18-1 June 2021

Chapter 18: Public Health

18.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the analysis FRA conducted on the potential impacts to public health of the 

No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative. Environmental, social, demographic, and 

economic conditions drive the health and well-being of communities and are considered as part 

of this analysis. FRA’s conclusions regarding public health are based on the analyses of those 

resource categories that may be associated with the following public health effects: Air Quality, 

Noise, Contaminated Materials (concerning hazardous materials), and Water Quality, as 

presented in other chapters of this DEIS. 

18.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT

NEPA requires consideration of the potential effects of Federal actions on public health (42 USC 

4321). In accordance with 23 CFR Part 771 and relevant CEQ guidelines, FRA considered impacts 

to public health. FRA also considered the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 20, Section 300) 

for assessing potential impacts on public health.

Many of the laws and regulations protecting public health are resource-specific—for example, the 

CAA of 1970 and its amendments of 1990 (42 USC 7401), and the NAAQS (40 CFR 50). However, 

it is important to consider these laws and the impacts from resources in regard to overall public 

health concerns.

For details on the regulatory context for this resource category, please refer to Chapter 15 of 

Appendix B, “Methodology Report.”

18.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The Study Area for this resource category includes the Project Site and GENERALLY extends 

outward to include routes for travel of construction workers, materials, and services (as 

appropriate), and represents the distance that, based on CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, 

defines the area in which the Preferred Alternative could cause impacts. The Study Area for the 

public health impacts assessment coincides with the Study Areas of the resource category 

analyses for Air Quality (see Chapter 7), Noise and Vibration (see Chapter 8), Contaminated 

Materials (see Chapter 12), and Water Quality (see Chapter 15). The Study Area is consistent 

with study areas for the environmental analysis of similar projects in New York City.

Following CEQR Technical Manual guidance, a public health assessment is warranted for a 

specific resource category if there is an unmitigated adverse impact found related to public health, 

in resource areas such as air quality, water quality, hazardous materials, or noise.

Please see Analysis Methodology in Chapter 15 of Appendix B, for a complete detailed 

description of the data sources consulted and the analysis methodology FRA developed for this 

resource category. 
June 2021 18-2 

18.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the Affected Environment for each of the resource categories FRA has 

examined in this public health analysis.

18.4.1 AIR QUALITY

For the air quality analysis FRA conducted, Table 7-4 in Chapter 7, “Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, and Resilience,” presents the representative background concentrations of all criteria 

pollutants of concern within the Study Area. The NYSDEC collected the concentrations presented 

in that table at the air quality monitoring stations nearest the Preferred Alternative. 

18.4.2 NOISE AND VIBRATION

As discussed in Chapter 8, “Noise and Vibration,” the noise analysis considers nine receptors 

located near the Project Site, as summarized in Table 8-1 and Figure 8-1. These receptors 

represent noise-sensitive locations that would have the potential to experience noise level 

increases resulting from the construction or operation of the Preferred Alternative. Existing noise 

levels at each of the nine receptors were determined based on noise measurements at three 

representative noise-monitoring sites, as shown in Table 8-2.

18.4.3 CONTAMINATED MATERIALS

As discussed in Chapter 12, “Contaminated Materials,” the Study Area for the analysis of 

contaminated materials includes the Project Site and extends to the known environmental record 

sources in accordance with ASTM E1527-13. The Study Area, which includes portions of existing 

railroad infrastructure underlain by anthropogenic fill and sand, was formerly part of the Hudson 

River, which was filled to expand the Manhattan shoreline beginning in the latter half of the 1800s. 

Ground disturbance associated with construction of the Preferred Alternative could encounter soil 

and/or fill materials containing petroleum contamination, creosote, coal tar, PCB-containing 

components, and/or buried demolition debris. Former on-site industrial uses may also have 

affected groundwater and/or soil vapor conditions on the Project Site.

18.4.4 WATER QUALITY

Chapter 15, “Water and Natural Resources,” presents FRA’s analysis of the potential impacts of 

the Preferred Alternative on Water Quality. As discussed in that chapter, the Study Area for the 

analysis comprises the Lower Hudson River, with a focus on the area of the Hudson River with 

the potential to receive stormwater runoff from the Project Site; CSOs with the potential to be 

affected by the No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative; and effluent from the North River 

WWTP. 

The portion of the Hudson River that includes the Study Area falls within the NYCDEP Harbor

Survey Inner Harbor Study Area. Chapter 15 summarizes the findings of the 2018 NYCDEP New 

York Harbor Water Quality Report pertinent to the Study Area. In particular, the results of the 

NYCDEP Harbor Survey indicate that water quality of New York–New Jersey Harbor, including 

the lower Hudson River within the Inner Harbor, has improved since the 1970s as a result of 

measures undertaken by New York City (e.g., improvements to wastewater treatment plants and 

increased capture of stormwater runoff) and others.
Chapter 18: Public Health

18-3 April 22, 2021

18.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

18.5.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing use of the rail yard and associated LIRR facilities, as 

well as their maintenance regimen would continue. In addition, no excavation or foundation 

construction would occur. As outlined in the relevant analysis chapters discussed above, the No 

Action Alternative would not have the potential to result in any adverse impacts to air quality, noise

and vibration, contaminated materials, or water quality. Therefore, under the No Action Alternative, 

there would be no impacts to the existing public health in the Study Area.

18.5.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

As described in the relevant analyses of this DEIS and summarized below, the Preferred 

Alternative would not result in unmitigated adverse impacts in any of the resource categories

related to public health. Therefore, FRA concluded that operation of the Preferred Alternative

would not result in an adverse public health impact.

18.5.2.1 AIR QUALITY

FRA found that the maximum predicted concentrations associated with ventilation of dual-mode 

locomotive engine exhaust analysis (shown in Table 7-7 of Chapter 7) are below the applicable 

NAAQS for all relevant pollutants. Furthermore, PM2.5 and CO incremental concentrations are 

below the City’s de minimis criteria for these pollutants. FRA estimated that emissions from the 

operation of diesel generators would be minor on an annual basis due to their limited usage and 

are not anticipated to result on a significant effect on ambient concentrations; therefore, FRA has 

predicted no adverse public health impacts related to air quality during operation of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

18.5.2.2 NOISE AND VIBRATION

The noise analysis found that noise exposure resulting from the Preferred Alternative would not 

be considered a moderate nor a severe impact according to FTA noise impact criteria at noise 

receptors representing noise-sensitive land uses in the Study Area. The greatest increase in noise 

level at any receptor resulting from the operation of the Preferred Alternative would be 

approximately 3 dB(A). The Project Sponsor would incorporate sufficient noise control measures 

in the final design of the ventilation system plans to ensure compliance with the NYCNCC at all 

surrounding residential receptors, which would be expected to result in noise levels lower than 

those presented in the analysis. Consequently, FRA has concluded based on the analysis that 

operation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse public health impacts related 

to noise. 

18.5.2.3 CONTAMINATED MATERIALS

While most effects related to contaminated materials would occur from ground disturbance during 

construction activities (see Section 18.5.3.3, below), operation of the Preferred Alternative may 

expose workers to airborne contaminants from trains operating in the railyard. To account for this 

possibility, the Project Sponsor would install permanent ventilation systems for areas enclosed by 

the Platform, in accordance with LIRR’s engineering design criteria for yard ventilation. Therefore, 

FRA has concluded that operation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse 

public health impacts related to contaminated materials. 
June 2021 18-4 

18.5.2.4 WATER QUALITY

The aquatic resources analysis found that operation of the Preferred Alternative would not have 

an adverse impact on aquatic resources in the Lower Hudson River, including water quality. In 

particular, although additional discharge of sanitary sewage would occur as a result of the 

Preferred Alternative, the incremental increase would be minimal and would not be expected to 

cause the North River WWTP to be above its permitted daily flow limit of 170 mgd or adversely 

affect compliance of the North River WWTP effluent with its SPDES permit limits. The Preferred 

Alternative would not result in additional CSOs to the Hudson River. With the Preferred Alternative 

operational, stormwater collected on the Platform would be primarily detained on-site for reuse. 

Otherwise, any overflow of stormwater collected on the Platform would be conveyed to the 

NYCDEP sewer infrastructure in West 33rd Street, and on to the North River WWTP for treatment. 

On portions of the Project Site that would not be covered by Platform, stormwater would be 

conveyed to the existing LIRR storm sewer that drains to the Hudson River. The LIRR storm sewer 

would continue to meet the treatment requirements of the existing MS4 permit for stormwater 

discharge. As a result, the Preferred Alternative would have the potential to result in improved 

water quality in the vicinity of stormwater outfalls due to diversion of stormwater to the North River 

WWTP for treatment, and/or the LIRR storm sewer. Therefore, operation of the Preferred 

Alternative would not result in any adverse public health impacts related to water quality.

18.5.3 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

As described in the relevant analyses of this DEIS and summarized below, FRA concluded that 

the Preferred Alternative, with mitigation, would not result in adverse construction impacts in any 

of the resource categories related to public health. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not 

result in an adverse public health impact during construction. 

18.5.3.1 AIR QUALITY

The maximum concentrations predicted during the representative worst-case construction periods 

(presented in Table 7-9 of Chapter 7) found that the maximum predicted total concentrations of 

relevant pollutants are below the applicable NAAQS for both construction phases. In addition, 

PM2.5 and CO incremental concentrations are below the City’s de minimis criteria for these 

pollutants. Emissions from the other less intensive construction periods would be less than the 

emissions during the modeled worst-case periods; therefore, the resulting concentrations from 

these non-peak periods are expected to be less than the concentrations presented for the worstcase periods. Overall, based on the analysis, FRA has concluded that no adverse air quality 

impacts would occur during construction of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, construction of 

the Preferred Alternative would not result in any public health impacts related to air quality.
Chapter 18: Public Health

18-5 April 22, 2021

18.5.3.2 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

The construction noise analysis is presented in Section 8.5.3 and follows the general assessment 

procedure of the FTA’s Guidance Manual, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 

Report No. 0123, September 2018), which considers the two loudest pieces of equipment for each 

stage of construction operating simultaneously. For the construction of the Preferred Alternative,

this would be hoe rams used for demolition during Platform Construction and Tunnel Encasement. 

Worst-case construction noise levels are compared to the FTA construction noise impact 

thresholds and the incremental changes in noise level are compared to the CEQR Technical 

Manual construction noise evaluation thresholds. The analysis found that worst-case noise levels 

resulting from construction of the Preferred Alternative would not exceed the FTA’s General 

Assessment construction noise impact criteria, but would constitute adverse noise impacts 

according to the CEQR Technical Manual at the High Line north of 30th Street, at residences 

along Eleventh Avenue between 29th and 33rd Streets, at residences along 30th Street between 

Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues, and at residences along West 33rd Street between Tenth and 

Eleventh Avenues. 

The CEQR Technical Manual construction noise impact thresholds are based on quality of life 

considerations. These differ from public health considerations, which employ distinct criteria that 

are appropriate in the public health context. Thus, pursuant to the public health assessment, 

significance is assessed in terms of the magnitude of noise level and duration of exposure rather 

than the incremental change in noise level. As stated in Chapter 20 of the CEQR Technical 

Manual, these criteria are appropriate because they more closely relate to public health concerns. 

For example, chronic noise exposure at elevated decibel levels may raise blood pressure and has 

been suggested to contribute to myocardial infarctions and to interfere with language development 

in children. Additionally, prolonged exposure to levels above 85 dB(A) will eventually harm 

hearing. Moreover, episodic and unpredictable exposure to short-term impacts of noise at high 

decibel levels may also affect health. Accordingly, it is appropriate to evaluate the magnitude of 

construction noise levels and duration of exposure during construction when examining public 

health. An impact found using a quality of life framework (i.e., adverse construction noise impact) 

does not imply that an impact would exist when the analysis area is evaluated in terms of public 

health (i.e., adverse public health impact). 
June 2021 18-6 

At the residential buildings where potential adverse noise impacts were identified—the residential 

buildings along Eleventh Avenue between 29th and 33rd Streets represented by receptors 2a, 2b, 

and 2c, the residential buildings along 33rd Street between Eleventh and Tenth Avenues 

represented by receptor 2c, and the residential buildings along 30th Street between Eleventh and 

Twelfth Avenues represented by receptors 3a and 3b— predicted construction noise levels would 

not rise to the level of an adverse impact according to the FTA Guidance Manual; however, 

predicted construction noise levels would exceed the CEQR Technical Manual screening 

threshold. The predicted exterior absolute construction noise levels would be below the healthbased noise threshold of 85 dB(A) at all residential receptors, as required by the NYCNCC, see 

Section 18.6. Additionally, NYCDCP has placed (E) Designations1

1 Noise (E) Designations, as listed in Appendix C of the New York City Zoning Resolution, are placed on 

zoning lots in areas with high ambient noise levels when they are rezoned by NYCDCP to allow a noisesensitive use to be built on those sites. A Noise (E) Designation specifies a minimum level of façade noise 

attenuation as well as the provision of an alternate means of ventilation to allow for the maintenance of a 

closed-window condition. The intent of the Noise (E) Designation is to protect inhabitants of buildings 

constructed on the (E) Designated lot from high levels of ambient noise.

for noise which requires these 

buildings to provide a minimum of 33 to 35 dB(A) façade attenuation, as achieved through modern 

façade design. With modern façade design and the required minimum attenuation, interior noise 

levels during construction would be acceptable according to the CEQR Technical Manual at 

receptors 2a, 2b, and 2c and exceed the CEQR Technical Manual acceptable threshold for interior 

noise levels by up to 6 dB(A) during the worst-case construction at receptors 3a and 3b.

Construction noise would fluctuate in level and the maximum predicted noise levels would not 

occur constantly throughout the construction period. Consequently, noise from construction of the 

Preferred Alternative would not constitute chronic or episodic and unpredictable exposure to high 

levels of noise, and would not constitute an adverse public health impact related to noise at these 

receptors. 

At the High Line west of Eleventh Avenue, worst-case noise levels resulting from construction of 

the Preferred Alternative projected using the FTA general assessment methodology would be up 

to 94 dB(A) during construction for the Tunnel Encasement and up to 82 dB(A) during Platform 

construction. The maximum predicted noise level increment at the High Line, 23 dB(A), would 

occur during hoe ram use periods for the first 20 months of excavation for Tunnel Encasement. 

During non-hoe ram use periods and the remaining 14 months of Tunnel Encasement 

construction, maximum predicted noise level increments at this receptor would be up to 18 dB(A) 

resulting from drill rig use. Construction noise levels would be below the FTA guidance manual 

impact criteria for non-residential receptors, but would constitute an adverse impact according to 

the CEQR Technical Manual. 

The worst-case construction noise levels would not extend throughout the full length of the High 

Line, most of which would be substantially further from the construction work areas associated 

with the Preferred Alternative than the worst-case noise analysis location. At portions of the High 

Line east of Eleventh Avenue noise levels would be below the health-based noise threshold of 85 

dB(A) throughout construction. Furthermore, the maximum predicted noise levels are associated 

with construction of the Tunnel Encasement, which would not occur during weekend days or 

during evening or nighttime hours. Construction noise would fluctuate in level and the maximum 

predicted noise levels would not occur constantly throughout the construction period. 

Consequently, noise from construction of the Preferred Alternative would not constitute an adverse 

public health impact related to noise at the High Line.

FRA has coordinated with NYC Parks to determine appropriate minimization measures to address 

impacts to the High Line. These are described in detail in Chapter 8.
Chapter 18: Public Health

18-7 April 22, 2021

At the other analyzed receptors, representing commercial buildings along Eleventh Avenue north 

of West 33rd Street the analysis found that construction noise levels would be below the FTA 

guidance manual impact criteria during all stages of construction. Commercial buildings are not 

considered under the CEQR Technical Manual for construction noise; therefore, construction of 

the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse public health impacts related to noise

and vibration. 

18.5.3.3 CONTAMINATED MATERIALS 

To prevent exposure of hazardous materials that may threaten human health, the Project Sponsor 

would include appropriate health and safety, investigative, or remedial measures for the 

construction of the Preferred Alternative (conducted in compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations, and conforming to appropriate engineering practice). These health and safety 

measures would be implemented before, and remain in place after, demolition and soil 

disturbance. In particular, preparation of a site-specific RAP and CHASP would be required. 

Additional measures would include installation of appropriate permanent ventilation systems for 

areas under the platform, conducting dewatering activities in accordance with NYCDEP 

requirements, and proper handling and disposal of any building materials, equipment, or utilities 

containing suspect hazardous materials, in accordance with the applicable regulations. With these 

measures in place, construction of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse public 

health impacts related to contaminated materials.

18.5.3.4 WATER QUALITY

The aquatic resources analysis FRA performed found that construction of the Preferred Alternative

would not have an adverse impact on aquatic resources, including water quality. Specifically, 

during construction, stormwater from the Project Site would be discharged to either: 

• the existing LIRR outfall (has an existing MS4 permit for stormwater discharge) that drains 

stormwater from the rail yard to the Hudson River, or 

• the NYCDEP sewer system, and from there directed to municipal wastewater treatment 

facilities for treatment before discharge to the Hudson River. 

In addition, the Project Sponsor would treat all groundwater recovered during dewatering in 

accordance with NYCDEP requirements prior to discharge to the municipal sewer. Therefore, FRA 

has concluded that construction of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse public 

health impacts related to water quality.

18.6 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

MEASURES

The Project Sponsor would undertake measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts of the 

Preferred Alternative on public health, including the following:

• The Project Sponsor would install appropriate permanent ventilation systems during 

construction of the Preferred Alternative (to be operated post-construction) for areas under 

the Platform at the Project Site, in accordance with LIRR’s engineering design criteria for yard 

ventilation. 

• Prior to any excavation or construction activity, a site-specific RAP and CHASP would be 

prepared.

• During any subsurface disturbance, the Project Sponsor would handle and dispose of 

excavated soil properly in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, with spill 

reporting as required. 
June 2021 18-8 

• The Project Sponsor would treat any groundwater recovered during dewatering in accordance 

with NYCDEP requirements prior to discharge to the municipal sewer. 

• The Project Sponsor would transport all material leaving the Site for off-site disposal in 

accordance with federal, state, and local requirements covering licensing of haulers and 

trucks, placarding, truck routes, manifesting, etc.

• The Project Sponsor would incorporate sufficient noise control measures in the final design of 

the ventilation system plans to ensure compliance with the NYCNCC at all surrounding 

residential receptors

• Construction of the Preferred Alternative would include sufficient mitigation to meet the 

NYCNCC construction noise limit of an Lmax of 85 dB(A) at the exteriors of any adjacent 

residential properties. 