most recent phase completed in the Sea Gate Reach in 2016. Work in the Sea Gate Reach

included beach fill placement, construction of T-groins, and placement of stone reinforcement on

Norton Point Dike. The objective of the USACE Sea Gate Reach project is to improve sand

retention downdrift of the West 37th Street terminal groin.

Along the beachfront within the project limits, existing bulkheads and seawalls of different

construction types provide varied levels of protection from wave action and coastal flooding. There

are areas that are unprotected, as previous bulkheads have been completely or partially destroyed

by storms over time. The top of wall elevation of existing bulkheads ranges from a low of 11.0

feet to a high of 16.7 feet. The predominant bulkhead type is anchored steel sheet piling. Other

types of bulkheads include concrete walls and navy type walls of timber construction, which

include woodpiles, walers, and vertical sheeting.

4.0 ALTERNATIVES

FEMA and the Subrecipient evaluated alternatives based on engineering constraints,

environmental impacts, and the purpose and need of this project. The Subrecipient also considered

expected costs in evaluating the feasibility of alternatives, but costs were not the controlling factor.

Additionally, a No Action Alternative, also known as the “Future without Federal Project

Condition,” is included in the analysis. This section discusses the no action alternative, feasible

alternatives that would satisfy the purpose and need, and alternatives eliminated from further

analysis.

4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, no federal action would occur to reconstruct the seawall leaving the Sea

Gate community susceptible to flooding and storm damage. The Sea Gate community would

continue to be vulnerable to damages caused by storm surge and inundation by floodwaters on

three sides of the peninsular community. In addition to flooding, the community of Sea Gate would

be susceptible to wave damage and damaged infrastructure due to storm events, including the

potential for damage by fire from wind and wave damaged utilities. The residents of Sea Gate

would face potential loss of life and would encounter significant delays in emergency service

response time due to flooding within Sea Gate.

4.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Bulkhead Construction

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, is the reconstruction of a seawall bulkhead surrounding the

ocean side of the Sea Gate community to a height of 11 feet. The Subrecipient would construct



4

approximately 1,850 linear feet of bulkhead, beginning from approximately Beach 38th Street to

Beach 50th Street, and continuing through Lindy Park in Sea Gate, Brooklyn. The bulkhead

construction would consist of two types of installation; a navy-type bulkhead wall and cantilevered

steel sheet piling wall, both of which act to retain and protect property and streets within the

community of Sea Gate. As shown on the plans in Appendix B, the navy-type bulkhead would be

installed at Lindy Park and would be approximately 950 linear feet long. Cantilevered steel sheet

piling would be installed at various locations to total approximately 900 feet and would include

segments at the following locations:

At 4602 Beach 46th Street in front of, or in line with, a concrete wall that has failed and a

return section into the embankment at the side of the U.S. Coast Guard property

A continuous line of bulkhead in front of 4504 Beach 45th Street, at the end of Beach 45th

Street and 4505 Beach 45th Street

A line of bulkhead in front of 4200 Atlantic Avenue and the end of Beach 42nd Street

At Block 7042, Lot 1 a presently undeveloped tract

At 3826 Atlantic Avenue

A continuous line of bulkhead in front of 3820 Atlantic Avenue and Block 7043, Lot 6

where a new home was recently constructed as a replacement for the structure destroyed

by Hurricane Sandy

At Block 7044, Lot 39, a presently undeveloped tract.

A navy-type bulkhead, consisting of round wood piles, timber walers, and vinyl vertical sheeting

anchored to a pile by a steel tie rod or drilled helical anchors at the front of the bulkhead, is

proposed along Lindy Park. The ground surface landward of the bulkhead would be several feet

higher than the ground surface seaward of the wall. The bulkhead would be designed to function

both to retain the soil on the landward side and to resist hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures

on the seaward side.

Bulkhead installations constructed of cantilevered steel sheet piling would function as essentially

a solid fence with the ground surface on both sides of the bulkhead at the same elevation. These

wall sections would be designed to have sufficient capacity to resist hydrostatic and hydrodynamic

pressures on the seaward side of the wall.

The installation of the proposed bulkheads would result in a continuous line of protection along

the project limits that would provide protection to a minimum of height of 11 feet. The top

elevation of the proposed bulkhead installations would be at a height of 11 feet. The Subrecipient



5

selected a height of 11 feet for analysis because it is the lowest elevation of the existing bulkheads

that remain and continue to function.

The ends of all streets that lead to the beach, except for Beach 45th Street and Beach 47th Street,

already have anchored steel sheet piling bulkhead that provides protection from erosion, which

could undermine the roadway pavement. New bulkhead would be installed at Beach 45th Street.

At Beach 47th Street the roadway grade is higher than 11 feet. The steel sheeting at the street end

locations either have metal caps or the top section is encased with concrete and the top elevation

is higher than 11 feet except at two streets, Beach 38th Street and Beach 46th Street. At these two

locations, the middle section of the steel sheet piling/concrete cap is stepped down to roughly the

level of the roadway pavement. To allow for these locations to be used for beach access in the

future and still maintain them as part of the Proposed Action, these openings would be retrofitted

so that deployable flood control equipment can be installed, which would provide protection up to

the design elevation. In conjunction with the installation of new bulkhead across the end of Beach

45th Street, a new wood access ramp would be constructed over the top of the bulkhead to allow

for foot traffic between the beach and the street end, similar to the ramp at Beach 42nd Street.

Under the Proposed Action, the bulkhead installation would provide protection from a coastal

flooding event with a two-percent (50-year) annual chance. With scheduled maintenance, the

bulkhead installations would have a useful life of 50 years. The bulkhead installations would fill

in gaps in the existing bulkhead around the Sea Gate community and reduce inundation hazards to

Sea Gate properties, roads, and other infrastructure.

The Subrecipient anticipates total construction to take approximately 48 weeks, with the navy-type

bulkhead, using vertical vinyl sheeting, taking approximately 18 weeks and the installation of steel

sheet piling sections taking approximately 12 weeks. The total construction time estimate allows

for unforeseen delays and winter shutdowns that may slow the installation.

The installation of the navy-type bulkhead along Lindy Park would require pre-excavation of

concrete rubble and armor stone over a portion of its length. This pre-excavation would allow the

timber pile and vinyl vertical sheeting to be driven or vibrated in at these locations. These

materials, if not removed, would damage the vinyl sheeting and the timber piles. The timber piles

and the vinyl sheeting would penetrate approximately 15 feet into the ground and project

approximately 10 feet above the ground.

Construction staging would occur at Lindy Park, at the end of Beach 42nd Street, and at the end of

Beach 45th Street. The Lindy Park work area would be accessed via Beach 50th Street and the

various other work locations would be accessed from Beach 42nd Street or Beach 45th Street.



6

4.3 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

4.3.1 Alternative 3: USACE Installed Rip-Rap

This alternative consists of engaging USACE to install large rocks or rip-rap along the shoreline

to provide erosion resistance during normal storm surges. The Subrecipient dismissed this

alternative as insufficient because it would provide no protection against a 50- or 100-year storm

event.

4.3.2 Alternative 4: Elevation of All Existing Roadways and Structures

This alternative consists of raising the elevation of all existing homes, roads and buildings within

the Sea Gate Community. This is not a cost-efficient alternative.

4.4 Summary of Alternatives

Four alternatives were considered by the Subgrantee for implementation at Sea Gate, Two

alternatives were considered and dismissed. These are the USACE Installed Rip-Rap alternative

and the Elevation of All Existing Roadways and Structures alternative. Two alternatives were

developed and reviewed against the purpose and need for the project, and evaluated in this EA.

The remaining alternatives are:

1) Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

2) Alternative 2: Proposed Action: Bulkhead Construction

Section 5 evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative and the

Proposed Action. A table summarizing the potential impacts of the alternatives is in Section 9.0,

Summary of Impacts.

5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

This section discusses the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action

on environmental resources. Potential cumulative impacts are also discussed (see Section 5.16).

When possible, quantitative information is provided to establish potential impacts, and the

potential impacts are evaluated qualitatively based on the criteria listed in Table 5-1.



7

Table 5-1. Evaluation Criteria for Potential Impacts

Impact Scale Criteria

No Impact The resource area would not be affected, and there would be no impacts.

Negligible Changes would either be non-detectable or, if detected, the effects would be

slight and local. Impacts would be well below regulatory standards, as

applicable.

Minor

Adverse

Changes to the resource would be measurable, but the changes would be small

and localized. Impacts would be within or below regulatory standards, as

applicable. Mitigation measures would reduce any potential adverse effects.

Moderate

Adverse

Changes to the resource would be measurable and have both localized and

regional impacts. Impacts would be within or below regulatory standards, but

historical conditions would be altered temporarily. Mitigation measures

would be necessary, and the measures would reduce any potential adverse

effects.

Major Adverse Changes to the resource would be readily measurable and would have

substantial consequences at local and regional levels. Impacts would exceed

regulatory standards. Mitigation measures to offset the adverse effects would

be required to reduce impacts, but long-term changes to the resource would

be expected.

5.1 Resource Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis

In accordance with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, an environmental

analysis should focus on significant environmental issues (40 CFR 1502.01). FEMA considered

resource topics in the preparation of this EA but eliminated six from further consideration:

Geology; Vegetation; Wildlife and Fish; Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers; Farmland

Protection; and Essential Fish Habitat. FEMA expects no impacts related to geology because

bedrock in the project area is more than 2,000 feet from the surface and would not be affected by

excavation activities. FEMA anticipates no impacts to vegetation as the landward side of the

bulkhead is developed urban land and the seaward side does not support vegetation. FEMA expects

no impacts related to wildlife or fish. There are no designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife

Habitats (SCFWHs), Significant Natural Communities, or Rare Plants and Animals within the

project area. There are no rivers classified as wild, scenic, or recreational under the Wild & Scenic

Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542; 16 USC 1271 et seq.) within or in the vicinity of the project area.

The land within the project area is committed to urban development and is thereby not subject to

the Farmland Protection Policy Act. FEMA anticipates no impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)



8

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as work will not be in water and best management practices

(BMPs) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be in place.

5.2 Topography and Soils

5.2.1 Existing Conditions

Sea Gate covers all land west of W. 37th Street and is bordered by water, with Gravesend Bay to

the north; Lower New York Bay to the west, the Atlantic Ocean to the south. The topography of

the project area is generally flat with elevations ranging between 4 and 9 feet (Appendix A, Figure

5-2). The beach areas are flooded with the daily tides and are nearly level to gently sloping areas

of sand or sand and gravel adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. These sands and gravels are frequently

reworked by wave and wind action and not supportive of vegetation. The inland areas are nearly

level to gently sloping, with up to 80 percent buildings and impervious pavement covering the

surface.

According to the Web Soil Survey from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), soil classifications within the project area include

Beaches (Be); Urban land-Hooksan-Verrazano complex 0 to 3 percent slopes (UHVA); and Urban

land-Verrazano complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes (UVA) (Appendix A, Figure 5-1).

5.2.2 Potential Impacts on Topography and Soils

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would have no impacts on topography or soils from construction. The

damaged seawall would allow erosion to occur landward of the project area potentially eroding

soils and exposing fill materials.

Alternative 2: Proposed Alternative

The Proposed Action would alter the existing topography within the project area. Under the

Proposed Action, the project would slightly reshape the topography by backfilling areas landside

of the proposed seawall to provide stabilization. Any new backfill brought to the project site will

be suitable material from a commercial source and placed according to approved plans and

specifications. There would be no change to soils. The Proposed Action would result in negligible

effects on topography (Appendix A, Figure 5-2).

5.3 Air Quality

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are standards established under authority of

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) for six criteria pollutants, to protect public health with



9

an adequate margin of safety, and to protect public welfare from the adverse effects associated

with pollutants in the ambient air. These pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide

(NO2), ozone, lead, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) (both particles with an

aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers [PM2.5], and those less than or equal

to 10 micrometers [PM10]). New York State monitors and regulates emissions for these pollutants

so as to meet NAAQS requirements.

Federally funded actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas are subject to United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conformity regulations, 40 CFR Part 51 and 93. The

air conformity analysis process ensures that emissions of air pollutants from planned federally

funded activities would not affect the state’s ability to achieve the Clean Air Act goal of meeting

the NAAQS. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act requires that federally funded projects must not

cause any violations of the NAAQS, increase the frequency or severity of NAAQS violations, or

delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestone. The emissions from construction

activities are subject to air conformity review.

Under the general conformity regulations, a determination for federal actions is required for each

criteria pollutant or precursor in non-attainment or maintenance areas where the action’s direct and

indirect emissions have the potential to emit one or more of the six criteria pollutants at rates equal

to or exceeding the prescribed de minimis rates for that pollutant. In the case of this project, the

prescribed annual rates are 50 tons of volatile organic compounds and 100 tons of nitrogen oxides

(NOX) (ozone precursors), 100 tons of CO (in a CO maintenance area), and 100 tons of PM2.5,

SO2, or NOX (PM2.5 and precursors in PM2.5 attainment area).

Areas where a criteria pollutant level exceeds the applicable NAAQS are designated as being in

non-attainment of the standards. A non-attainment area may be re-designated to attainment, based

on monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the applicable standard and implementation of a

maintenance plan to assure continued attainment.


As of September 2018, USEPA designated the project area in Kings County as in-attainment for

lead, PM2.5 annual, and sulfur dioxide. A small portion of the site is currently in maintenance for

PM2.5 24-hour and the County is currently designated as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone

(USEPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool Version 2018).



10

5.3.2 Potential Impacts on Air Quality


The No Action Alternative would not involve any construction-related emissions; therefore, there

would be no impact on air quality.


Construction activities as a result of the Proposed Action may result in temporary increases in

emissions from on-site equipment, construction-related vehicles and non-road engines, and

fugitive dust. Fugitive dust or airborne dust is generated during ground breaking and excavation

activities.

Temporary impacts associated with construction emissions would be mitigated through the

implementation of air quality BMPs. Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel would be used for all

construction-related vehicles and non-road construction equipment, limiting Sulphur Oxides

(SOX) emissions. Fugitive dust control measures such as speed limit reductions, water or other

dust suppressant application, and regular vehicle rinsing would be managed according to proper

standards and procedures. Additionally, all activities under the Proposed Action would comply

with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding construction emissions. All

equipment and machinery would comply with applicable USEPA standards. All units would be

powered with Ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) per USEPA regulations. Emissions for construction

would be below de minimis threshold levels.

The Proposed Action would result in a temporary negligible impact on air quality due to

construction activities; FEMA anticipates no long-term impacts.

5.4 Water Quality

The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1977, regulates discharge of pollutants into waters under

the jurisdiction of the USACE and USEPA. Section 404 of the CWA establishes the USACE

permit requirements for discharging dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States and

navigable waterways. USACE regulation of activities within navigable waters is also authorized

under the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES), USEPA regulates both point and non-point pollutant sources, including

stormwater and stormwater runoff. Activities that disturb one acre of ground or more are required

to apply for an NPDES permit, or a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit

at the state level. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) SPDES

permits in New York.



11

Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 [Public Law 93–523] authorizes USEPA

to designate an aquifer for special protection under the sole-source aquifer program if the aquifer

is the sole or principal drinking water resource for an area and if its contamination would create a

significant hazard to public health. The aquifer is the sole or principal drinking water resource for

an area if it supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water in a particular area. No commitment

for federal financial assistance may be provided for any project that USEPA determines may

contaminate a sole source aquifer such that a significant hazard to public health is created.


The project area is located in the Gravesend Bay Watershed in the Raritan Bay–Lower Bay

Watershed (HUC0203020201). The project is located on the western tip of Coney Island and is

surrounded by Gravesend Bay to the north and the Atlantic Ocean to the west and south.

The current New York State (NYS) 303(d) List of Impaired/Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

waters indicates that the Lower New York Bay/Gravesend Bay is an impaired water body

(NYSDEC 2016). The 303(d) list identifies the suspected source of impairment as contaminated

sediment and urban/stormwater runoff, including pesticides and heavy metals.

USEPA has designated the entirety of Kings County as a sole-source aquifer under the Safe

Drinking Water Act, which includes the project area. In Kings and southern Queens Counties, the

upper glacial aquifer is underlain by the Pleistocene Gardiners Clay which serves as the confining

layer and the Jameco Gravel Aquifer (NYSDEC 2018).

5.4.2 Potential Impacts on Water Quality


The No Action Alternative would not directly impact water quality. However, future flood events

could potentially overload or damage sewage systems in Sea Gate, causing contaminated runoff

to the adjacent water bodies. The No Action Alternative could have long-term, minor adverse

impacts on water quality during and after flood events associated with storm surge.


Construction activities as a result of the Proposed Action may result in temporary, minor impacts

on water quality related to soil disturbance and to potential spills, lubricants, and machinery

leakage.

The Subrecipient will obtain a SPDES General Permit and implement a Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to manage discharges from the site. The SPDES permit would ensure

that stormwater runoff from construction sites related to the Proposed Action is controlled through



12

BMPs and would prevent stormwater runoff from polluting Gravesend Bay, Lower New York

Bay, and the Atlantic Ocean. The following BMPs are part of the Proposed Action to protect water

quality:

Vehicle and heavy equipment refueling and maintenance would be permitted only in

designated disturbed/developed upland areas greater than 100 feet landward of the tidal

wetland boundary where accidental spills can be contained immediately.

All project-related heavy equipment would be maintained regularly to avoid fluid leaks of

gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, and other fluids. All leaking fluid would be stopped

or captured in a container until such time the equipment can be immediately moved off site

and repaired.

Storage of hazardous materials would not occur within 300 feet of any surface waters. A

plan would be prepared for immediate containment and cleanup of hazardous material

spills within or adjacent to the site.

The contractors would use an upland area for all storage and staging of equipment, which

would be protected by silt fencing.

Within 150 feet of any waterbody:

o All petroleum-based hydraulic fluids would be replaced with biodegradable

products.

o All equipment, vehicles, and power tools would be cleaned to keep them free of

external fluids and grease and to prevent leaks and spills from entering the water.

o Generators, cranes, or other stationary heavy equipment operated would be

maintained and protected as necessary to prevent leaks and spills from entering

the water.

5.5 Wetlands

Actions that could impact wetlands require review under several regulatory programs, including

Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344), the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article

24 of Environmental Conservation Law), and the Tidal Wetlands Act (Article 25 of Environmental

Conservation Law). Executive Order (EO) 11990 Wetlands Management requires Federal

agencies to avoid funding activities that directly or indirectly support occupancy, modification, or

development of wetlands, whenever there are practicable alternatives, and that the proposed action

includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that may result from such use.

FEMA uses the eight-step decision-making process to evaluate potential effects on wetlands and

to identify mitigation measures (Appendix C).



13


The potential presence of wetlands was evaluated based on a review of the project area on the

NYSDEC “Environmental Resource Mapper” and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS)

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) “Wetlands Mapper” websites. USFWS classifies aquatic

habitats into five distinct categories: marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine wetlands

(Cowardin et al. 1979). Based on a review of the USFWS Wetlands Mapper and NYSDEC

Environmental Resource Mapper, there are no state designated wetlands in the area, but there are

aquatic habitats with “Estuarine and Marine Wetlands” and “Estuarine and Marine Deepwater”

classifications (Appendix A, Figure 5-4). NYSDEC categorizes tidal areas to identify wetlands and

aid in administering programs for tidal wetland protection. The NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Map is

provided in Appendix A, Figure 5-5. NYSDEC categorizes the tidal areas within the project area

as littoral zone. No wetlands meeting the definition of wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act are within the project area.

5.5.2 Potential Impacts on Wetlands


The No Action Alternative would have no impact on state or federal wetlands.


Because there are no wetlands within the project area, the Proposed Action would have no impact

on wetlands during construction. The NYSDEC map indicates the presence of a special aquatic

site (coastal shoal, bar, or mudflat) to the north of the project area. This area would not be affected

by the Proposed Action.

5.6 Floodplains

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid potential

adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid

floodplain development whenever there are practicable alternatives. Any potential adverse impacts

must be mitigated when there are no practicable alternatives. FEMA regulations for complying

with EO 11988 are contained in 44 CFR Part 9. Federal actions within the 100-year floodplain

require the federal agency to conduct an eight-step review process to evaluate alternatives within

floodplains (Appendix C).



14


The site is located within the 100-year floodplain (Zone VE EL 17, Zone AE EL 11, and Zone AO

Depth 2-3) as shown on Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map panel #3604970334G (Appendix

A, Figures 5-6 and 5-7) dated December 5, 2013 (FEMA 2013).

5.6.2 Potential Impacts on Floodplains


The No Action Alternative would not reduce the risk of flood damage and Sea Gate would continue

to be at risk of loss of life and property damage during future storm events. The No Action

Alternative would have long-term, minor, adverse impact on floodplain functions.


The Proposed Action would reduce risk of future flood damage to the residential properties and

reduce the chance of property damage and physical danger resulting from floodwaters. FEMA

anticipates negligible short-term adverse impacts to the floodplain compared to existing

conditions. Overall, the Proposed Action would have a long-term minor beneficial impact on flood

protection.

5.7 Coastal Resources

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), administered by states with shorelines in coastal

areas, requires those states to have a Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) to manage coastal

development. Federal agencies must evaluate actions within designated coastal zones to ensure

they are consistent with the CZMP. Projects receiving federal assistance must follow the

procedures outlined in 15 CFR 930.90 – 930.101 for federal coastal zone consistency

determinations. The New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) and NYSDEC have

identified and promulgated substantive policies for guiding development and resource

management in the state’s coastal area. New York City including Kings County has adopted a

Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) (NYSDOS 2016). The Coastal Erosion Hazard

Law (Environmental Conservation Law 34) empowers NYSDEC to identify and map coastal

erosion hazard areas and to adopt regulations (6 NYCRR Part 505). The Coastal Erosion Hazard

Area Permit Program manages regulated activities or land disturbance on properties within the

coastal erosion hazard areas.

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 created the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS)

under the jurisdiction of the USFWS restricting both direct and indirect federal expenditures within

system units. Congress amended this act with the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990,

http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/lwrp.html



15

creating Otherwise Protected Areas with lesser restrictions limited to prohibiting federal flood

insurance.


Long Island’s coastal areas are primarily composed of materials such as gravels, sands, and clays.

This contributes to these shorelines being dynamic environments, inherently unstable and

constantly changing in response to natural and human forces. Constructed walls and other hard

features can interrupt such natural processes as barrier island migration. Currently bulkheading

exists, to various heights and in various conditions, along most of the Sea Gate shoreline.

The adjacent beach was part of an unrelated project conducted by USACE to install T-head groins

and conduct beach nourishment activities. FEMA considered these conditions as part of the

existing baseline for this Sea Gate seawall project EA.

The project is located within the coastal zone of New York State; therefore, the Proposed Action

must comply with the forty-four policies established in the New York State CZMP (NYSDOS

2016). The proposed project is not located within a designated CBRS unit.

5.7.2 Potential Impacts on Coastal Resources


The No Action Alternative would not have an impact on coastal resources.


The Subrecipient submitted the Proposed Action to NYSDOS on August 14, 2018 for

determination of Coastal Consistency Conformance. The NYSDOS sent a response letter on

September 21, 2018 confirming no objection to federal financial assistance for the Proposed

Action (Appendix D). The Subrecipient presented the Proposed Action to the New York City

Department of City Planning in a meeting on September 13, 2018. On September 17, 2018, the

Department of City Planning sent a response letter noting consistency with LWRP policies, with

additional comments on project specifics (Appendix E).

The Proposed Action would involve construction within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA)

as shown on the official Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Maps issued by NYSDEC. This Proposed

Action includes grading, excavating, and other disturbance of soil, which are regulated activities

under 6 NYCRR Part 505, and would likely require a Coastal Erosion Management Permit from

NYSDEC.



16

The Proposed Action would contribute to additional hardening of the shoreline. However,

considering the baseline conditions of the past and existing bulkheading and the USACE

constructed T-groins, FEMA considers the Proposed Action’s long-term impacts on coastal

resources to be adverse but minor.

5.8 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provides for the conservation of threatened and

endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The lead federal agencies

for implementing ESA are the USFWS and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The law requires federal

agencies to ensure that the actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or damaging modification

of designated critical habitat of such species. The law also prohibits any action that causes a

“taking” of any listed species of endangered fish or wildlife.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940, prohibits

anyone without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior from "taking" Bald and Golden

eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs, or molesting or disturbing the birds. On the state level,

the NYSDEC has released a Conservation Plan for Bald Eagles in New York State, (NYSDEC

2016). The document describes the history and status of the Bald eagle in New York State and

provides guidelines for future management actions.


FEMA consulted the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system

(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) which identifies four federally listed species that may occur within the

project area. They include Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa),

Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii), and seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus).

The Piping plover can be found breeding from April through July (Levine 1998) and typically uses

open beach areas between the primary dune and high-tide line (Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004;

McIntyre et al. 2010; New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) 2015). There is no suitable

habitat for Piping plover within the project area. The Red knot may be found in intertidal marine

habitats in New York during migration or wintering periods (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2017).

Red knot would not likely occur in the project area. The Roseate tern arrives at its breeding grounds

between April and July and remains until fall migration, which typically occurs from August

through September (Gochfeld et al. 1998; Nisbet 1989; NYNHP 2015). The vast majority (greater

than 90 percent) of the breeding population of Roseate tern in New York breeds within the colony

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/



17

located on Great Gull Island (NYNHP 2015), approximately 110 miles east northeast of the project

area. The project area does not contain suitable habitat for the Roseate tern.

Seabeach amaranth is generally found along the dunes associated with ocean beaches (Buchanan

and Finnegan 2010). The decline of the species is most notably attributed to habitat destruction

and alteration, incompatible beach grooming practices, and recreational activities (New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection, 2017). The project area does not contain suitable habitat

for seabeach amaranth.

Critical habitat, as defined in the Endangered Species Act, is a specific geographic area(s) that

contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may

require special management and protection. The project area does not contain any designated

critical habitats.

The Bald eagle, (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), is listed as endangered in New York State, but it is

not listed as threatened or endangered under federal law. There are no known Bald or Golden

eagles within the immediate vicinity of the project area, therefore no mitigation measures are

required per the Conservation Plan for Bald Eagles in New York State (NYSDEC 2016).

5.8.2 Potential Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species


The No Action Alternative would have no effect on threatened and endangered species.


The Proposed Action would have no effect on threatened and endangered species because there is

no suitable habitat for listed species present in the project area. FEMA requested USFWS

concurrence on December 18, 2018 (see Appendix F). As of the date of this EA, USFWS has not

provided any objection or comments concerning FEMA’s determination of no effect for all listed

species.

5.9 Cultural Resources

As a federal agency, FEMA must consider the potential impacts of any of its funded actions (i.e.,

undertakings) on cultural resources prior to engaging in any undertaking. This obligation is defined

by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and

implemented by 36 CFR Part 800. Cultural resources are defined as prehistoric or historic

archaeology sites, historic standing structures, historic districts, objects, artifacts, cultural

properties of historic or traditional significance, referred to as Traditional Cultural Properties that

may have religious or cultural significance to Federally-Recognized Indian Tribal Nations (Tribal



18

Nations). Cultural resources listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP) are subject to protection from adverse impacts resulting from an undertaking. To be

considered National Register-eligible, a cultural resource must meet one or more of the criteria

detailed in 36 CFR Part 60.

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(a)(1), the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic

area(s) within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly affect (impact) cultural resources.

Within the APE, impacts to above-ground (buildings, structures, objects, etc.) and below-ground

(archaeological) cultural resources are evaluated for National Register eligibility. The APE for this

undertaking includes the footprint of the proposed seawall’s construction along the shoreline

including a buffer to each side. The APE limits begins from a point between West 37th and Beach

38th Streets located directly to the east of the building at 3724 Atlantic Avenue to a point between

Beach 50th and 51st Streets located to the south of the building at 5010 Oceanview Avenue plus a

twenty-five (25) foot buffer (see Appendix G). The APE includes all above ground resources

adjacent to the proposed work as well as all vertical and horizontal ground disturbance for potential

impacts to below-ground resources.


New York State Historic Preservation Officer (NYSHPO’s) New York State Cultural Resources

Information System (CRIS), shows that the Sea Gate community is not listed in, or eligible for

listing in NRHP as a historic district. Additionally, according to New York City’s City-Map GIS

system, there are no New York City (NYC) Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)

designated landmarks within the Sea Gate Community. Two previously determined National

Register-eligible individual buildings are located within APE: 4200 Atlantic Ave and the U.S.

Coast Guard’s Coney Island Light House (see Appendix G). Existing bulkheads at both properties

will be reconstructed along the perimeter of the ocean side property lines. No proposed work will

physically impact the National Register-eligible buildings themselves.

FEMA evaluated the existing seawall for National Register eligibility, which was constructed by

individual property owners over time using varying methods and materials. Many of the oldest

sections of the wall were destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. As a result, the seawall is discontinuous

and does not contain historical integrity, such as design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,

and association, to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP (see Appendix G).

According to CRIS the APE is not located within a mapped area of archaeological sensitivity.

Likewise, there are no recorded archaeological sites within the APE and/or within one-mile of the

APE. Historic topographic maps illustrate the change in the shoreline beginning in 1898. The

shoreline extends gradually to its present shape throughout the 20th and into the 21st centuries. Soil

classifications within the project area also provide evidence of the shoreline change. Soil



19

classifications include: Beaches (Be); Urban land-Hooksan-Verrazano complex (UHVA); and

Urban land-Verrazano complex (UVA) (see Appendix A, Figure 5-1, for soils). Urban soil types

are indicative of the urban built landscape that comprise the Sea Gate Community shoreline and

residential landscape. The soils are frequently reworked by wave and wind action (including daily

tidal flow) and not supportive of vegetation. For the potential preservation of archaeological sites,

such soils are classified as disturbed.

FEMA consulted with NYSHPO on December 17, 2018 for the proposed undertaking. FEMA

determined the undertaking would result in No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties that are either

in, or eligible for inclusion in, the State or NRHP. NYSHPO concurred with the determination on

December 26, 2018 (SHPO Reference 18PR08036, See Appendix G). On December 21, 2018

FEMA consulted with Tribal Nations including the Delaware Nation, the Delaware Tribe of

Indians, the Shinnecock Nation, and the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohicans. To

date, FEMA has received no responses from the Tribal Nations.

5.9.2 Potential Impacts on Cultural Resources


The No Action Alternative would have no direct impact on cultural resources because there would

be no soil disturbance to affect potential archaeological resources and no change to the surrounding

landscape. However, this alternative could result in future adverse effects to the two National

Register-eligible historic properties within the APE that are subject to repetitive flooding due to

seasonal severe storms, largescale natural disasters, and sea level rise. These events can be

damaging as both single events and multiple events that can cause cumulative damage. Therefore,

the No Action Alternative may result in long-term minor adverse impact.


The Proposed Action will not result in an adverse effect to historic properties as the existing Sea

Gate Seawall is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Additionally, the proposed work will not

adversely impact the National Register-eligible buildings (4200 Atlantic Ave and the U.S. Coast

Guard’s Coney Island Light House), or their properties. Reconstruction of the bulkhead is critical

for the protection of these NRHP eligible historic properties, as well as the surrounding residential

community. Proposed seawall improvements will result in minimal change to viewsheds,

properties, and the surrounding landscape and will offer protection to potential unidentified

resources adjacent to the APE.

Ground-disturbing impacts would be limited to previously disturbed soils. The project is not

located in an area of archaeological sensitivity and no previous recorded archaeological sites are

located within, or within one-mile of, the APE. Based on these combined characteristics, potential



20

to encounter intact archaeological resources is low. The proposed undertaking would have no

impact.

5.10 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires federal agencies to identify and address

disproportionately high and adverse human-health or environmental effects its activities may have

on minority or low-income populations. In order to provide context for this report a demographic

analysis was undertaken. The first step was to define a relevant Community of Concern (COC).


USEPA Region 2’s Guidelines for Conducting Environmental Justice Analysis for New York, a

community would be considered a COC if the minority population is 51.1 percent or higher or if

23.59 percent or more of the population is below the poverty line.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year

Estimates, the per capita income for the project area of Sea Gate was $32,988. Approximately 26%

of the residents of Sea Gate were low-income, defined as “individuals whose ratio of household

income to poverty level in the past 12 months was less than 2.” Minority population, defined as

other than white alone, make up approximately 25% of the Sea Gate community (U.S. Census

Bureau 2017).

5.10.2 Potential Impacts on Environmental Justice


The No Action Alternative would continue to place the residents of Sea Gate in physical danger

of flooding impacts and would likely result in further property damage during future storm events.

However, these potential impacts would affect the entire community and would not result in a

disproportionate affect to the low-income population of the neighborhood during or after storm

and flood events. There would be no impact concerning environmental justice.


The Proposed Action would reduce risk of future flood damage to the residential properties and

reduce the chance of physical danger resulting from floodwaters. Construction under the Proposed

Action may result in minor, temporary impacts, such as noise as discussed in the Noise section

(Section 5.12). In addition, when the Proposed Action is completed, there would be beneficial

effects to the entire community, including the identified environmental justice community, such



21

as improved protection against flooding from storm surge, storm damage, and sea-level rise. There

would be no impact concerning environmental justice.

5.11 Land Use and Planning


The existing land uses within the project area are vacant land (beach front), residential, and public

facilities and institutions (Coney Island Lighthouse). It is zoned as R3-1 per NYC Zoning and

Land Use and is within Brooklyn Community District 13. The existing land uses within the vicinity

of the project area are consistent with the underlying zoning districts (see Appendix A Figure 5-8

and Figure 5-9).

The New York City Charter requires public review through the Uniform Land Use Review

Procedure (ULURP) for most land use actions. This entails review at the community, borough,

and City levels, each with time limits to ensure regular processing.

5.11.2 Potential Impacts on Land Use and Planning


The No Action Alternative would not change the land use or zoning. However, existing residential

uses within the project area may deteriorate over time, as the area would continue to be susceptible

to flooding. There would be no impact to current or planned land use.


The Proposed Action would not change the land use or zoning. However, it would reduce risk of

future flood damage to the residential properties and reduce the chance of physical danger resulting

from floodwaters. There would be no impact to current or planned land use.

5.12 Noise

The Noise Control Act of 1972 required USEPA to create a set of noise criteria. In response,

USEPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public

Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety in 1974 which explains the impact of noise

on humans. The USEPA report found that keeping the maximum 24-hour day-night noise level

(Ldn) value below 70 A-weighted decibels (dBA) would protect the majority of people from

hearing loss. USEPA recommends an outdoor Ldn of 55 dBA. According to published lists of

noise sources, sound levels, and their effects, sound causes pain starting at approximately 120 to

125 dBA (depending on the individual) and can cause immediate irreparable damage at 140 dBA.



22

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has adopted a standard of 140 dBA for

maximum impulse noise exposure.

Sound pressure level (SPL) is used to measure the magnitude of sound and is expressed in dBA,

with the threshold of human hearing defined as 0 dBA. The SPL increases logarithmically so that

when the intensity of a sound is increased by a factor of 10, its SPL rises by 10 dB; while a 100-

fold increase in the intensity of a sound increases the SPL by 20 dBA. Equivalent noise level (Leq)

is the average of sound energy over time so that one sound occurring for two minutes would have

the same Leq of a sound twice as loud occurring for one minute. The Ldn is based on the Leq and

is used to measure the average sound impacts for the purpose of guidance for compatible land use.

It weights the impact of sound as it is perceived at night against the impact of the same sound heard

during the day. This is done by adding 10 dBA to all noise levels measured between 10:00 pm and

7:00 am. For instance, the sound of a car on a rural highway may have an SPL of 50 dBA when

measured from the front porch of a house during the day. If the measurement were taken at night,

a value of 60 dBA would be recorded and incorporated into the 24-hour Ldn.


The ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project site is typical for a residential area. Most of

the land in the vicinity of the project area is comprised of residential development or beach. The

noise sensitive receptors identified in the area include schools, assisted living facilities, and houses

of worship. The schools include Public School 329, Surfside Elementary School, at 2929 W 30th

Street, approximately 0.37 miles from the nearest point of the project site; Public School 188,

Michael E Berdy Elementary School, at 3314 Neptune Ave., approximately 0.30 miles from the

nearest point of the project site; and Mesivta of Seagate, at 3803 Nautilus Ave., approximately

0.15 miles from the nearest point of the project site. Assisted living facilities include Abraham

Residence I at 3915 Neptune Ave., approximately 0.14 miles from the nearest point of the project

site; Abraham Residence II at 3811 Surf Ave., approximately 0.09 miles from the nearest point of

the project site; and Mermaid Manor Home for Adults at 3602 Mermaid Ave., approximately 0.12

miles from the nearest point of the project site. Houses of worship include Meisels Zalmen at 3868

Poplar Ave., approximately 0.08 miles from the nearest point of the project site; Chavas Daas at

3910 Neptune Ave., approximately 0.12 miles from the nearest point of the project site;

Congregation Kneses Israel of Sea-Gate at 3801 Nautilus Ave., approximately 0.15 miles from the

nearest point of the project site; Chabad by the Ocean at 3844 Lyme Ave., approximately 0.19

miles from the nearest point of the project site; and Masjid Bab-Us-Salam at 3604 Neptune Ave.,

approximately 0.28 miles from the nearest point of the project site.



23

5.12.2 Potential Impacts of Noise


Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional noise added to current conditions.

Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no impact on existing noise levels.


The Proposed Action would result in increases in noise levels during construction. NYC Noise

Code requires a written noise mitigation plan before starting construction work and every project

must have the plan on-site. For projects close to noise-sensitive locations like schools, hospitals

and places of worship, the noise mitigation plan must be designed to accommodate the needs of

these buildings. There are also schedule requirements for construction projects. Temporary

increases in noise levels due to construction activities would be minimized through compliance

with these local noise ordinances.

Potential construction-related noise impacts of the Proposed Action would be temporary and

minor. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in new permanent sources of noise

and would have no ongoing impact on noise levels.

5.13 Transportation


Sea Gate is served by local roadways and accessible by direct municipal express bus service to

New York City. The nearest subway station, which offers D, F, Q, and N trains, is approximately

1.5 miles from the project site and the closest public bus stop, which serves the B36 and B74 lines,

is approximately 0.5 miles away.

5.13.2 Potential Impacts on Transportation


The No Action Alternative would not impact traffic or transportation, but the roadways would

remain vulnerable to future storm surge and flooding.


FEMA anticipates short-term impact on traffic during the construction period. The project would

not alter existing roads or bus routes, nor would it create housing or other traffic generators. The

presence of construction and delivery vehicles is unavoidable; however, this would be a minor



24

temporary adverse impact, and all site construction activities would comply with local ordinances

that relate to operations on a construction site.

5.14 Public Health and Safety


During Hurricane Sandy, brackish floodwater damaged over 750 homes behind the seawall. In

addition, Hurricane Sandy caused damage to roads and other infrastructure such as the electric and

sewer systems. In addition to the damage to Lindy Park, other critical community services that

were severely impacted include the Sea Gate Police Department and the Sea Gate Association

Administration buildings, which were completely flooded and beyond salvage. The community of

Sea Gate has also suffered damages from flooding and storm winds during Tropical Storm Irene,

Tropical Storm Lee, and several smaller storm events.

5.14.2 Potential Impacts on Public Health and Safety


The No Action Alternative would have a minor adverse impact on the community’s public health

and safety because residents would remain vulnerable to flooding, placing the residents of Sea

Gate in physical danger and would likely result in further property damage during future storm

events. The No Action Alternative could also have minor adverse impacts on public services and

utilities during and after flood events associated with storm surge. Future flood events could

potentially damage powerlines and wastewater systems in the Sea Gate community, causing

contaminated runoff and nutrient loading to the adjacent water bodies. Effluent from damaged

sanitary wastewater systems could also contaminate groundwater and aquifers in the area.

Flooding can also greatly increase the risk of electrical fires.


The Proposed Action would have beneficial long-term minor effects on public health and safety,

public services, and utilities. The Proposed Action would reduce the susceptibility to future flood

hazards, thereby protecting the public health and safety of the Sea Gate community. Utilities must

be located and avoided during the final design of the Proposed Action.



25

5.15 Hazardous Materials


Sites near the proposed project location that have hazardous materials, contamination, toxic

chemicals, gases and radioactive substances were identified through the review of NEPAssist. The

NEPAssist review included an examination of the USEPA’s Superfund List (CERCLIS), National

Priorities List, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), Brownfields, Air Facility Systems (AFS), and

hazardous waste (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - RCRA) databases.

There are 46 RCRA sites identified within, or immediately adjacent to, the Sea Gate community

during the NEPAssist review, including two that are within/directly adjacent to the project

footprint. The first is Metron Environmental Ltd IS285 located at Beach 47th Street and the second

is Con Edison Service Box: 23513, 452 Beach 45th Street.

5.15.2 Potential Impacts on Hazardous Materials


The No Action Alternative would result in no change in current conditions at the site and therefore

have no effect on hazardous materials.


FEMA anticipates negligible temporary impacts due to the presence of identified RCRA sites

during construction.

5.16 Cumulative Impacts

In accordance with NEPA, this EA considers the overall cumulative impact of the Proposed Action

and other actions that are related in terms of time or proximity. According to the CEQ regulations,

cumulative impacts represent the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental

impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,

regardless of what government agency (federal or non-federal) or private entity undertakes such

other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant

actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

In addition to NEPA, other statutes require federal agencies to consider cumulative impacts. These

include the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines; the regulations implementing the

conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act; the regulations implementing Section 106 of the

NHPA; and the regulations implementing Section 7 of the ESA.



26

The entire Atlantic Coast of New York is undergoing recovery efforts after the 2012 hurricane

season, which includes demolition, reconstruction, and new construction. The USACE is

undertaking multiple projects, including the Atlantic Coast of New York, Rockaway Inlet to

Norton Point Coney Island Area – Shore Protection Project, which included 2500 linear feet of

shoreline between Norton Point and the West 37th Terminal Groin. The Sea Gate Reach was first

designed in 2005 and reformulated in 2016 as a response to impacts of Hurricane Sandy. The

project included constructing four T-groins and the placement of 70,000 cubic yards of sand. This

project is not designed to meet 100-year level of risk reduction, and there is expectation of future

renourishments of 30,000 cubic yards of sand every 10 years. The New York Governor’s Office

of Storm Recovery has undertaken several NY Rising Community Reconstruction Programs in the

Sea Gate area. The New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) undertook

the Coney Island Creek Resiliency Study in 2016, which drains into Gravesend Bay (NYCEDC

2016). The combination of all recovery development projects, including those mentioned above,

would have cumulative effects to Sea Gate area. However, FEMA anticipates that this Proposed

Action would not have cumulative impacts on resources addressed in this EA.

6.0 PERMITS AND PROJECT CONDITIONS

The Subrecipient is responsible for obtaining all applicable federal, state, and local permits and

other authorizations for project implementation prior to construction, as well as adherence to all

permit conditions. Any substantive change to the approved scope of work would require re-

evaluations by FEMA for compliance with NEPA and other laws and EOs. The Subrecipient must

also adhere to the following conditions during project implementation and consider the below

conservation recommendations. Failure to comply with grant conditions may jeopardize federal

funds.

The Proposed Action’s consistency with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and

programs is part of this EA. In addition to this EA, the following permits and/or consultations are

also required by local, state and federal agencies:

Clean Water Act, Section 401 Permits (New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation)

New York State Coastal Consistency Review (New York State Department of State Coastal

Management Program – Appendix D)

Endangered Species Act, Section 7 (87 Stat.884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

Consultation (Appendix F)

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation (New York State Historic

Preservation Office (NYSHPO) (Appendix G)



27

USACE Authorization for Coverage under Nationwide Permit #27 under Clean Water Act

Section 404

NYSDEC Article 25 Tidal Wetland Permit

NYSDEC Coastal Erosion Management Permit

7.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This EA will be made available for agency and public review and comment for a period of 30 days.

The public information process will include a public notice with information about the Proposed

Action in the Brooklyn Courier / Bay News, with targeted outreach to environmental justice

populations through notices to community organizations. The EA will also be made available for

download at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents.

A hard copy of the EA will be available for review at the following locations:

Sea Gate Office

3700 Surf Ave.

Brooklyn NY 11224

Brighton Beach Library

16 Brighton First Rd.

Brooklyn, NY 11235

718.946.2917

Ardurra Office

1305 Franklin Ave.

Suite 210

Garden City, NY 11530

Interested parties may request an electronic copy of the EA by emailing FEMA at

[email protected]. This EA reflects the evaluation and assessment of the

federal government, the decision maker for the federal action; however, FEMA will take into

consideration any substantive comments received during the public review period to inform the

final decision regarding grant approval and project implementation. The public is invited to submit

written comments by emailing [email protected] or via mail to:

FEMA Region II – DR-4085-NY

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

Attn: Sea Gate Community Bulkhead Construction EA Comments

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



28

If FEMA receives no substantive comments from the public and/or agency reviewers, this EA will

be adopted as final, and FEMA will issue a FONSI. If FEMA receives substantive comments, it

will evaluate and address those comments as part of the FONSI documentation and may consider

whether changes to the grant or project implementation is appropriate.

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

FEMA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

CDM Smith

110 Fieldcrest Avenue

Edison, NJ 08837

9.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 9-1. Summary of Impacts Table

Resource Environmental

Consequence

Environmental Protection

Measures and Required

Permits

Topography & Soils

See Section 5.2 for details

No Action Alternative: No

Impact

Proposed Action: Negligible

Adverse

New backfill will be suitable

material from commercial

source placed according to

approved plans and

specifications

Air Quality



Impact

Proposed Action: Temporary,

Negligible, Adverse

All equipment and machinery

would comply with

applicable USEPA standards.

All units would be powered

with ULSD per USEPA

regulations.

Water Quality


No Action Alternative: Long-

term, Minor, Adverse


Minor, Adverse

Clean Water Act, Section 404

and Section 401 Permits (See

Appendix D)

Other BMPs are listed in

Section 5.4.2.

Wetlands



Impact

Proposed Action: No Impact

Not Applicable

Floodplains




Not Applicable



29


Consequence



Permits

Proposed Action: Short-term

Negligible Adverse; Long-

term, Minor, Beneficial

Coastal Resources



Impact

Proposed Action: Long-term,

Minor, Adverse

Coastal Erosion Management

Permit from NYSDEC

Threatened and

Endangered Species



Impact


Not Applicable

Cultural Resources





Not Applicable

Environmental Justice



Impact


Not Applicable

Land Use and Planning



Impact


NYC Uniform Land Use

Review Procedure (ULURP)

Noise



Impact


Minor, Adverse; Long-term,

No Effect

NYC Noise Code required

Noise Mitigation Plan

Transportation



Effect

Proposed Action: Short-term,

Minor, Adverse; Long-term,

No Effect

Not Applicable

Public Health and Safety




Proposed Action: Long-term,

Minor, Beneficial

Not Applicable

Hazardous Materials



Effect

Proposed Action: Negligible,

Temporary

BMPs as outlined in the

Water Quality Section 5.4.2.



30


Consequence



Permits

Cumulative Impacts

See section 5.16 for details

When added to past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable

actions, the Proposed Action

is not expected to have

adverse cumulative impacts

on any resource.

Not Applicable



31

10.0 REFERENCES

Buchanan, M.F. and J.T. Finnegan. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant

Species of North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 2017. All About Birds Guide. Accessed October 15, 2018.

Available at: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/search/

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at:

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Classification-of-Wetlands-and-Deepwater-

Habitats-of-the-United-States.pdf

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Oliver (editors).

2014. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and

expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. New

York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, Albany, NY.

Elliott-Smith, E., S.M. Haig, B.M. Powers. 2009. Data from the 2006 International Piping Plover

Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 426, p. 332

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2013. Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate

Maps. Accessed January 17, 2019. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/fmcv

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2013. Preliminary Flood Insurance Study.

Accessed January 17, 2019. Available at:

https://floodmaps.fema.gov/prelim/PrelimData/New%20York/Kings%20County/prelim_iss

ue_date-2013-12-05/FIRM/3604970334G.pdf

Gochfeld M., J. Burger, and I.C.T. Nisbet. 1998. Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii). In A. Poole

and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 370. The Birds of North America,

Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32 pp.

Levine, E. 1998. Bull’s Birds of New York State. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY.

McIntyre, A.F., J.A. Heath, and J. Jannsen. 2010. Trends in Piping Plover Reproduction at Jones

Beach State Park, NY, 1995-2007. Northeastern Naturalist 17(3): 493-504.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, Office of

Natural Lands Management. Endangered Plants of New Jersey Fact Sheet: Sea-beach

Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at:

https://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/pdf/sbanjfact.pdf

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/search/

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Classification-of-Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats-of-the-United-States.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Classification-of-Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats-of-the-United-States.pdf

https://msc.fema.gov/fmcv

https://floodmaps.fema.gov/prelim/PrelimData/New%20York/Kings%20County/prelim_issue_date-2013-12-05/FIRM/3604970334G.pdf

https://floodmaps.fema.gov/prelim/PrelimData/New%20York/Kings%20County/prelim_issue_date-2013-12-05/FIRM/3604970334G.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/pdf/sbanjfact.pdf



32

New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). 2016. Coney Island Creek

Resiliency Study. Available at:

https://www.nycedc.com/sites/default/files/filemanager/Projects/Coney_Island_Creek/CIC

BWFS_Report_-_7.8.16.pdf

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2015. New York Natural Heritage Program Conservation

Guide. Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/

New York State Department of State. 2016. The New York City Waterfront Revitalization

Program. Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-

lwrp/LWRP/New%20York%20City/Amendment2/Final/NYC%20WRP%202015.pdf

New York State Department of State. 2016. New York State Coastal Boundary Map. Accessed

October 15, 2018. Available at: https://appext20.dos.ny.gov/coastal_map_public/map.aspx

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). March 2003. EJ

Related Policy and Regulations. Accessed January 28, 2019. Available at:

https://www.dec.ny.gov/public/36929.html

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2016. New York

State Section 303(d) List of Impaired/TMDL Waters . Accessed October 15, 2018.

Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dListfinal2016.pdf

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. March 2016. Conservation Plan for

Bald Eagles in New York State. Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/nybaldeagleplan.pdf

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2018. Environmental Resource

Mapper. Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/gis/erm/

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2018. Long Island Aquifers.

Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/36183.html

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2019. Coastal Erosion

Management Permit Program. Accessed March 7, 2019. Available at:

https://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6064.html

Nisbet I. C. T. 1989. Status and biology of the northeastern population of the Roseate Tern

(Sterna dougallii): a literature survey and update. 1981-1989. Contract Report 50181-88-

8105. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). June 2014. Improvement of the Atlantic Coast of New

York City, Rockaway Inlet to Northern Point Project at Sea Gate. Accessed January 18,

https://www.nycedc.com/sites/default/files/filemanager/Projects/Coney_Island_Creek/CICBWFS_Report_-_7.8.16.pdf

https://www.nycedc.com/sites/default/files/filemanager/Projects/Coney_Island_Creek/CICBWFS_Report_-_7.8.16.pdf

http://www.acris.nynhp.org/

https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/New%20York%20City/Amendment2/Final/NYC%20WRP%202015.pdf

https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/New%20York%20City/Amendment2/Final/NYC%20WRP%202015.pdf

https://appext20.dos.ny.gov/coastal_map_public/map.aspx

https://www.dec.ny.gov/public/36929.html

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dListfinal2016.pdf

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/nybaldeagleplan.pdf

http://www.dec.ny.gov/gis/erm/

https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/36183.html

https://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6064.html



33

2019. Available at:

https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/portals/37/docs/civilworks/projects/ny/coast/coney/coney

_island-seagate_june_2014_info_session_posters_20140610.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Environmental Justice Screening and

Mapping Tool Version 2018. Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at:

https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Information for Planning and Consultation.

Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office. 2016. Migratory Birds. Accessed

October 15, 2018. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/migbird.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper.

Accessed October 15, 2018. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). (1990). Executive Order 12699: Seismic safety at

National Institute of Building Sciences. Available at:

www.wbdg.org/ccb/FED/FMEO/eo12699.pdf

https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/portals/37/docs/civilworks/projects/ny/coast/coney/coney_island-seagate_june_2014_info_session_posters_20140610.pdf

https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/portals/37/docs/civilworks/projects/ny/coast/coney/coney_island-seagate_june_2014_info_session_posters_20140610.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/migbird.html

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/FED/FMEO/eo12699.pdf.