Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement Project …Appendix B – Tables Appendix C – Calculations Appendix D – Soils Information TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES Volume

Appendix F

Drainage Report

Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3358

DRAFT DRAINAGE REPORTMay 2018

Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement

PIN X731.55Bronx County, New York


May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................22.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS....................................................................................................2

2.1 West of Hunts Point Avenue along Bruckner Boulevard Drainage System.....................................22.2 East of Hunts Point Avenue and Sheridan Expressway Drainage System .....................................22.3 Edgewater Road Drainage System .................................................................................................22.4 East of Bronx River Drainage System .............................................................................................32.5 Existing Soils ...................................................................................................................................3

3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................33.1 Redevelopment ...............................................................................................................................33.2 New Development ...........................................................................................................................4

4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................44.1 Hydrology.........................................................................................................................................44.2 Water Quality Volume (WQv) ..........................................................................................................54.3 Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) .....................................................................................................74.4 Water Quantity Protections..............................................................................................................84.5 Proposed Stormwater Management ................................................................................................84.6 Proposed Drainage Treatment and Discharge ................................................................................8

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................9

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A – ExhibitsAppendix B – TablesAppendix C – CalculationsAppendix D – Soils Information

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES



2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This drainage report outlines the existing combined sewer systems within the project limits and the proposed drainage system for the Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement Project, PIN X731.55.

2.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS

The Project has multiple drainage systems within the project limits, as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 1 – Existing Drainage Systems. Based upon review of New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) existing sanitary and storm sewer records the Project area falls within a Combined Sewer area. The existing sewers include highway catch basins that collect stormwater from the roadways and sidewalks. The stormwater is combined with the sanitary sewers and conveyed to the Hunts Point Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The Hunts Point WWTP has a 200 million gallon per day (mgd) capacity. Flows that exceed the capacity of the conveyance and treatment system are discharged into the waterbodies via CSO outfalls permitted by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

In 2005 NYCDEP entered into a Consent Order to reduce combined sewer overflows from its system to improve the water quality of the surrounding waters. The latest modification to the CSO Consent Order was executed by NYSDEC on March 8, 2012 requiring NYCDEP to submit Long Term Control Plans (LTCP). The LTCP for the Bronx River watershed was submitted in 2015 and approved by NYSDEC on March 7, 2017. The LTCP lays out a detailed plan of capital and operational improvements to reduce CSO by Volume 37% by 2026. Implementing green infrastructure is part of the LTCP.

Below is an outline of the drainage systems within the project limits.

2.1 West of Hunts Point Avenue along Bruckner Boulevard Drainage System

West of Hunts Point Avenue along Bruckner Boulevard, stormwater is collected through various scuppers, catch basins and pipe systems along Bruckner Boulevard, the access road, and the Bruckner Expressway. This system is broken up into segments along Bruckner Boulevard. Between Southern Boulevard and East 149th Street, runoff is collected and led to a 3’-9” diameter combined sewer at the intersection of East 144th Street and Bruckner Boulevard. This pipe flows eastward to the Hunts Point WWTP. Between East 149th Street and East 156th Street, runoff is piped to a 7’-3” by 11’-0” combined box sewer at Leggett Avenue. This sanitary sewer system also flows east towards the Hunts Point WWTP. Between 156th Street and Hunts Point Avenue, runoff collects to Longwood Avenue, where there is a 7’-1” by 8’-6” combined box sewer, which flows east to the Hunts Point WWTP. See Appendix A, Exhibit 2 - West of Hunts Point Avenue As-Builts.

2.2 East of Hunts Point Avenue and Sheridan Expressway Drainage System

East of Hunts Point Avenue along Bruckner Boulevard and the access road, stormwater is collected via a combined sewer system. Catch basins collect stormwater and using various sized pipes, carry water northeast towards Aldus Street. In this vicinity, there are also scuppers that collect stormwater along the Bruckner Expressway and Sheridan Expressway. Through several 12” diameter downspouts, stormwater is directed to the Bruckner Boulevard combined sewer system. Once the system reaches Aldus Street, stormwater is diverted south towards the Hunts Point WWTP via an 11’ x 9’-9” box sewer that runs beneath Whittier Street. See Appendix A, Exhibit 3 - East of Hunts Point Avenue As-Builts.

2.3 Edgewater Road Drainage System

Edgewater Road has multiple drainage structures within the project limits. As stormwater runoff travels downhill from Bruckner Boulevard, in the South direction, the first catch basins encountered are at the intersection of Garrison Avenue and Edgewater Road. The stormwater from these catch basins are piped westward along Garrison Avenue through a 30” pipe. At the intersection of Garrison Avenue and Whittier



3

Street, a 12’-0” by 9’-6.5” combined box sewer conveys the stormwater from Edgewater Road. This combined sewer runs South beneath Garrison Avenue and feeds to the Hunts Point WWTP. Runoff along Edgewater Road between Garrison Avenue and Lafayette Avenue is collected in catch basins which drain to a 30” pipe under Seneca Avenue. This 30” pipe also leads to the combined sewer under Whittier Street. See Appendix A, Exhibit 4 - Edgewater Road As-Builts.

2.4 East of Bronx River Drainage System

Within the project limits, there is a combined sewer system east of the Bronx River. Along the Bruckner Expressway, stormwater is collected through catch basins, which gets piped to the eastbound side of the Bruckner Boulevard. Once the stormwater reaches the Bruckner Boulevard, it flows east through a larger pipe which, according to NYCDEP records, is eventually conveyed to the Hunts Point WWTP. See Appendix A, Exhibit 5 - East of Bronx River As-Builts.

2.5 Existing Soils

The available Soil Survey indicates the following soil types within the Project area: Laguardia-Urban Land Complex (LUA) Laguardia-Urban Land Complex (LUB) Urban Land-Grenbelt Complex (UGA) Urban Land-Grenbelt Complex (UGB) Urban Land, tidal marsh substratum (UmA) Urban Land, til substratum (UtA) Urban Land, til substratum (UtB) Urban Land, til substratum (UtC)

Appendix D, Exhibit 1 - Existing Soils Map indicates the soil boundaries within the Project area. Descriptions of the Soils can be found in Appendix D.

Soil borings were performed at select locations during the January-March 2018 geotechnical investigation. Appendix D includes boring locations and preliminary boring logs from the January-March 2018 field activities.

3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS

This Project is divided into two proposed drainage conditions: redevelopment of the existing roadways and new development of additional ramps. Appendix A, Exhibit 6 - Redevelopment vs. New Development depicts the areas of the Project that would be new development as compared to the redeveloped sections.

The redevelopment and new development areas are described below.

3.1 Redevelopment

A calculated 96% of this Project constitutes redevelopment of roadways and other impervious surfaces. In the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual (SMDM), January 2015, Chapter 9, redevelopment is defined as reconstruction of any existing impervious surface that involves disturbance of the bottom 6-inch layer of subbase material. The drainage systems for these areas would be similar to the existing systems. Highway drainage inlets would collect stormwater into the combined sewers, which would be conveyed to the Hunts Point WWTP. For elevated structures, the drainage systems would consist of bridge scuppers and connecting pipes into the combined sewers.

The proposed new ramps BL, LB, the southern portion of Ramp ES, the northern portion of Ramp ES, Bruckner Expressway to Sheridan Boulevard, and Sheridan Boulevard to Bruckner Expressway would be



4

built over existing impervious paved area; therefore, the construction of these ramps would not increase the total impervious area.

The runoff from these areas would continue to be conveyed to the Hunts Point WWTP via a series of existing highway drainage basins and sewer piping. For elevated structures, the drainage systems would consist of bridge scuppers and connecting pipes into the combined sewers. During the redevelopment construction phase and in the final condition, low and high point locations may change, however, the same runoff quantity would enter the existing system. There are no plans for additional treatment within the redevelopment areas other than scheduled maintenance and cleaning.

Table 3.1.1 below details the existing and proposed impervious areas for the entire Project.

Table 3.1.1Increase in Impervious Area

Square Feet AcresExisting Impervious Area 769,085 17.65Proposed Impervious Area 801,985 18.41Increased Impervious Area 32,900 0.76

3.2 New Development

The construction of the Edgewater Ramps (Ramps SE, ESS and ESN) is considered new development. See Appendix A, Exhibit 6 - Redevelopment vs. New Development. The stormwater management system for new development must meet the requirements of the SMDM for stormwater quality and quantity. The proposed new development would be paved, impervious area. In additional, the stormwater runoff must be directed to a treatment system that does not include the combined NYCDEP sewer system.

The new construction consists of elevated structures over a primarily pervious, vegetated area. Stormwater would be collected via bridge scuppers and connected with piping to the new stormwater management facility. A new outfall into the Bronx River would be constructed.

Section 4.0 of this report outlines a preliminary design of proposed stormwater management measures.

4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

Per Chapter 9 of the NYSDEC SMDM, if there are no changes to hydrology that increase the discharge rate within a redevelopment area, the ten-year storm and 100-year storm quantity controls do not apply. Similarly, channel protection controls are not required if there is no increase in impervious area or changes to hydrology that increases the discharge rate. In addition, because the redevelopment area coincides with a combined sewer area, a SPDES permit is not required and the Project is not required to follow the NYSDEC SMDM guidelines in this area.

For the 4% of the Project that constitutes new development, the SMDM would be followed for water quality and quantity treatment and controls and both a SPDES permit and SWPPP would be required.

4.1 Hydrology

During final design proposed drainage conditions for the closed drainage system would be assessed according to the Rational Method using the 10 year storm event. This method is generally utilized for calculating peak flows in small rural watersheds and for urban drainage design. The Rational Method predicts peak flows based on rainfall intensity and the contributing drainage area. Contributing Area (A): Based on available mapping, the contributing area (acres) to each scupper would be determined within the new development Project limits.



5

Runoff Coefficient (C): A runoff coefficient of 0.85 would be used for the Project limits to represent paved conditions.

Rainfall Intensity (R): Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) would be calculated as a function of the time of concentration and design flood frequency. Per Chapter 8 of the New York State Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual for interstates and other freeways a design flood frequency of 10 years (5.5 inches total rain for 24 hours per NOAA Atlas 14) should be used. However, the rainfall intensity (R) would be calculated per the NYCDEP calculation method, based on the following:

R = 140 in/hrt + 15

Where t represents the time of concentration. Based on NYCDEP and NYSDOT guidelines, a minimum time of concentration of 6 minutes would be used.

Based on the Rational Method, total runoff from the system would be calculated using:

Q = CRA (in ft3/s)

The results based on the equations and methods above are as follows: Contributing Area (A): Based on available mapping, the contributing area is 1.82 acres. This area

includes the additional proposed impervious area due to construction of 0.76 acres as shown in Table 3.1.1, above. This proposed drainage and treatment system would alleviate the contributing area of the existing combined sewer system by 1.13 acres. See Appendix A, Exhibit 7 – Proposed Contributing Drainage Area.

Runoff Coefficient (C): A runoff coefficient of 0.85 is used for this calculation as the contributing area is all paved.

Rainfall Intensity (R): Calculated to be 6.67 in/hr using NYCDEP methodology. Total runoff: The proposed system produces a total runoff of 10.4 ft3/s for a 10-year storm, which would

be discharged into the Bronx River. See Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail. Additional runoff to the existing combined sewer systems discussed in sections 3.1 through 3.4 is not anticipated. See Appendix B, Table 1 – Proposed Drainage System.

4.2 Water Quality Volume (WQv)

Calculations of water quality are necessary based on the criteria specified in the NYSDEC SMDM.

From the SMDM:

The Water Quality Volume (denoted as the WQv) is intended to improve water quality by capturing and treating runoff from small, frequent storm events that tend to contain higher pollutant levels. New York has defined the WQv as the volume of runoff generated from the entire 90th percentile rain event. Essentially what this means is that a practice sized using the WQv will capture and treat 90% of all 24 hour rain events. The WQv is directly related to the amount of impervious cover constructed at a site.

The following equation can be used to determine the water quality volume WQv (in acre-feet of storage):

WQv = 𝑃 ∗ 𝑅𝑣 ∗ 𝐴 12

where: WQv = water quality volume (in acre-feet) P = 90% Rainfall Event Number (1.5” from Figure 4.1of the NYS SMDM) Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I), where I is percent impervious cover A = site area in acres (Contributing area)



6

The calculated WQv for the new impervious area, 0.76 acres, proposed to enter this new system is 0.09 acre-feet. The calculated WQv for the additional 1.13 acres of existing impervious area proposed to enter this new system is 0.14 acre-feet. Combined, the total calculated WQv for this new system is 0.23 acre-feet for the entire contributing area of 1.89 acres. Appendix C includes the WQv calculations for the new development areas.

NYSDEC allows selection of proprietary systems that are verified or certified through one of the following: the United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Technology Verification Program; the state of Washington Technology Assessment Protocol - Ecology (TAPE); the Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership Protocol (TARP - primarily New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology); the state of Maryland Department of the Environment; and several other evaluation systems. NYSDEC looks for the proprietary systems to meet removal of 80% of total suspended solids (TSS). The proposed treatment device is a hydrodynamic separator. This type of device capacity is measured in a flow rate, cubic feet per second (cfs). Per Chapter 9 of the SMDM, for flow through treatment practices, the practice must be sized to treat the peak rate of runoff from the WQv design storm. Using methodology from Appendix B of the SMDM and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Technical Release 55 manual, the following equations were used:

[Equation 2-1 of the USDA TR-55 manual]𝑄 = (𝑃 ‒ 𝐼𝑎)2

(𝑃 ‒ 𝐼𝑎) + 𝑆

where:

Q = runoff (in)P = 90% Rainfall Event Number (1.5” from Figure 4.1of the NYS SMDM)S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (in)

= initial abstraction (in) 𝐼𝑎

= 0.2S [Equation 2-2 of the USDA TR-55 manual] 𝐼𝑎

where:

= initial abstraction (in) 𝐼𝑎S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (in)

[Equation 2-4 of the USDA TR-55 manual]𝑆 = 1000

𝐶𝑁 ‒ 10

where:

S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (in)CN = Runoff curve number

From Table 2-2a in the USDA TR-55 manual, a CN of 98 would be used for this Project as the area being analyzed is paved, using curbs and storm sewers. Using equation 2-4 of the USDA TR-55 manual, S is calculated as 0.204 inches. Using equation 2.2 of the USDA TR-55 manual, = 0.0408 inches. Q is 𝐼𝑎calculated as 1.28 using equation 2-1 of the USDA TR-55 manual.

The following equation is used to calculate the Peak Discharge Rate:

[Equation 4-1 of the USDA TR-55 manual]𝑞𝑝 = 𝑞𝑢𝐴𝑚𝑄𝐹𝑝



7

where:

= peak discharge (cfs)𝑞𝑝 = unit peak discharge (csm/in)𝑞𝑢 = drainage area (sqmi)𝐴𝑚

Q = runoff (in) = pond and swamp adjustment factor 𝐹𝑝

The unit peak discharge is found using Exhibit 4-III in the USDA TR-55 manual assuming a 6 minute time of concentration from NYCDEP and NYSDOT standards and a /P rate of 0.027. The drainage area used 𝐼𝑎for this calculation is the contributing area for this proposed system; a combined 1.89 acres which includes 0.76 acres of new impervious area and 1.13 acres of existing impervious area, converted to square miles. The runoff, Q, is calculated above in equation 2-1 of the USDA TR-55 manual. A pond and swamp adjustment factor of 1.00 is used based on Table 4-2 in the USDA TR-55 manual. The new impervious area proposed to enter the new system, 0.76 acres, produces a peak discharge of 1.07 cfs. The existing impervious area proposed to enter the new system, 1.13 acres, produces a peak discharge of 1.58 cfs. Combined, the total calculated peak discharge is 2.65 cfs. See Appendix C for Peak Discharge Calculations. The capacity of the selected hydrodynamic separator would exceed the 2.65 cfs calculated above.

4.3 Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv)

From the SMDM:

Construction activities that cannot achieve 100% reduction of the total WQv due to site limitations shall direct runoff from all newly constructed impervious areas to a RR technique or standard SMP with RRv capacity unless infeasible. In no case shall the runoff reduction achieved from the newly constructed impervious areas be less than the minimum runoff reduction volume (RRvmin).

The minimum runoff reduction volume (RRvmin) is determined by the following equation:

RRvmin = P * Rv * Aic * S 12

where:

RRvmin= Minimum runoff reduction volume required from impervious area (acre-feet)Rv= 0.05+0.009(I) where I is 100% imperviousAic= Total area of new impervious coverS = Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) Specific Reduction Factor (S) (This is assumed as C since many of the site soils are not classified)

The calculated RRv for the new impervious area, 0.76 acres, proposed to enter this new system is 0.027 acre-feet. The calculated RRv for the additional 1.13 acres of existing impervious area proposed to enter this new system is 0.04 acre-feet. Combined, the total calculated RRv for this new system is 0.067 acre-feet for the entire contributing area of 1.89 acres. See Appendix C for the Runoff Reduction Volume calculations.

The proposed stormwater management practices would include an in-ground hydrodynamic separator unit and an outfall into the Bronx River. This system would not meet minimum runoff reduction requirements per the SMDM. It was determined that a system to meet these requirements would not be feasible to construct as part of the Project due to inadequate area to install a stormwater basin.



8

4.4 Water Quantity Protections

According to the SMDM, water quantity protections such as channel protection volume, Q10, and Q100 volumes are not required, if the management measure outlets directly to a tidal water. Since the proposed outfall outlets to the Bronx River, which is a tidal water, these protections are not warranted.

4.5 Proposed Stormwater Management

Following the Rational Method outlined in section 4.1, the hydrologic characteristics for the proposed system have been calculated and are presented in Appendix B, Table 1 – Proposed Drainage System.

The preliminary design of the proposed stormwater management measures can be found in Appendix C. All runoff from the area designated in Appendix A, Exhibit 7 – Proposed Contributing Drainage Area would be collected in catch basins and scuppers and piped along the bridge structures to a lower location on Edgewater Road, as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail. At this collection point, the runoff would flow to a proposed hydrodynamic separator treatment device, which would be designed to accommodate the Peak Discharge calculated in section 4.2. The unit is further explained below in section 4.6.

4.6 Proposed Drainage Treatment and Discharge

Refer to Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail for further details.

Collection

The collection system for the new ramp construction would be via scuppers and connected piping. Once the new ramps are on retaining wall structures the runoff would be collected into catch basins with connecting pipes.

Treatment

The specific system would be selected during final design. The preliminary design system indicates stormwater from the new ramp structures would be directed to an in-ground hydrodynamic separator unit (HSU) sized to meet the Water Quality Volume (WQv) for the new impervious area. The shallow treatment unit traps and retains trash, debris, sediment, and hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. The system’s large swirl concentrator and flow controls work together to create a low energy environment, ideal for capturing and retaining particles down to 50 microns.1 The unit would be located within a permanent easement between Edgewater Road and the Bronx River. The easement is of adequate size to park a vehicle to perform periodic maintenance activities of the HSU and outfall. An overflow structure would be included upstream of the HSU directing flow other than the WQv directly to the outfall.

Untreated stormwater enters the swirl chamber through an inlet pipe and the swirling motion of the water within the chamber promotes gravitational separation of solids which settle on the chamber floor. Stormwater then exits the swirl chamber, where a baffle wall traps floatables and hydrocarbons. Stormwater flows under the baffle wall into the flow control chamber which contains separate flow controls for peaks and low-intensity flows.1 This hydrodynamic separator would be sized based on the standard specifications provided by approved manufacturers. The units vary in size based on the maximum flow rate it can treat. The model selected for this design would need to sufficiently treat and discharge the Peak Discharge calculated in section 4.2.

The treated stormwater flows to the outlet chamber and exits via the outlet pipe at the Bronx River.

1 Accessed February 5, 2018, http://www.conteches.com/products/stormwater-management/treatment/vortechs



9

Outfall

Whether treated or bypassed due to a high intensity storm, all runoff would be discharged to the Bronx River at the indicated location in Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail. The Mean High High Water elevation of the Bronx River is at an elevation of 3.7’. The proposed system would have an outfall invert at least 3’ higher than this, at 7.0’. Maintaining a minimum pipe slope of 0.5% back from the outfall, a 3.2’ vertical clearance between the top of the 24” pipe and the railroad tracks is provided, as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail. The pipe would outfall onto a gravel/rip rap apron.

Yearly, depending on runoff quality and quantity of debris, the unit would need to be cleaned using a vacuum truck. Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail shows the Right of Way lines which would allow for the construction of the system and the access for the required maintenance and cleaning.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions and recommendations are provided for the stormwater drainage design within the Project limits:

The existing combined sewer system would not collect additional runoff due to this project. The proposed drainage/treatment system is sized to include all new impervious area plus 1.13

acres of additional existing impervious area. The proposed hydrodynamic separator treatment component would be sized to accommodate

the calculated Peak Discharge. A runoff reduction method is not feasible for this project due to inadequate area to install a

stormwater basin. The proposed drainage/treatment system would outflow to the Bronx River.



Appendix AExhibits




West of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 2

Sheet 1 of 7Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3372













East of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 3
















Edgewater Road As-BuiltsExhibit 4


East of Bronx River As-BuiltsExhibit 5










PELHAM LINE

AMTRAK-HELLGATE LINE

BRUCKNER BLVD

GARRISON AVESOUTHERN BLVD

STORY AVE

COSTE

R ST

RANDALL AVE

AVE B

BRYA

NT AV

E

AVE A

OAK POINT AVE

AUSTIN PL

TIFFA

NY ST

HUNTS POINT AVE

DRAK

E ST

LEGGETT AVE

EAST

149 S

T

LONG

FELLO

W AV

E

TIMPSON PL

MANID

A ST

WHITT

IER ST

EXIT 48 WB

WHITLOCK A

VE

EDGE

WATER

RDSENECA AVE

FAILE

ST

EAST 141 ST WORT

HEN

ST

SHER

IDAN E

XPRES

SWAY

2 ST

EAST 140 ST

3 ST

1 ST

BRON

X RIVE

R AVE

HALLE

CK ST

GRINNELL PL

LAFAYETTE AVE

ALDUS ST

LONGWOOD AVE

BARR

ETTO

ST

HOE A

VE

EAST 144 ST

ELDER

AVE

DRIVE

WAY

DUPO

NT ST

REET

CASA

NOVA

ST

CLOS

E AVE

EAST 163 ST

BOYN

TON

AVE

COLG

ATE A

VE

CONC

RETE

PLANT

PARK

GREEN

WAY

WHEE

LER A

VE

WARD

AVE

IRVINE

ST

EAST 165 ST

EAST 156 ST

BRUCKNER EP WB EN SHERIDAN EP

CRAV

EN ST

REET

ALLEY

TRUXTON ST

MANO

R AVE

EAST 142 ST

EVER

GREE

N AV

E

BURNETT PL

LOWELL ST

MORR

ISON

AVE

SPOFFORD AVE

STRAT

FORD

AVE

BRON

X RIVER

SHOREL

INE

DRAKE PARK SOUTH

BARR

Y ST

WESTCHESTER AVE

EAST 147 ST

AVE S

T JOH

N

CONCORD AVE

EVER

GREE

N AV

E

TIFFANY ST

PELHAM LIN

E

MANID

A ST

FAILE

ST

BRYA

NT AV

E

FAILE

ST

LAFAYETTE AVE

BRYA

NT AV

E

ELDER

AVE

WHEE

LER A

VE

EAST 156 ST

BOYN

TON

AVE

WHITT

IER ST

SHERIDAN EXPRESSW

AY

DRAK

E ST

CLOS

E AVE

SOUTHERN BLVD

WORTHEN ST

COLG

ATE A

VE

FOX S

T

3 AVE

WHITE

PLAIN

S RD L

INE

UNION AVE

BECK ST

AVE F

WESTCHESTER AVEKELLY

ST

AVE D

1 ST

2 ST

EAST 149 ST

WALES AVE

BROOK AVE

EAST RIVER SHORELINE

AVE G

3 ST

ST ANNS A

VE

EAST 156 ST

EAST 138 STELD

ER A

VE

EAST BAY AVE

INTER

VALE

AVE

TIFFA

NY ST

EAGLE AVEBERGEN AVE

VIELE AVE

MARKET ST

WARD

AVE

CONCORD AVE

MANO

R AVEPRO

SPECT A

VEBRONX RIVER SHORELINE

ROGE

RS PL

WALNUT AVE

EAST 160 ST

PIER

WHEE

LER A

VE

TINTO

N AVE

HEWITT PL

LAFAYETTE AVE

ALLEY

BOYN

TON

AVE

EAST 148 ST

EAST 139 ST

FAILE

ST

SIMPS

ON ST

ST MARYS ST

LOCUST AVE

EVER

GREE

N AV

E

DAWSON ST

HOE A

VE

PELHAM LINE

EAST 172 ST

COLG

ATE A

VE

AVE E

JACKSON AVE

EAST 136 ST

EAST 151 ST

EAST 145 ST

EAST 137 ST

AVE C

EAST 150 ST

SOUNDVIEW PARK GREENWAY

SOUT

HERN

BOUL

EVAR

D

EAST 161 ST

LONGWOOD AVE

MELROSE A

VE

WEST FARMS RD

CYPRESS AVE

COSTE

R ST

MANID

A ST

EAST 165 ST

EAST 152 ST

CLOS

E AVE

EAST 144 STAV

E ST J

OHN

ELTON AVE

ALDUS ST

LEGG

ETT A

VE

BIKE PATH

STRAT

FORD

AVE

HALL PL

DRAK

E ST

BRYA

NT AV

E

EAST 141 ST

WHITT

IER STBA

RRETT

O ST

POWERS AVE

EAST 147 ST

EAST 146 ST

LONG

FELLO

W AV

E

MORR

ISON

AVE

EAST 162 ST

CASA

NOVA

ST

EAST 142 ST

BEEKMAN AVE

WATSON AVE

TRINITY

AVE

HALLE

CK ST

FORES

T AVE

EAST 163 ST

CRIMMINS AVE

FREEMAN ST

CAULDWELL

AVE

TIMPSON PL

AMTRAK-HELLGATE LIN

E

STORY AVE

HEGNEY

PL

EAST 140 ST

BRONX R

IVER AVE

EAST 143 ST

EAST 158 STEAST 157 ST EAST 164 ST

PEDESTRIAN PATH

METC

ALF A

VE

BRONX RIVER SHORELINE

PIER

TRINITY

AVE

EAST 151 ST

FAILE

ST

BRYA

NT AV

E

PIER

PELH AM LINE

EAST 151 ST

PIER

TRINI

TY A

VE

COLG

ATE A

VE

EAST 161 ST

FOX ST

PIER

CAULDWELL AVE

EAST 145 ST

JACKSON AVE

PIER

PIER

EAST 152 ST

SIMPS

ON STALLEY

KELLY ST

EAST 140 ST

EAST 150 ST

!#"$278

!#"$278

!#"$895

!#"$278

0 800 1,600400Feet

FPa

th: Q

:\972

9470

0\GIS\

Mxd\X

731.5

5\Sco

ping D

ocum

ent_R

evisi

on1\X

731.5

5_SD

_Con

cept1

_BA.

mxd

Figure 4Concept 1 - Edgewater/Leggett Split Interchange (Build Alternative)X731.55 HUNTS POINT INTERSTATE

ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

12/2

0/20

17B R O N X N E W Y O R K

RAMP LB

RAMP BL

PEDESTRIANBRIDGE

Sources: NAIP Digital Georectified Image, 2015, USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field Office

SLIPRAMP

SHERIDANNORTHBOUND RAMP

SHERIDANSOUTHBOUND RAMP

RAMP ESSRAMP SE

LEGEND

Concept 1 (Build Alternative)

General Study Area

Proposed New Ramps

RAMP ESN

H U N T S P O I N T F O O D D I S T R I B U T I O N C E N T E R

B R O N X R I V E R

E A S T R I V E R

7Redevelopment vs New Development

Exhibit 6Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3393



ON:

AFFIX SEAL:

FIL

E

NA

ME

=

US

ER

=

DA

TE/

TI

ME

=

ON:

ALTERED BY:

SHALL STAMP THE DOCUMENT AND INCLUDE THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THEIR SIGNATURE, THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION, AND A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION.

TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE STAMP OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR,

REGION:

SA

BN

B

X731.55

11

URS/DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, INC.

D

1:0

0:3

3

PM

erizzo

BRIDGES CULVERTSPIN

JO

B

MA

NA

GE

RD

ESIG

N

SU

PE

RVIS

OR

COUNTY:

PR

OJ

EC

T

MA

NA

GE

RD

ESIG

ND

RA

FTIN

GC

HE

CK

CH

EC

K

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS:

AS-BUILT REVISIONS ALL DIMENSIONS IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

CONTRACT NUMBER

DRAWING NO.

BRONX

HUNTS POINT ACCESS IMPROVEMENT

HUNTS POINT INTERSTATE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

pw:/../../../../../../

X731.5

5_

Bruc

kner_

EIS

Truc

k

Access/

CA

D/01

AE

CO

M/

Civil/

Edge

water

Rd

Ra

mps/

X73155_P

RS_

GN

P_120-

AE

CO

M .D

GN

GRIDNORTH

0 20 40 60 80'20

1" = 40'

10

010

20

30

40'

10 0 10 40'20 30

HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"= 20'

VE

RTIC

AL

SC

AL

E 1"= 20'

SHEET NO. 1 OF 1

EXHIBIT 8

DRAINAGE LAYOUT DETAIL

CL

OSE

D

ES 17

+00

ES 18

+00

ES 19+00

31433143

12'-0"

6'-

0"

OUTFALL

15'

AA

24" PIPE24" PIPE

8" PIPE8" PIPE

CHAMBER

DIVERSION TO RIVER BANK

RIP RAP APRON

GARRISON AVE

ED

GE

WATE

R

RO

AD

p

p

HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR

2424

8'-

3"

12'-0"

0

4

8

12

16

20

-4

-8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250-10-20-30

0

4

8

12

16

20

-4

-8

EDGEWATER

ROAD

RAMP ES

BLSW 15' BUFFERTRACKS

RAIL

INV. 7.0'

INV. 7.53'

MINIMUM

(MHHW) ELEV.=3.7'

MEAN HIGH HIGH WATER

MIN. 3.2'MIN. 3.0'

SLOPE=2.1% 18" PIPESLOPE=0.5% 24" PIPE

SLOPE=0.645% 18" PIPESLOPE=0.714% 24" PIPE

7' 12'

CHAMBER

DIVERSION

APRON

RIP RAP

SECTION A-A (THROUGH HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR)

HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR



Appendix BTables


Job

R=140

COMBINED SEWER DESIGN Location Computed By ER Date

NOTES: Date Checked By Date

Datum Approved By Date

Revised By Date

Checked By Date

Approved By Date

LOCATION FROM TOAREA

(Acres)

RUN-OFF

COEFF.

"C"

WTD.

AREA

(Acres)

TOTAL

WTD.

AREA

RAINFALL

INTENSIT

Y (IN./HR.)

TOTAL

STORM

RUNOFF

(CFS)

UPPER

END

(ft)

LOWER

END

(ft)

UPPER

END

(ft)

LOWER

END

(ft)

UPPER

END

(ft)

LOWE

R END

(ft)

FALL (ft)LENGTH

(ft)

SLOPE

(%)

DIMENSION

OF SEWER

(in)

CAPACITY

OF SEWER

(CFS)

VEL.

(FPS)

UPPER

END OF

SECT.

IN

SECTION

LOWER

END OF

SECT.

REMARKS DWG. NO.

SHERIDAN CB2 MH1 0.15 0.85 0.13 0.13 6.67 0.85 74.50 60.00 72.15 58.00 2.35 2.00 14.15 271 5.221 8 2.76 7.91 6.00 0.57 6.57RCP

n=0.013

SHERIDAN MH1 CB4 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.13 6.67 0.85 60.00 57.85 57.90 55.85 2.10 2.00 2.05 44 4.659 8 2.61 7.48 6.00 0.10 6.10RCP

n=0.013


n=0.013

SHERIDAN MH2 MH3 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.39 6.67 2.62 58.00 59.00 54.05 53.80 3.95 5.20 0.25 40 0.625 12 2.82 3.59 6.00 0.19 6.19RCP

n=0.013


n=0.013


n=0.013


n=0.013


n=0.013


n=0.013


n=0.013


n=0.013

SHERIDAN CB10 CB11 0.14 0.85 0.12 0.73 6.67 4.90 43.00 23.30 40.70 21.30 2.30 2.00 19.40 300 6.467 15 16.43 13.39 6.00 0.37 6.37RCP

n=0.013


n=0.013


n=0.013


n=0.013

SHERIDAN CB14 VORTECH 0.03 0.85 0.03 1.55 6.67 10.37 13.70 13.70 8.75 8.50 4.95 5.20 0.25 35 0.714 24 19.12 6.09 6.00 0.10 6.10RCP

n=0.013

SHERIDAN CB5 MH5A 0.15 0.85 0.13 0.13 6.67 0.85 62.50 59.50 60.50 57.50 2.00 2.00 3.00 95 3.158 8 2.15 6.16 6.00 0.26 6.26RCP

n=0.013

SHERIDAN MH5A MH6A 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.13 6.67 0.85 59.50 58.00 57.40 56.00 2.10 2.00 1.40 80 1.750 8 1.60 4.58 6.00 0.29 6.29RCP

n=0.013

SHERIDAN MH6A CB7 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.13 6.67 0.85 58.00 58.01 55.90 55.50 2.10 2.51 0.40 66 0.606 8 0.94 2.69 6.00 0.41 6.41RCP

n=0.013

DRAINAGE STUDY

10 YEAR STORM - BRUCKNER TRUCK ACCESS

BOROUGH OF THE BRONX

BRUCKNER TRUCK ACCESS

EDGEWATER RD 2/7/2016

- ALL PIPES CIRCULAR 2/7/2016

- RUNOFF COEFFICIENT BASED ON ACTUAL LAND COVER

- FOR DESIGN PURPOSES, PIPE LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED

FROM CENTER OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE STORM FLOW SURFACE ELEV. INNER TOP ELEV. COVER TIME ELAPSED (MIN.)

Storm-10 (2) NO SHERIDAN .85 Page 1 of 2 Q:\2947\PIN X731.55 Bruckner Truck Access\Tech\DRAINAGE\References\EDGEWATER CALS

Proposed Drainage SystemTable 1

Sheet 1 of 2


Job

R=140

COMBINED SEWER DESIGN Location Computed By ER Date

NOTES: Date Checked By Date

Datum Approved By Date

Revised By Date

Checked By Date

Approved By Date

LOCATION FROM TOAREA

(Acres)

RUN-OFF

COEFF.

"C"

WTD.

AREA

(Acres)

TOTAL

WTD.

AREA

RAINFALL

INTENSIT

Y (IN./HR.)

TOTAL

STORM

RUNOFF

(CFS)

UPPER

END

(ft)

LOWER

END

(ft)

UPPER

END

(ft)

LOWER

END

(ft)

UPPER

END

(ft)

LOWE

R END

(ft)

FALL (ft)LENGTH

(ft)

SLOPE

(%)

DIMENSION

OF SEWER

(in)

CAPACITY

OF SEWER

(CFS)

VEL.

(FPS)

UPPER

END OF

SECT.

IN

SECTION

LOWER

END OF

SECT.

REMARKS DWG. NO.

DRAINAGE STUDY

10 YEAR STORM - BRUCKNER TRUCK ACCESS

BOROUGH OF THE BRONX

BRUCKNER TRUCK ACCESS

EDGEWATER RD 2/7/2016

- ALL PIPES CIRCULAR 2/7/2016

- RUNOFF COEFFICIENT BASED ON ACTUAL LAND COVER

- FOR DESIGN PURPOSES, PIPE LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED

FROM CENTER OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE STORM FLOW SURFACE ELEV. INNER TOP ELEV. COVER TIME ELAPSED (MIN.)

SHERIDAN CB7 MH7A 0.16 0.85 0.13 0.26 6.67 1.75 58.01 57.50 55.40 55.00 2.61 2.50 0.40 80 0.500 12 2.52 3.21 6.00 0.42 6.42RCP

n=0.013

SHERIDAN MH7A CB9 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.26 6.67 1.75 57.50 43.00 54.90 41.00 2.60 2.00 13.90 300 4.633 12 7.67 9.77 6.00 0.51 6.51RCP

n=0.013

SHERIDAN CB9 CB12 0.14 0.85 0.12 0.38 6.67 2.53 43.00 40.90 2.10 0.00 40.90 298 13.725 12 13.20 16.81 6.00 0.30 6.30RCP

n=0.013

Storm-10 (2) NO SHERIDAN .85 Page 2 of 2 Q:\2947\PIN X731.55 Bruckner Truck Access\Tech\DRAINAGE\References\EDGEWATER CALS

Proposed Drainage SystemTable 1

Sheet 2 of 2



Appendix CCalculations


PIN X731.55 Redevelopment/New Development Area Tabulation

ID LOCATION DESCRIPTION AREA (SQ FT) LEVEL IN MICROSTATION AREA DISTURBED (SQ FT) COMMENT NEW IMPERV. (SQ FT)

A1 BR EX MAIN 658,800 1-DECK REHAB 0 ELEVATED STRUC. ONLY 0

R1 32,913 2-REMOVE RAMP 32900 0

R2 LB 44,886 3-ADD RAMP 44900 0

R3 BL 85,753 3-ADD RAMP 85800 0

R4 SHER SB 63,200 3-ADD RAMP 63200 0

R5 SHER NB 47,500 3-ADD RAMP 47500 0

B2 BR EX FILL 70,700 4-FILL 70700 0

B3 BR EX 24,657 5-AT GRADE 24655 0

B4 BR EX 9,345 5-AT GRADE 9345 0

B5 BR BL 2,420 5-AT GRADE 2400 0

A2 EDGE -SEN 14,456 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0

B6 EDGE-RAMPS 26,000 5-AT GRADE 26000 0

B7 RR BRIDGES 27,750 6-BRIDGE REPLACE 27750 0

R6 BR EXPWY 56,000 5-AT GRADE 56000 0

R7_4_1 SE ES 19,700 4-FILL 19700 0

R7_3 SE ES 5,955 3-ADD RAMP 5955 0

R7_8 SE ES 32,900 8-NEW IMPERVIOUS 32900 32900

R7_4_2 SE ES 15,150 4-FILL 15150 0

A3 EDGE-RIGHT TURN 11,400 5-AT GRADE 11400 AT GRADE 0

B8 BR EX APPROACH 20,365 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0

B9 BR EX E APPROACH 20,423 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0

A4 BR BL E BOUND 39,318 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0

B10 BR BL E BOUND 7,739 3-ADD RAMP 7700 WIDEN EXPWY 0

B11 BR EX FILL 51,290 4-FILL 51300 0

B12 BR EX 24,030 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0

A5 BR BLVD W BOUND 47,090 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0

B13 BR EX 34,049 1-DECK REHAB 0 0

B14 BR EX FILL 25,567 4-FILL 25600 0

B15 BR BLVD 8,979 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0

A6 BR BLVD SW 1,372 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0

R8 SH SB FILL 16,400 4-FILL 16400 0

R9 SH EX FILL 12,000 4-FILL 12000 0

R10 SH NB FILL 15,500 4-FILL 15500 0

R11 SH NB FILL 6,889 4-FILL 6890 0

R12 SH EX 80,340 5-AT GRADE 80340 0

R13 ES SE FILL 10,000 4-FILL 10000 0

Totals 801,985 32,900

AREAS OF DISTURBANCE (SQ FT)

TOTAL DISTURBED AREA TOTAL EXISTING PERVIOUS AREATOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA

801,985 32900 769,085

FUTURE PERVIOUS AREA FUTURE IMPERVIOUS AREA

0 801,985

AREAS OF DISTURBANCE (ACRES)

TOTAL DISTURBED AREA TOTAL EXISTING PERVIOUS AREATOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA

18.41 0.76 17.66

FUTURE PERVIOUS AREA FUTURE IMPERVIOUS AREA

0.00 18.41

5/8/2018


PIN X731.55 Water Quality Volume (WQv)

Calculate Water Quality Volume

NYSDOT HDM Appendix B-14

Wqv = P*Rv * A /12 A = 100% New Dev + 25% Redev

Rv = 0.05 + .009(IC)

WQV 0.090 acre feet 90% RULE

INPUTS FOR WQV

Rv

P(inch) (90%

rainfall event number)

A (acres) - Total Disturbed Area for

the Entire Project N = NEW DEV. IMP AREA

R = REDEV

IMPERV AREA

0.95 1.5 18.41 0.76 4.41

WQv New Dev 0.09 Acre-Feet

Rv = see below = 0.05 + .009(IC) WQv Redev 0.52 Acre-Feet

Rv = 0.95

INPUTS FOR Rv

IC = = (DIST. REDEV + DIST. DEVE ) / (ENTIRE DISTURBED AREA) * 100

IC = 100

(entire disturbed area will be impervious)

5/8/2018


Pin X731.55Peak Discharge Calculations (qu) (cfs)

P 1.5 inchesCN 98 (Table 2-2a)S 0.204082Ia 0.040816Q 1.280143 inchesqu 700 csm/inAm 0.002953 square milesFp 1 (Table 4-2)qp 2.646295 cfs


PIN X731.55 Runoff Reduction Volume (RRvmin)

Calculate Runoff Reduction Volume

RRv min = P * Rv * Aic * S /12

Rv = .05 + .009*I where I is 100% impervious

Aic Total new area of impervious cover

S hydrologic soil group specific reduction factor

RRv min 0.027 acre ft

P Rv AiC S

1.5 0.95 0.76 0.3

SOIL FACTOR "S"

Soils FACTOR % ON SITE WEIGHTED "S"

A 0.55

B 0.4 0.3

C 0.3 1

D 0.2

Soils in AOI

map unit symbol acres in aoi percent in aoi PERCENT - rev. to exclude water HSG

LUA 1.1 1.2 1.210121012 C

UGA 0.4 0.5 0.440044004 UNRANKED (C assumed)

UMA 35.7 38.9 39.27392739 UNRANKED (C assumed)

UTA 38 41.4 41.80418042 UNRANKED (C assumed)

UTB 15.7 17.1 17.27172717 UNRANKED (C assumed)

WATER 0.9 1

TOTAL 91.8 100.1 100

5/8/2018



Appendix DSoils Information


BRUCKNER EXPRESSWAY

UtB

UtA

UtA

UtA

UtB

UmA

UmA

W

UmA

UtB

UtB

UtB

LUA

UGA

UmA

LUB

UGA

LUAUGA

UtB

LUA

UtA

UtC

UGA

UGB

UGB

LaA

PELHAM LINE

AMTRAK-HELLGATE LINE

BRUCKNER BLVD

GARRISON AVE

SOUTHERN BLVD

WHITT

IER ST

STORY AVE

AUSTIN PL

BRON

X RIVE

R SHO

RELIN

E

FAILE

ST

LEGGETT AVE

EAST

149 S

T

TIFFANY ST

TIMPSON PL

EXIT 48 WB

WHITLOCK A

VE

EDGE

WATER

RD

SENECA AVE

BARRETTO ST

EAST 141 ST

SHER

IDAN E

XPRES

SWAY

EAST 140 ST

DRAK

E ST

BRON

X RIVE

R AVE

LONG

FELLO

WAV

E

GRINNELL PL

ALDUS ST

AVE A

HUNTS POINT AVE

HOE A

VE

EAST 144 ST

ELDER

AVE

BRYA

NT AV

E

LONGWOOD AVE

CLOS

E AVE

EAST 163 ST

BOYN

TON

AVE

COLG

ATE A

VE

CONC

RETE

PLANT

PARK

GREEN

WAY

MANID

A ST

WHEE

LER A

VE

IRVINE

ST

EAST 165 ST

EAST 156 ST

EAST 142 STEV

ERGR

EEN

AVE

BURNETT PL

LOWELL ST

HALLE

CK ST

WORTHEN ST

BARR

Y ST

EASTERN BLVD BRIDGE

WESTCHESTER AVE

AVE S

T JOH

N

LAFAYETTE AVE

SHERIDAN EP NB EN HUNTS PT AV

INTER

VALE

AVE

CONCORD AVE

EVER

GREE

N AV

E

SOUTHERN BLVD

PELHAM LIN

E

LAFAYETTE AVE

CLOS

E AVE

SHERIDAN

EXPR

ESSWAY

BRON

X RIVE

R SHO

RELIN

E

FAILE

ST

WHEE

LER A

VE

ELDER

AVE

PELHAM LINE

BRON

X RIVE

R SHOREL

INE

EAST 156 ST

FOX S

T

WHITE PLAINS RD LINE

2 ST

UNION AVE

BECK ST

3 AVE

WESTCHESTER AVE

3 ST

KELLY

ST1 ST

COSTE

R ST

WALES AVE

JACKSON AVE

EAGLE AVE

AVE B

BROOK AVE

BRYA

NT AV

E

EAST 156 ST

RANDALL AVE

AVE C

EAST 149 ST

AVE F

AVE D

INTER

VALE

AVE

OAK POINT AVE

HUNTS POINT AVE

ST ANNS A

VE

CONCORD AVE

DRAK

E ST

PROSPE

CT AVE

ROGE

RS PL

EAST 160 ST

EAST RIVER SHORELINE FAILE

ST

TINTO

N AVE

HALLE

CK ST

LONG

FELLO

W AV

E

WHITT

IER ST

HEWI

TT PL

BERGEN AVE

ALLEY

WHEE

LER A

VE

EAST 139 STST MARYS ST

SIMPS

ON ST


DAWSON ST

EVER

GREE

N AV

E

WALNUT AVE

PELHAM LINE

HOE A

VE

COLG

ATE A

VE

LAFAYETTE AVE

AVE EEAST 138 ST

WORT

HEN

ST AVE A

EAST 145 ST

EAST 165 ST

EAST 150 ST

EAST 161 ST

SOUT

HERN

BOUL

EVAR

D

LONGWOOD AVELOCUST AVE

EAST 148 ST

WEST FARMS RD

AVE G

TIFFA

NY ST

MELROSE A

VE

CLOS

E AVE

MANID

A ST

ELDER

AVE

PIER

EAST 144 ST

AVE S

T JOH

N

ALDUS ST

LEGG

ETT A

VE

EAST 152 ST

ELTON AVE

BARR

ETTO

ST

EAST 151 ST

EAST 141 ST

HALL PL

CASA

NOVA

ST

SOUNDVIEW PARK GREENWAY

EAST 147 ST

EAST 162 ST

EAST 153 ST

EAST 142 ST

MACY PL

WATSON AVE

TRINITY

AVE

FORES

T AVE

EAST 163 ST

TRUXTON ST

CAULDWELL

AVE

TIMPSON PL

HEGNEY

PLFREEMAN ST

AMTRAK-HELLGATE LIN

EEAST 159 ST

EAST 146 ST

BRONX RIV

ERAVE

SPOFFORD AVE

UNNA

MED

ST

EAST 158 STEAST 157 ST

PEDESTRIAN PATH

EAST 155 ST

BURNETT PL

ST MA

RYS P

ARK B

OUND

ARY

HALLE

CK ST

FOX ST

TRINITY AVE

PIER

PIER

ALLEY EAST 163 ST

ALLEY

TIFFA

NY ST

EAST 151 ST

SOUTHERN

BOULEVARD

FAILE

ST

LAFAYETTE AVE

PIER


EAST 152 ST

COLG

ATE A

VE

JACKSON AVE

SIMPS

ON ST

EAST 158 ST

AVE D

CAULDWELL AVE

KELLY ST

PELHAM LINE

!#"$278

!#"$278

0 700 1,400350Feet

FPa

th: Q

:\972

9470

0\GIS\

Mxd\X

731.5

5\EIS

Grap

hics\C

hapt

er 4\N

atural

Resou

rces\X

731.5

5_EIS

_Soil

s Map

_2.m

xd

Sources: NAIP Digital Georectified Image, 2015, USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field Office,Soil Data: USDA, NRCS.

Figure 4.3.3-1Soils Map

B R O N X R I V E R

X731.55 HUNTS POINT INTERSTATEACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

8/23

/201

7

E A S T R I V E R

B R O N X N E W Y O R K

- Laguardia Artifactual Coarse Sandy Loam (LaA)- Laguardia-Urban Land Complex (LUA)- Laguardia-Urban Land Complex (LUB)- Urban Land-Greenbelt Complex (UGA)- Urban Land-Greenbelt Complex (UGB)- Urban Land, tidal marsh substratum (UmA)- Urban Land, till substratum (UtA)- Urban Land, till substratum (UtB)- Urban Land, till substratum (UtC)- Water (W)

LEGENDStudy AreaSoil Designations

H U N T S P O I N TM A R K E T


kdewkett

Text Box

Exhibit 1 Sheet 1 of 1

kdewkett

Text Box

Existing Soils Map

Bronx County, New York

LUA—Laguardia-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: 2qf9mElevation: 0 to 150 feetMean annual precipitation: 40 to 52 inchesMean annual air temperature: 47 to 62 degrees FFrost-free period: 216 to 234 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionLaguardia and similar soils: 60 percentUrban land, till substratum: 25 percentMinor components: 15 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Laguardia

SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder,

backslope, footslope, toeslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope,

crest, rise, dip, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveParent material: Loamy-skeletal human-transported material

Typical profile^Au - 0 to 8 inches: cobbly-artifactual coarse sandy loam^BCu - 8 to 26 inches: very cobbly-artifactual coarse sandy loam^Cu - 26 to 79 inches: very cobbly-artifactual coarse sandy loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 3 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: LowCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):

Moderately low to moderately high (0.01 to 1.42 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 19 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Low (about 3.1 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 1Hydrologic Soil Group: C

Map Unit Description: Laguardia-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County,New York

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

9/14/2017Page 1 of 3


Hydric soil rating: No

Description of Urban Land, Till Substratum

SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Asphalt over human-transported material

Typical profileM - 0 to 15 inches: cemented material2^C - 15 to 79 inches: gravelly sandy loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 3 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to manufactured layerRunoff class: Very highCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very

low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 8sHydric soil rating: Unranked

Minor Components

GreenbeltPercent of map unit: 7 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,

footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope, base

slope, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No

EbbetsPercent of map unit: 7 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,

footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, base


SecaucusPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): BackslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Dip, talf




9/14/2017Page 2 of 3


Down-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: ConcaveHydric soil rating: No

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Bronx County, New YorkSurvey Area Data: Version 6, Sep 23, 2016




9/14/2017Page 3 of 3



UGA—Urban land-Greenbelt complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: 2pblnElevation: 0 to 320 feetMean annual precipitation: 40 to 52 inchesMean annual air temperature: 47 to 62 degrees FFrost-free period: 216 to 234 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionUrban land, till substratum: 78 percentGreenbelt and similar soils: 12 percentMinor components: 10 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.







Description of Greenbelt

SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,


slope, talf

Map Unit Description: Urban land-Greenbelt complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County,New York



9/14/2017Page 1 of 3


Down-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexParent material: Loamy human-transported material

Typical profile^A - 0 to 5 inches: loam^Bw1 - 5 to 16 inches: loam^Bw2 - 16 to 30 inches: loam^C - 30 to 79 inches: sandy loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 3 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: LowCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):

Moderately high (0.43 to 1.42 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 30 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 1Hydrologic Soil Group: BHydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

LaguardiaPercent of map unit: 7 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder,


crest, rise, dip, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveHydric soil rating: No

CentralparkPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: ConvexHydric soil rating: No

North meadowPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope,

toeslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope, talf




9/14/2017Page 2 of 3


Down-slope shape: Linear, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, concaveHydric soil rating: No









9/14/2017Page 3 of 3



UmA—Urban land, tidal marsh substratum, 0 to 3 percentslopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: 2pbc9Elevation: 0 to 100 feetMean annual precipitation: 40 to 52 inchesMean annual air temperature: 47 to 62 degrees FFrost-free period: 216 to 234 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionUrban land, tidal marsh substratum: 92 percentMinor components: 8 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Urban Land, Tidal Marsh Substratum


Typical profileM1 - 0 to 6 inches: cemented materialM2 - 6 to 20 inches: cemented material2^C - 20 to 79 inches: very gravelly sand


low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)Depth to water table: About 20 inchesCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches)


Minor Components

LaguardiaPercent of map unit: 5 percent

Map Unit Description: Urban land, tidal marsh substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes---BronxCounty, New York



9/14/2017Page 1 of 2


Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder,backslope, footslope, toeslope

Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope,crest, rise, dip, talf

Down-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveHydric soil rating: No










Map Unit Description: Urban land, tidal marsh substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes---BronxCounty, New York



9/14/2017Page 2 of 2



UtA—Urban land, till substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes


Map Unit CompositionUrban land, till substratum: 92 percentMinor components: 8 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.







Minor Components



slope, talf

Map Unit Description: Urban land, till substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County, NewYork



9/14/2017Page 1 of 2


Down-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No













9/14/2017Page 2 of 2



UtB—Urban land, till substratum, 3 to 8 percent slopes


Map Unit CompositionUrban land, till substratum: 92 percentMinor components: 8 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.







Minor Components



slope, talf




9/14/2017Page 1 of 2


Down-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No













9/14/2017Page 2 of 2


Memorandum

The Hunts point access improvement boring program was completed by Aquifer Drilling and Testing (ADT). Borings started on Monday, January 22, 2018, and were completed on Friday, March 16, 2018. The thickness of the soil was typically 55 feet however, at two boring locations DNB-1 and DNB-11 soil was encountered to only 20 to 26 feet respectively. Where rock was encountered it was typically good recovery. Some locations had decomposed rock above bedrock. Rock was encountered at approximately 50 to 55 feet except as noted above. For borings located on pavement, asphalt was approximately1 ft-2 inches to 2 feet thick and soil was encountered at 2 feet. Soil encountered below the pavement was brown and grey gravelly SAND fill. Please see Appendix A for boring logs and the weekly boring report. Most borings were drilled in their intended locations However, borings DNB-2, DNB-3, and DNB-4 were relocated due to difficult access. Boring Number Reason for Relocation Resolution DNB-2 Restricted Access Low

Clearance Relocated 25 Feet North

DNB-3 Restricted Access Low Clearance

Relocated 25 Feet North

DNB-4 No Access to CSX track Relocated 250 Feet Southeast

Please see Appendix B for relocated borings. The water table was measured and was found to be approximately 14-29 feet below grade. This variation depended on the elevation of the borings. The borings within Garrison park were located approximately 20 feet below the Bruckner Expressway and the water table measured at 14 feet. The water table within borings located along the Bruckner measured at 29 feet. Water table measurements were taken during and after drilling.

To Nader Basta Page 1 CC Subject Hunts Point Access Improvement (Bronx)

From Joanna Smith Date 03/26/2018.


Hager Richter performed a geophysical penetration radar survey from Whitlock to Southern Avenue. The scope of work was to detect the limits of the train’s underground location to enable the protection of this underground facility during future phases of work. This study was completed in 3 days. The resulting report will be provided independently of this report. Environmental Planning & Management, Inc. (EPM) performed environmental sampling for ten of the thirteen borings completed, specifically DNB-4 through DNB-13. EPM completed 3-5 environmental samples for each boring. The results of the environmental testing will be provided independently of this report. MJ Engineering and Land Surveying completed the survey for boring locations DNB-1, through DNB-13. Please see the table below for the timeline of the completion for the Geotechnical Report, Invoice, and Bruckner Environmental report.

The surface soil at the site was found typically to be Sand based Fill of varying thickness. In 4 locations, (borings DN-B-8, DN-B-9, DN-B-10 and DN-B-12) a layer of soft to medium silty clay was encountered. Thickness of the silty clay layer ranged from 5 to 15 feet in thickness. These soils were overlying natural Gravelly Sand based soil. Boulders and refusal where encountered in multiple locations. Rock depth was observed to range from 26 to 55 feet below grade and often had decomposed rock above bedrock.

Company Role Completed Items Incomplete

Items

Submission dates

for Incomplete Items

1.AECOM Boring Inspector

a) Boring Logs

Bruckner Geotechnical Report

3 weeks (April 6, 2018)

2.ADT Drilling SUB a) Boring Plan completed

b) Invoice 1- (Jan-Feb)

Invoice 2-(Month of March)

1-2 weeks (April 2, 2018)

3.Hager Richter

Ground Penetrating Radar Study

a) Ground Penetrating Radar Study

b) Ground Penetrating Radar Study Report

Submitted on Friday March 16, 2018.

4.EPM Environmental Study

a) Environmental Borings

Bruckner Environmental Report

4-6 weeks (* Will be delivered to Dewberry) (April 27, 2018)

5. MJ Surveying

Surveying a) Surveying Boring Locations

Surveying for borings: DNB-2, DNB-3, DNB-4

1-3 days (March 22, 2018)


In terms of foundations, the presence of uncontrolled fills, and of compressible clays, indicates that shallow footings are not suitable to carry the foundation loads of the proposed elevated roadway. It is recommended that deep foundations are utilized for the roadway piers. Due to the number of obstructions encountered, a drilled foundation is more suitable than driven piles. Difficult pile driving would be anticipated because of the need to penetrate boulders and other obstructions. Drilled Shafts would be a more suitable foundation for these conditions. However, note that if the piers are subject to high lateral loads or overturning moments that rock sockets may be required in areas of shallow rock.


APPENDIX A


Hunts Point Access Improvement

Week No. (Date) Rig Borings Completed

Borings In Progress/Potential

Duration Boring Depth

1(Jan.22-Jan. 26) Rig: CME 55 Truck

DN-B-7 (E-4) 4days-DNB-7 (1/22-1/25)

Soil-50’,Rock:20’

2(Jan. 29-Feb. 2) Rig: CME 55 Truck

DN-B-8 (E-5)

DN-B-11 (E-10)

2 days-DNB-8 (1/26-1/29) 3days -DNB-11 (1/30-2/1)

Soil-45’,Rock-20’


3(Feb. 5-Feb. 9) Rig: CME 55 Truck Rig

DN-B-10(E-9)

DN-B-9(E-8)

2 days-DNB-10 (2/2-2/5)

3 days-DNB-9 (2/6-2/8)

Soil-52’(No RC)

Soil-105’(No RC)

4(Feb. 12- Feb. 16) DNB-6(E-3) 5days-DNB-6 2/8,2/12-2/15


5(Feb.19-Feb.23) DNB-5 (E-2)

DNB-12(E-6)

DNB-13(E-7)

DNB-1

3days-DNB5 2/8,2/15,2/19 3days-DNB-12 2/20-2/22 1day-DNB13 2/22-2/22 1day-DNB-1 2/23-2/23



Soil-20’, (No RC)


6(Feb.26-March 2)

7(Mar. 5-Mar. 9) DNB-2 4 days-DNB-2 2/28,3/1,3/4,3/5

Soil-52’, Rock:20’

8(Mar.12-Mar.16) DNB-4(E-1)

DNB-3

4 days-DNB-4 3/8-3/9,3/12-3/13 3 days-DNB-3 3/13-3/16



Note: *Hager Richter – MPT(Feb 9, 12 and 13th - Complete Geophysical Study)


























APPENDIX B



smithj13

Oval

smithj13

Oval

smithj13

Oval

smithj13

Typewritten Text

RELOCATED BORING

smithj13

Text Box

DNB-3 RELOCATED

smithj13

Line

smithj13

Text Box

DNB-2 RELOCATED

smithj13

Line


smithj13

Oval

smithj13

Line

smithj13

Sticky Note

DNB-5(E-2)

smithj13

Text Box

smithj13

Line

smithj13

Text Box

DNB-4 (E-1) Relocated

smithj13

Text Box

DNB-5 (E-2) Relocated

smithj13

Line

smithj13

Oval

smithj13

Oval

smithj13

Typewritten Text

RELOCATED BORING

Documents

Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement Project …Appendix B – Tables Appendix C – Calculations Appendix D – Soils Information TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES Volume