ATTACHMENT 1 Responses to LWCF Proposal …brooklynbridgepark.s3.amazonaws.com/s/589/Application for...ATTACHMENT 1 Responses to LWCF Proposal Description and Environmental Screening

ATTACHMENT 1

Responses to LWCF Proposal Description and Environmental Screening Form Step 4.A.2-6, Proposal for Temporary Non-Conforming Use

2. Describe in detail the proposed temporary non-conforming use and all associated activities,

why it is needed, and alternative locations that were considered and why they were not pursued.

Brooklyn Bridge Park (BBP) and New York City are currently preparing an application to convert 2.651 acres of land in the former Empire Fulton Ferry State Park, now part of Brooklyn Bridge Park, pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) § 6(f). The land proposed for conversion includes the Tobacco Warehouse, which is an historic building. If the conversion is approved by the National Park Service (NPS), it is anticipated that St. Ann’s Warehouse, a local Brooklyn not-for-profit performing arts organization, proposes to adaptively reuse the rectangular portion of the Tobacco Warehouse, roughly 18,000 square feet, as a cultural and community space. The triangular portion of the Tobacco Warehouse, roughly 7,000 square feet, is proposed to be used as a public outdoor garden after conversion. As part of the design process for the Tobacco Warehouse’s adaptive reuse, Brooklyn Bridge Park requests NPS approval for St. Ann’s Warehouse to install a temporary geothermal testing well at the Tobacco Warehouse to investigate the possibility of installing geothermal wells at the Tobacco Warehouse as part of the mechanical system for the proposed adaptive reuse of the building should conversion be approved. This strategy aligns with reducing energy consumption and achieving the anticipated LEED Silver status. Since the project is site specific, there were no alternative locations considered.

The proposed temporary non-conforming use requires site access and the temporary closure of the rectangular portion of the Tobacco Warehouse at the same time St. Ann’s proposes to conduct the activities discussed in its September 20, 2012 application to NPS for a temporary non-conforming use to conduct 3-4 test pits and 8 exploratory soil borings. The proposed closure will take place on weekdays for two to three weeks, and the closure of the triangular portion for two to three days during that time period. The geothermal testing will not require additional borings, and since it will be done concurrent to the proposed work, it will not require any additional closure of the Tobacco Warehouse to the public than what has already been proposed. To complete a thermal conductivity test, one of the already planned borings will be drilled to a depth of 350 feet. Initially, a boring is drilled to the desired depth. The depth of the well is estimated by the engineer before the contractor mobilizes (expected 350’). The drilling equipment is expected to be the DK-525, the same equipment used for the soil borings, albeit with different attachments for the deeper well. It is also expected to use a previous soil boring hole as to limit the disruption on site (boring B-7 as per the proposal boring map). A grout pump and mud pump will be required. As it drills, the rig will circulate drilling fluid into the hole and through the portable mud pit or pump (3’x8’x2’deep). A skid steer (which may be used for the other borings as well), similar to a bobcat, may be required to move drill cuttings around the site (about 5 yards total).

- 2 -

After the hole is drilled, the test loop is inserted. The loop comes on a spool and is installed using the loop installer equipment (a tow behind spool holder is similar to an electrical cable spool holder used for the electric transmission cable). The loop is installed to the bottom of the hole and cut 3’ above grade for testing purposes (this will later be cut below grade). The loop is usually 1” HDPE pipe. Next, the hole is filled with grout with the grout mixer/pump equipment, a tow behind trailer which is about 25’ long 8’ wide. The grout is a mixture of clay/cement/sand and water. It is pumped with a tremie pipe from the bottom of the hole up to the surface. Usually the contractor uses a skid steer, if required, to move the sand and grout on site. Following the completion of the grout, the test well will sit for 2-3 days to reach “static” conditions before the thermal conductivity test can begin. The thermal conductivity equipment consists of a small pump, heater and temperature logging equipment. The test is performed for 48 hours. During this duration (which will be concurrent with the other proposed work), the area (approximately 1/3 of TW on the Water Street side) will be secured and protected so that the public will be unable to access. The monitoring work will be scheduled during the week as to not interfere with any public activities scheduled for the weekend. Following the 48 hour monitoring period, the testing equipment is removed and the bore is capped to protect it from damage and to return the site to its original state. This plan was reviewed by Robert Silman Associates, the structural engineer who is overseeing the work, who determined that the proposed activity will cause no damage to the existing site and will not impact the existing walls. Robert Silman Associates were also the structural engineers for the Tobacco Warehouse for a stabilization project that took place around 2001 and, therefore, fully understand the stability of the structure. Following the completion of this work, all boring and test pit locations will be filled and concreted and returned to their former state. All work will be approved by a structural engineer and be conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. 3. Explain length of time needed for the temporary non-conforming use and why.

The proposed temporary non-conforming use, as explained in item 2 above, will require approximately two to three weeks to complete, and will be done concurrent with St. Ann’s proposal to conduct test pits and exploratory borings that is currently pending in front of the NPS.

During these two to three weeks, we request that the rectangular area of the building be closed to the public for safety reasons on weekdays, and the triangular portion be closed for two to three days while the boring in the triangular portion is conducted. Other than that time, the triangle will remain open to the public. The entire Tobacco Warehouse (both the triangle and the rectangular portion) will be open to the public on weekends. To that end, the construction equipment will be removed from the building and the floor will be temporarily restored to a fully usable condition for weekends.

4. Describe the size of the Section 6(f) area affected by the temporary non-conforming use

activities and expected impacts to public outdoor recreation areas, facilities and opportunities. Explain efforts to keep the size of the area impacted to a minimum. Indicate the location of the non-conforming use on the site’s 6(f) map.

- 3 -

The proposed activity will be conducted in either the rectangular and triangular area of the Tobacco Warehouse, which has a 25,000 square foot footprint. The rectangular area (18,000 square feet) will need to be closed for two to three weeks on weekdays (it will be open to the public on weekends), and the triangular area (7,000 square feet) will need to be closed for two to three days for completion of the already proposed borings and test pits. Areas outside of the Tobacco Warehouse will not be affected. See Exhibit A, LWCF Map, which indicates the area that will be impacted. 5. Describe any anticipated temporary/permanent impacts to the Section 6(f) area and how the

sponsor will mitigate them during and after the non-conforming use ceases. We do not expect permanent impacts to the area following the completion of the non-conforming use. The boring location will be filled and returned to its previous condition following the completion of sampling. The only temporary impact will be the closing of the Tobacco Warehouse to the public for roughly a two to three week period. This impact will be mitigated by limiting closure of the triangular portion of the building to two to three days. In addition, the entire Tobacco Warehouse will be open to the public on the weekends. Its closure during the week is expected to have minimal impact on outdoor recreational activities, since the other portions of the LWCF 6(f) area, as well as the Brooklyn Bridge Park in which the LWCF 6(f) area is located, will remain open and fully accessible and the Tobacco Warehouse is not heavily used by park users. 6. Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal. No additional requirements or guidelines have been identified.

ATTACHMENT 2

Responses to LWCF Proposal Description and Environmental Screening Form Step 5: 1-5 and 7-9, Summary of Previous Environmental Reviews

1. Date of environmental review(s), purpose for the environmental review(s) and for whom they were conducted. The creation of Brooklyn Bridge Park, which includes the Tobacco Warehouse, was evaluated in 2005 in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) as lead agency. A copy of the 2005 FEIS can be accessed at: http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/about-us/brooklyn-bridge-park/project-approvals-presentations/final-environmental-impact-statement.

2. Description of the proposed action and alternatives.

Proposed Action: The proposal evaluated in the 2005 FEIS was the combination of waterfront properties previously under a mix of ownership to create one continuous 85-acre waterfront park in Brooklyn, New York to be known as Brooklyn Bridge Park. The action consisted of a combination of landscaped areas, ecological habitats along the water’s edge, and planned recreational areas including a paved waterfront promenade, a bikeway, multi-purpose playing fields, playgrounds, shaded ball courts, open lawns, 12 acres of safe paddling waters, and slips for the mooring of historic or educational vessels as well as an approximately 185-slip marina. In addition to these natural and recreational areas, the 2005 Park Plan included approximately eight acres of revenue-generating development, including hotel, residential, retail and restaurant uses, ancillary office space, parking and, possibly, research and development facilities. The revenue-generating development was included in the park project to ensure that the park would be financially self-sustaining.

At the time of the 2005 FEIS, the area between the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, which includes LWCF Section 6(f) area (formerly known as Empire Fulton Ferry State Park) and the Tobacco Warehouse, was already largely developed as parkland. At that time, Empire Fulton Ferry State Park included lawn areas, a waterfront esplanade, and two vacant historic structures: the Tobacco Warehouse and the Empire Stores. The FEIS anticipated that the restored exterior shell of the Tobacco Warehouse could be used to house a walled garden, café, or space for arts groups.

Alternatives: The FEIS analyzed six alternatives:

• A No Action alternative in which Brooklyn Bridge Park would not be built and the area would remain a manufacturing district with a mix of storage, parking, and commercial uses, owned by a number of different entities; • A Reduced Density Alternative, which considered a smaller development program (with less residential and hotel use) than the 2005 Park Plan;

- 2 -

• A Modified Design Alternative which involved 30 additional residential units but 55 fewer hotel rooms, fewer on-site parking spaces, and an increased commercial program at the Empire Stores site; • An alternative with a modified Pier 6 residential building design; • An alternative that would use wind turbines to generate energy; and • An alternative with no unmitigated adverse impacts.

However, as more fully explained in the “Alternatives” section of the FEIS (Chapter 20), none of these alternatives met the project goals of creating the Brooklyn waterfront as a self-sustaining world-class park.

3. Who was involved in identifying resource impact issues and developing the proposal including the interested and affected public, government agencies, and Indian tribes. The creation and design of Brooklyn Bridge Park was a public process that was conducted over many years. For the environmental review process, a range of local officials, government agencies, and community organizations were consulted and reviewed technical analyses, identifying potential resource impacts, and developing measures to mitigate potential impacts. These included the following: • Mayor Michael Bloomberg, City of New York • Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service • National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat and Protected Resources Division • Port Authority of New York & New Jersey • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) • NYSDEC, Natural Heritage Program • OPRHP • New York State Department of State • New York State Department of Transportation • New York City Department of City Planning • New York City Department of Parks and Recreation • New York City Department of Transportation • New York City Economic Development Corporation • New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission • Brooklyn Community Board 2 • Brooklyn Community Board 6 Furthermore, as discussed below, public review was conducted during scoping of the studies to be included in the FEIS, and after completion of the DEIS. 4. Environmental resources analyzed and determination of impacts for proposed actions and alternatives. The FEIS was prepared following the assessment methodologies presented in New York City’s 2001 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, a guidance document

- 3 -

commonly used for environmental reviews of projects proposed in New York City. It considered a full range of environmental issues associated with development of the full 85-acre park, including its recreational and revenue-generating development components. The technical areas that were analyzed included: • Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy; • Socioeconomic Conditions; • Park Security; • Shadows; • Archeological Resources; • Architectural Resources and Historic Resources; • Urban Design and Visual Resources; • Water Quality and Natural Resources; • Hazardous Materials; • Coastal Zone Management; • Infrastructure; • Traffic and Parking; • Transit and Pedestrians; • Noise; • Air Quality; • Open Space; • Neighborhood Character; and • Construction Impacts. The FEIS found no significant adverse environmental impacts were likely to result in almost all technical areas. Two significant adverse impacts were identified for Traffic and Historic Resources. These impacts are described below.

5. Any mitigation measures to be part of the proposed action. For the overall 2005 Park Plan, the FEIS concluded that there would be significant adverse traffic impacts at 16 of the 49 intersections analyzed, all but two of which would be mitigated through standard traffic management measures to be implemented by NYC Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) (a combination of signal timing or signal phasing changes to the study area, re-striping of intersection approaches, and parking regulation changes). At two locations (Tillary Street at Adams Street and Cadman Plaza West at the Brooklyn Bridge off-ramp) unmitigated impacts would occur in all peak periods. A third unmitigated impact at Atlantic Avenue and Boerum Place would be added if Furman Street is assumed to continue with one-way operation, a scenario that was evaluated in the 2005 FEIS. The FEIS identified one significant adverse impact to historic resources that could not be completely mitigated. This was the demolition of the National Cold Storage buildings, located in the Pier 1 upland, which were proposed to be (and have since been) demolished as part of the 2005 Park Plan. These buildings, which were badly deteriorated, were determined to be eligible for the State and National Registers by OPRHP. Although it was determined that a revenue-producing development program could not be accommodated in these buildings, and that an attempt to adapt the buildings to new uses would result in significant adverse impacts to these

- 4 -

historic structures, the demolition of these buildings was found to constitute a significant adverse impact on architectural resources. At the same time, OPRHP determined that the overall plan for the park, which otherwise positively affects architectural resources, would to a large extent mitigate the demolition of this historic resource and additional mitigation measures were to be developed in consultation with OPRHP as stipulated in the project’s Letter of Resolution (LOR). The FEIS also committed to development of a construction protection plan, to be developed and implemented in consultation with OPRHP, to provide protective measures for historic buildings located within 90 feet of park construction. The FEIS specifically noted that the Tobacco Warehouse would be included in the construction protection plan. All protective and mitigation measures described in the FEIS were included in a Letter of Resolution (LOR) among ESDC, BBPDC, OPRHP, and the proposed developers of the Empire Stores at that time (Empire Stores LLC), executed in January 2006. These measures included: 1) procedures for archaeological testing to identify the presence/lack of presence of archaeological resources; 2) measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources if necessary; 3) measures to mitigate the demolition of the former National Cold Storage buildings; 4) preparation of a Construction Protection Plan; 5) process for continued consultation with OPRHP regarding the rehabilitation of the Empire Stores; and 6) sharing with OPRHP design proposals for the new building to be built in the D.U.M.B.O. Historic District at John Street. The LOR was subsequently amended in February 2009 with respect to mitigation measures for the National Cold Storage buildings and again amended in February 2010 to remove Empire Stores LLC as a signatory to the LOR and to acknowledge the transfer of title to the Empire Fulton Ferry State Park, including the Tobacco Warehouse and Empire Stores, to BBPDC. The 2010 amendment to the LOR stipulated that maintenance and rehabilitation of the Empire Stores and the Tobacco Warehouse and renovation of the open space will be conducted in a manner that is compatible with and respects the architectural and historic significance of the historic resources identified in the LOR. 7. Public comment periods (how long, when in the process, who was invited to comment) and

agency response. As stated above, during the SEQRA process, public review was conducted at two critical stages—during scoping of the studies to be included in the EIS, and after completion of the DEIS: • Scoping: As lead agency for the environmental review, BBPDC and ESDC issued a “Positive Declaration,” signaling its intent to prepare an EIS, and a draft Scope of Work outlining the studies to be included in the EIS on May 23, 2003. A public scoping meeting was held to take comments on the draft Scope of Work on June 26, 2003. Written comments on the draft Scope of Work were also accepted until the close of business on Monday, July 7, 2003. A final Scope of Work, reflecting comments made during scoping and other refinements to the proposed project, was issued on June 17, 2005. • DEIS: The DEIS was completed and made available to the public on July 26, 2005. This marked the start of a public review period, during which comments were accepted on the document. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2005 to accept oral comments. The oral comments and written submissions on the DEIS received through November 2, 2005, the close

- 5 -

of the public comment period, were considered in the preparation of the FEIS. The FEIS includes a summary of the comments received and responses to those comments. The FEIS was accepted as complete by ESDC as lead agency on December 14, 2005. 8. Any formal decision and supporting reasons regarding degree of potential impacts to the human environment. The Empire State Development Corporation, lead agency for the 2005 FEIS, issued a Findings Statement, which is attached as Exhibit B. 9. Was this proposed LWCF federal action and/or any other federal actions analyzed/reviewed

in any of the previous environmental reviews? If so, what was analyzed and what impacts were identified? Provide specific environmental review document references.

The specific activity of conducting geothermal testing at the Tobacco Warehouse was not analyzed in the 2005 FEIS. However, as explained above in Question #5, the Tobacco Warehouse is subject to Letters of Resolution which stipulate that maintenance and rehabilitation of the Tobacco Warehouse be conducted in a manner that is compatible with and respects its architectural and historic significance. SHPO has reviewed this activity and confirmed that it is in accordance with the terms of the LOR.

EXHIBIT A

hstein

Text Box

Site of Temporary Non-Conforming Use

hstein

Polygonal Line

EXHIBIT A

Brooklyn Bridge Park Project Findings StatementPursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act

I. INTRODUCTION

This Findings Statement is issued by the New York State Urban Development Corporation(“UDC”), doing business as the Empire State Development Corporation (“ESDC”), as LeadAgency, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), Article 8 of the NewYork Environmental Conservation Law, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (6 NYCRRPart 617), in connection with the proposed creation of a new Brooklyn Bridge Park, anapproximately 85-acre park that would stretch along approximately 1.3 miles of Brooklyn’s EastRiver waterfront from Jay Street in the north, to Atlantic Avenue in the south (the “ProposedProject”). Part I of this Findings Statement sets forth a summary of the proposed action, itslocation, its purpose and need, the agency’s jurisdiction and other information required by SEQRA.Part II sets forth the history of the evolution and planning of the Project proposal. Part III providesa more detailed description of the Proposed Project. Part IV sets forth the lead agency actions to beundertaken. Part V provides the procedural background to the proposed action. Part VI provides astatement of the facts and conclusions relied upon to support the Findings. Part VII summarizes themitigation to be implemented in connection with the Proposed Project. Part VIII discusses thepotential growth-inducing aspects of the Project. Part IX identifies the Project’s unavoidablesignificant adverse impacts. Part X identifies the irreversible and irretrievable commitment ofresources that the Project would require. The ultimate Findings required by SEQRA and itsimplementing regulations are set forth in Part XI.

Summary of Action: The Proposed Project is the creation of a new Brooklyn Bridge Park,which would be created from those areas encompassing Piers 1through 6 and related upland property, the existing Empire-FultonFerry State Park and New York City Department of Parks andRecreation (“DPR”)-operated Main Street Park, and the Con Edisonproperty on John Street east of the Manhattan Bridge (the “JohnStreet Site”), creating a continuous 85-acre waterfront esplanadealong the entire site. The park would include landscaped areas andecological habitats; recreational facilities for sports such as soccerand basketball; a marina for recreational boating; protected watersfor kayaking; and a limited amount of development essential to thepark’s maintenance and operation, including retail, restaurant,residential, and hotel space. The development is also intended toenliven the site, attract visitors, and enhance security. The ProposedProject is the result of collaboration between New York State andNew York City under the aegis of the Brooklyn Bridge ParkDevelopment Corporation (“BBPDC”), a subsidiary of ESDC.

Exhibt BApplication for Temporary Non-Conforming Use

2

Lead Agency: Empire State Development Corporation633 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017-6754

Contact person: Rachel ShatzDirector, Planning and Environmental Review(212) 803-3254

SEQRA Classification: Type I action

Location: The project site occupies approximately 85 acres, including Piers 1through 6 and related upland property, Empire-Fulton Ferry StatePark, the existing Main Street Park, and the John Street Site east ofthe Manhattan Bridge in Brooklyn.

Purpose and Need: The public purpose and need for the Proposed Project are detailed inthe Memorandum of Understanding executed between the Mayor ofthe City of New York and the Governor of the State of New York inMay 2002 (the “MOU”), as well as in the environmental impactstatement (“EIS”) prepared for the Project. Essentially, they are to:turn a prominent and declining segment of Brooklyn’s waterfrontinto a public asset; make the waterfront available for public accessand use; create a project that will be financially self-sustaining;provide more publicly accessible open space in Brooklyn; restoresome of the natural habitat that once lined all of Brooklyn’s shores;and acknowledge the key role this segment of waterfront has playedin New York’s history and to preserve its historic resources.

Agency Jurisdiction: The Proposed Project is jointly sponsored by the State of New Yorkand the City of New York, and a number of State and Citydiscretionary actions are required. These actions are subject toenvironmental review pursuant to SEQRA. The ESDC is the leadagency for SEQRA review.

II. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PLANNING

The Proposed Project is the outcome of more than two decades of planning for theredevelopment and revitalization of the project area. The project area was a thriving waterfrontindustrial district through the first half of the 20th century. However, in the 1950’s forces werealigning to weaken the waterfront district. The waterfront began a steady decline as New York’solder port areas lost ground to container shipping and to competition from other east coast cities.Activity in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, long an anchor of employment, began to wane. In addition,the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway was built in the early 1950s. It further undermined the area’sstability, by creating an approximately 60-foot-high elevated structure parallel to Furman Streetthus separating this neighborhood from the waterfront and effectively creating a further barrieracross the district’s southern boundary.


3

By the late 1970’s activity on Piers 1-6 had diminished. The Port Authority of New Yorkand New Jersey (“Port Authority”) began searching for alternative uses for the piers, which wereproducing only modest levels of revenue as warehousing facilities and were fast becomingobsolete. Finally, in 1983 all cargo ship operations ceased on Piers 1-6. At present there are onlythree tenants on Piers 1-6, and the uses are not maritime related. The piers are hidden from thepublic behind chain link fence and are visible only from afar. The net result is that this portion ofthe waterfront, once one of Brooklyn’s and the region’s greatest assets, has become moribund. Itproduces almost no economic benefit to the City and provides very limited services to thecitizens of the region. In addition, the waterfront and the East River offer spectacular vistas andthe present state of the piers prevents the public from enjoying this valuable and preciousresource.

In 1984, shortly after the close of cargo operations, the Port Authority announced plans tosell the piers for commercial development. That action caused a re-evaluation of the Projectarea’s value as a public resource. During the next two decades a series of plans and proposalswere put forth for the Project area. Finally, in 1998 the Downtown Brooklyn Waterfront LocalDevelopment Corporation (“LDC”) was created. The LDC undertook a year-long publicplanning process to forge a concept for Brooklyn Bridge Park. The result of that effort was theIllustrative Master Plan, dated September 2000, which presented a conceptual framework for awaterfront park.

On May 2, 2002, Governor George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed aMemorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) providing for the creation of BBPDC. The mandateof BBPDC is to plan, design, and build Brooklyn Bridge Park using the 2000 Illustrative MasterPlan as the guide. Brooklyn Bridge Park would be funded with capital funding from the State ofNew York and the City of New York. Further, the MOU requires the Proposed Project to be selfsufficient by providing for its own ongoing maintenance and operations. Therefore, appropriatecommercial revenue producing activities would be located within the Project to support itsannual maintenance and operations.

In an effort to fill its mandate, pursuant to a public request for proposals, in 2004 BBPDChired a master planning and landscape architecture team and undertook an intensive and iterativeplanning process. The first task was to develop a plan for the project in consultation with thecommunity. Once a preliminary plan was complete, an analysis for the annual maintenance andoperations budget was undertaken. This analysis included exhaustive research on other parks inNew York in an effort to develop a budget for the annual upkeep of the Project. Once the annualmaintenance and operations budget was determined it was possible to undertake the third step inthe work, the preparation of the revenue analysis. This work consisted of determining how muchdevelopment was necessary to support the Project.

Through the EIS, design, and public outreach processes, BBPDC has selected a preferredalternative that constitutes the Proposed Project in the General Project Plan, dated January 18,2006 (the “GPP”) to be approved by BBPDC and adopted by ESDC, and that is the subject ofthis Findings Statement. The Proposed Project consists primarily of elements of the proposedproject as presented in Chapter 1, “Project Description,” of the FEIS (the “EIS proposedproject”), as well as elements of the Modified Design Alternative and the Modified Pier 6


4

Residential Building Design Alternative presented in Chapter 20, “Alternatives,” of the FEIS.

The EIS proposed project includes approximately 77 acres of recreation and a mix ofresidential, commercial and hotel development, which is also true of the Proposed Project. Asexplained in the EIS and herein, the development program analyzed as the EIS proposed projectrepresents a maximum envelope of the likely revenue generating uses. However, theprogramming of development cannot be finalized until a request for proposals (“RFP”) processhas been conducted. The development identified in the EIS is intended to meet the financialneeds of park maintenance and operations based on a current understanding of market conditionsand the financial needs of the park; however, its actual programming will ultimately be a functionof market conditions at the time developer proposals are received.

The Proposed Project that is the subject of the GPP is the same as the EIS proposedproject, with the following modifications:

As specified in the Modified Design Alternative of the FEIS, as a result of discussionswith the developer of this site, the development program for the Empire Stores would bechanged to reflect a program more likely to be successful. The program would be thesame as that presented in the Modified Design Alternative, i.e., the total program for theEmpire Stores would rise from 289,298 square feet to 398,760 square feet, as the spacefor educational or research and development uses would be replaced by additional office,retail and restaurant space and the introduction of showroom space.;

To provide the flexibility for a developer to adjust the Pier 1 program in response tomarket conditions, the residential and hotel program for the Pier 1 uplands could be eitherthe same as that presented in the EIS proposed project or that presented in the ModifiedDesign Alternative, i.e., the number of housing units would range from 150 to 180, whilethe number of hotel units would range from 170 to 225. The number of hotel roomswould be reduced as the number of residential units increased, in order to maintain thesame overall building envelope as presented in the EIS proposed project.;

To respond to public comment and provide flexibility in the design of the entrance forthe Atlantic Avenue Gateway to the park, the residential buildings on the Pier 6 uplandswill reflect one of the two design options presented in the Modified Pier 6 ResidentialBuilding Design Alternative. Although the overall program for that location would beunchanged from that presented as the EIS proposed project, either of the following optionswould be instead be developed:

Option 1: The height and footprint of the 30-story building presented in the EISproposed project would be unchanged, while the footprint of the 8-story buildingwould be reduced from 18,880 square feet to 9,880 square feet and its heightincreased to 14 stories.

Options 2: The height of the 30-story building would be reduced to 20 stories, whileits footprint would be unchanged. The height of the 8-story building would beincreased to 20 stories, and its footprint would be reduced from 18,880 square feet to


5

9,880 square feet. In addition, the existing Building 50 at the northwest corner ofJoralemon and Furman Streets would be converted to residential use. It would beexpanded and increased in height from 43 to 54 feet.

As under the Modified Design Alternative, the 72 parking spaces proposed for theuplands of Pier 6 could remain, or may be eliminated.;

In any case, it is not expected that the range of programs anticipated under the GPPwould result in any significant adverse environmental impacts beyond those identified in the EIS.The following sections of this Findings Statement reflect the Proposed Project that is the subjectof the GPP. Where the Proposed Project differs materially from the EIS proposed project,specific note of such differences is made.

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Public Purpose and Need

The Proposed Project would respond to a number of needs, as follows:

The primary need to turn a prominent and declining segment of Brooklyn’s waterfrontinto a public asset. The project area, with its beautiful views, large land and pier areas, andmiles of water’s edge should no longer remain moribund and isolated from the vibrantcommunities that surround it.

The need to make the waterfront available for public access and use. The ProposedProject acknowledges that the extraordinary features of this segment of waterfront would bebest preserved for the broadest public use. The piers on the site provide a uniqueopportunity to provide recreational space with access to the water and spectacular views ofthe harbor, the Manhattan skyline, and the Brooklyn skyline. As such, the Proposed Projectis expected to attract people from New York’s many diverse neighborhoods who would takeadvantage of the broad range of recreational opportunities available in the park.

The need to create a project that will be financially self-sustaining. Under the terms ofthe MOU that was signed by Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg in May 2002 creatingBrooklyn Bridge Park, this must be accomplished by including in the project sufficientrevenue-generating uses to cover the cost of maintenance and operations of the park.

The need to provide more publicly accessible open space in Brooklyn. Brooklyn issecond only to Manhattan in its lack of open space, with 547 residents per acre of availableopen space. No major park has been built in the borough since Prospect Park in the 1860s.The provision of an 85-acre park would help to fill this need.

The need to restore some of the natural habitat that once lined all of Brooklyn’s shores.

The need to acknowledge the key role this segment of waterfront has played in NewYork’s history and to preserve its historic resources.


6

The Proposed Project has been designed to address these compelling public needs and tocreate a waterfront park and experience that encompasses a range of recreational activities servingBrooklyn and the city as a whole. The proposed array of uses responds to community commentsand suggestions, particularly with respect to the need for a range of opportunities for activerecreation, access to the water, and recreational boating opportunities.

B. Description of the Proposed Plan

The plan for the Proposed Project provides for a continuous park extending along the EastRiver from the foot of Atlantic Avenue to Jay Street, north of the Manhattan Bridge. The entirepark would comprise approximately 85 acres.

The proposed park would offer the public unparalleled access to the water, makinginnovative use of boardwalks, floating bridges, and canals that would wind along the water’s edge.It would also include rolling hills, marshland, and abundant recreational opportunities with multi-purpose playing fields, playgrounds, shaded ball courts, open lawns, and 12 acres of safe paddlingwaters. There would be pockets of natural landscape on some of the parkland to attract birds andother wildlife. The park’s pathways would increase the water’s edge from 2.4 miles to 4 miles andprovide pedestrian connections both to the water and to the full range of the park’s experiences.

In addition, a relatively small portion of the park would contain revenue generatingdevelopment, including hotel, residential, retail and restaurant uses, ancillary office space, parkingand, possibly, research and development facilities. These uses would attract people to the park andprovide critical funding to sustain the maintenance and operation of the park. The developmentproposed to support park maintenance and operations would take up approximately 8 acres, orabout 10 percent of the total park area.

The entrances to the proposed park would be defined by three urban junctions, located, fromsouth to north, at the foot of Atlantic Avenue, at Fulton Ferry Landing, and in D.U.M.B.O. (DownUnder the Manhattan Bridge Overpass). The proposed park is designed so that at each of theseentrances the visitor would have access to a wide range of amenities nearby and would not have towalk long distances to arrive at features such as playgrounds and lawn areas.

The proposed park is envisioned as five interconnected areas. From the south, these are: theAtlantic Avenue Gateway including Pier 6 and its upland; Piers 5, 4, 3, and 2 and their uplands;Pier 1 and Fulton Ferry Landing; the Interbridge Area; and North of the Manhattan Bridge and theManhattan Bridge Gateway. The park program contains elements available throughout the park(“parkwide elements”) and specific components for each of the five subareas, as described below.

PARKWIDE ELEMENTS

Waterfront Access and Circulation

Several elements of the proposed plan encourage interaction with the water, both visuallyand physically. The waterfront area across from Pier 4 could be transformed into a beach for


7

launching kayaks and canoes. The area between Piers 1 and 6 would feature a waterfrontpromenade extending roughly along the bulkhead line. This paved promenade would serve as amain pedestrian thoroughfare running through the park and would allow views of the water, piers,harbor, and the Manhattan skyline. Through a series of sloping ramps and floating and fixedwalkways, park users would also be able to experience the water at sea level. This water-levelaccess would allow for fishing, additional park circulation, and other water-dependent activities.

In the Interbridge Area, existing access to the water (in Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park, theMain Street Park, and Fulton Ferry Landing) would be extended to connect with the areas to theeast and south. East of the existing Main Street Park, new walkways and an esplanade would becreated, as well as an overwater platform linking the park to the area north of Adams Street.

“Safe Water” Zones and Water-Dependent Uses

From the southern edge of Pier 4 to the southern edge of Pier 1 two connected “safe waterzones” are planned. These would provide approximately 12 acres of secure water area for non-motorized boats including kayaks, canoes, and paddle boats. Marine structures would define thearea, serving to attenuate waves from passing boats. Floating boardwalks would be arranged tocontain the boaters and kayakers and provide additional wave attenuation within the safe waterarea. Connecting the two safe water zones, between Piers 3 and 4 and between Piers 1 and 2,would be a channel, created along the upland of Piers 2 and 3 by cutting away the existing pierstructure from the upland portion of the pier. This “canal” would allow kayaks or other small non-motorized craft to navigate from the area between Piers 1 and 2 to the area south of Pier 3. Piers 2and 3 would be connected across the canal to the upland areas of the park by an overhead pedestrianwalkway that would also provide access for emergency vehicles. The remnants of Pier 4 would beleft in place and used as a nature preserve. At Pier 1, some timber piles would be left in placefollowing removal of the pier deck to preserve a physical record of the site’s industrial past.

Outside the safe water zones, the area between Piers 5 and 6 would provide slips for themooring of historic or educational vessels. Between Piers 5 and 4 would be an approximately 185-slip marina for sailboats and powerboats. The marina would provide limited boating services,including utility hook-ups and fueling.

Water taxi stops would be located along the south side of Pier 6, at the slip between Piers 2and 3, at the north side of Pier 1, and near the John Street site, allowing waterborne transportationoptions for park users and others coming to the project site.

Bikeways

A designated bikeway, coordinated with the Greenway Initiative effort, would be integratedinto the park from Pier 1 to Pier 6. Entry for cyclists to the park would primarily be at Old FultonStreet and Atlantic Avenue. At Fulton Ferry Landing, the bicycle route connects north to theproposed Greenway route along Water Street.


8

Vehicular Access and Parking

Vehicular access and parking would be needed for both park visitors and for users ofcommercial and residential buildings on the project site. New streets would be created within thepark to allow access from Furman Street into the hotel, restaurant and residential uses in the park.These streets, which would be constructed and maintained by BBPDC, would provide a clearboundary between park spaces and development parcels. Subject to approval by the City of NewYork, Joralemon Street would be closed to vehicular traffic at Furman Street to minimize park-generated traffic along Joralemon Street; it would remain open for pedestrians.

In the cold weather months, park users would be permitted to drive onto and park at Pier 5,which would allow field sports teams and their supporters to reach the playing fields directly byvehicle and provide for drop-offs and pick-ups.

Parking would be provided in parking areas to be created within the park boundaries, and innearby off-street parking facilities (within approximately ¼-mile). Overall, there would be anestimated 1,283 parking spaces within the park boundaries, with approximately 651 spaces in 360Furman Street (of which 500 would be for public use), approximately 72 spaces on the Pier 6uplands, approximately 300 spaces for Pier 1 development, approximately 50 spaces at Pier 5,approximately 100 spaces within the park boundary along Furman Street at the eastern edge of theuplands between Piers 2 and 5, and approximately 110 spaces at the John Street Site. Alternatively,the 72 parking spaces on the Pier 6 uplands could be eliminated, for a total of 1,211 parking spacesprovided within the park boundaries.

Renewable Energy

The park design would incorporate new technology to provide renewable energy, such assolar energy, to the extent practicable. Photovoltaic cell installations could provide a significantamount of the energy demand of Brooklyn Bridge Park, so consideration is being given tocombining photovoltaic cells and possibly hybrid streetlights in the energy budget for the project.The photovoltaic cells would be mounted on the roofs of the remaining piersheds.

Habitat

An important design goal is to establish the maximum number of sustainable, functioninghabitats in the Brooklyn Bridge Park. Natural habitats could include dunes on Pier 6; coastal foreston the Pier 1 and its upland, and the uplands of Piers 4 and 5; shrubland on Piers 1, 2, and 3 and onthe uplands of Piers 5 and 6; a wildflower meadow on the uplands on Piers 2 and 3; marsh andshallow water habitats on and adjacent to Piers 1 and 4 and between the Brooklyn and ManhattanBridges; and freshwater swale and wetlands near Piers 2 and 3.

Building and Material Reuse

The proposed plan envisions the reuse of a number of existing buildings located throughoutthe park site. For example, the existing Port Authority sheds located on Piers 2 and 3 could bestructurally modified and transformed into shade structures, or modified to provide areas of


9

sheltered active recreation. The plan would also reuse existing maintenance buildings for parkmaintenance and operations.

Sound Attenuation

The Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, a busy highway that is cantilevered over Furman Street,and the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges—the latter also containing a major subway route—createhigh noise levels in the project area. The park designers had to work within the constraints createdby the high noise levels of this nearby elevated roadway and the bridges. The 20- to 30-foot-highhills in the uplands between Piers 2 and 5, described below, would be designed specifically tocreate protected pathways through the park in which, at some locations, the noise of the highwaywould be substantially reduced. Additionally, existing and proposed buildings within the parkwould buffer some of the roadway noise. Noise levels outside the park, including along thePromenade, would not be noticeably increased by the hills or the new buildings in the park.

BROOKLYN BRIDGE PARK SUBAREA PLANS

Atlantic Avenue Gateway and Pier 6

Atlantic Avenue, a major Brooklyn arterial roadway, slopes down a hill towards the water,where it would serve as the southern entrance to the proposed park. The park design calls for thisentrance to serve as a gateway to the park, combining spectacular views and convenient recreation.The topography would afford a clear view of the water as one approaches the park. The park itselfwould be visible in the distance as one passes beneath the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. Theupland area of Pier 6 and the edge of the pier, located at the foot of Atlantic Avenue, would provideall the amenities of a neighborhood park including playgrounds, lawns, access to the waterfront,and recreational opportunities.

Moving farther away from the upland, a “beach barrier” with dunes is proposed on Pier 6 totake advantage of this location’s sunny, windy environment and well-drained structure. Activeprogramming, such as playgrounds, lawn areas, and beach volleyball could be located on Pier 6.Vegetation, including a variety of native shoreline plants, and topographical forms would provideshelter from the wind. An existing concrete masonry building at the edge of the pier that abuts theupland area could be preserved and used as a visitor’s center and comfort station.

Piers 5, 4, 3, and 2 and Related Uplands

Promenade and Uplands. As described above, a waterfront promenade would extend fromthe Atlantic Avenue entrance all the way to the Fulton Ferry Landing. In the south, the promenadewould bridge over a newly created tidal inlet. The promenade would meander slightly, sometimesdirecting views to the water, at other times directing views to Manhattan. A storm water collectionsystem would criss-cross the promenade and would provide natural irrigation to the overall plantingand landscape program. Some of the existing upland buildings would be reused for parkmaintenance and operations. A shed on Pier 2 or 3 would be used to store non-motorized boats.An existing building on the park uplands could also be used for this activity.


10

The upland area between Piers 2 and 5 would have an elevated and sloped topography thatwould reduce noise from the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and provide views of the harbor fromthe uplands. These slopes would rise from 20 to 30 feet in height, creating hills that would runparallel to the waterfront and the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. The slopes would rise gently onthe waterfront side of the hills, creating broad open lawns suitable for seating and picnicking.Without obstructing the view from Brooklyn Heights, steeper slopes facing the Brooklyn-QueensExpressway would include denser plantings and would provide scenery that would create a strongimage of the park from the roadway. Approximately 100 parking spaces would be created withinthe park along Furman Street at the eastern edge of the uplands.

Pier 5. The proposed plan includes outdoor fields on Pier 5, of which any of the followingsports could be played: soccer, football, rugby, cricket, lacrosse, or field hockey. In addition, it iscontemplated that the field at the western edge of Pier 5 could be housed in an indoor structure.This structure would provide year-round sports courts while maintaining the transparency of alightweight structure. Pier 5’s perimeter would provide a continuous, water’s edge esplanade fromwhich park patrons might fish or sit or walk along.

Pier 4. A shallow water habitat area would be created in the vicinity of Pier 4 and theadjacent railroad float transfer bridge. This area would be interesting to look at and protectedthrough its physical isolation from the rest of the park. In the area of Pier 4, a new floatingboardwalk would be created that would connect to the larger circuit of walkways and provide aplace for launching kayaks and bird-watching. On the upland area adjacent to Pier 4, there could bea new beach that would connect to the larger circuit of walkways. The beach would provide directaccess to the water and serve as a launching point for non-motorized boats, but swimming wouldnot be permitted.

Boating Channel. A marine structure that connects Piers 2 and 3 to the upland would beremoved and replaced with narrow bridges, thus creating an open water channel through thisportion of the park. New floating walkways along this channel would provide a circulation networkwithin the park, and their position below the level of the pier deck would allow park visitors toexplore and discover the previously obscured marine infrastructure. Transition walkways would becreated to provide ADA access and strong connections from the floating boardwalks back to theexisting pier platforms. The boating channel would also connect the safe kayaking zone from thePier 1 basin to the basin between Piers 3 and 5.

Piers 2 and 3. Portions of the warehouse sheds on Pier 3 would be reused to house activerecreation courts, perhaps including volleyball, basketball, and handball. By modifying the existingbuilding facades and roofs, these sheds would provide essential shading at a fraction of what itwould cost to build brand-new shade structures. In addition to conserving park dollars, the reuse ofthese structures is consistent with the park’s commitment to both environmental sustainability andthe continuity of the industrial history of the site. In conjunction with planting, these architecturalmeasures may also be used to enhance microclimatic wind shelters. The Pier 2 area would betransformed into a large civic lawn that would lend itself to programmatic flexibility and waterfrontpromenades.


11

Pier 1 and Fulton Ferry Landing

Pier 1. Despite its name, the majority of Pier 1 is a peninsula of solid ground that projectsinto the East River rather than a pile-supported platform. The depth and weight-bearing capacity ofthis land offers one of the few opportunities on this site for elevated topography, large trees, andinfrastructure-heavy park uses at the water’s edge. A hill on Pier 1 would momentarily obscure thelarge-scale views to the harbor and provide a contrasting moment of enclosure within the park. Atthe hill’s apex, the longer views would again be revealed, but even more so, with views into thepark and out towards the harbor, Governor’s Island, the Statue of Liberty, Manhattan, and theBrooklyn Bridge. An esplanade would run along the portion of the pier fronting on the East River,and shallow water habitat zones would be established along the southern pier edge.

By removing the pile-supported deck portion of Pier 1 and providing additional walkways,the project would create a new two-sided waterfront promenade and provide a large basin forkayaking. Some of the exposed piles would remain as historical remnants that would be interestingfrom the upland and the water.

The removal of the National Cold Storage buildings would allow for a pedestrian bridgeover Furman Street that would provide an entrance to the park from the adjoining Brooklyn Heightsneighborhood. The pedestrian bridge would link the hill on Pier 1 to Squibb Park. Squibb Park,east of Furman Street between Cranberry and Middagh Streets, is an existing city park just outsidethe project area. It occupies an isolated terrace between Brooklyn Heights and Furman Street.With only one available entrance, this dead-end park is perceived as dangerous and is currentlyclosed but is expected to be reopened to the public in the future. The use of this park would beenhanced and the urban connections between Brooklyn Bridge Park, and the neighborhoods to theeast would be strengthened by building a bridge over Furman Street from Squibb Park to Pier 1.

Fulton Ferry Landing. A large civic plaza is proposed at the base of Fulton Ferry Landingto provide a generous public gathering space at the park entrance. The Fulton Ferry Landing, whichwould serve as another major gateway to the project area, would retain most of its existing features.Changes envisioned include simplified vehicular access and relocation of some parking.

In order to create a scenic Fulton Ferry gateway and improve physical and visualconnections within the proposed park, the Purchase Building would be removed. The building, atWater and Dock Streets under the Brooklyn Bridge anchorage, is located at a pivotal point of theproject site and currently blocks critical views and the physical circulation corridor planned for thepark. Visibility and circulation within the park would be vastly improved by the proposed removalof the Purchase Building. Although it is located within the Fulton Ferry Historic District(State/National Register, New York City Historic District), the New York State Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”) has determined that the Purchase Building is nota contributing element of the Fulton Ferry Historic District. The notable public benefit to the parkwith respect to views and programming outweighs the benefits of retaining the building.

This major park entrance demonstrates a powerful sequence of landmark, gateway, andconnecting views: the unmistakable form of the Brooklyn Bridge pier beckons from afar, leading toarrival at the Fulton Ferry Landing, at which point further views through the park are revealed to the


12

Manhattan Bridge, the East River, and Fulton Ferry State Park.

Interbridge Area

The area between the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges is already largely developed asparkland, containing both Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park and the new Main Street Park at the footof Main Street, both of which would be incorporated into the Proposed Project. Nearby, therestored exterior shell of the former Tobacco Warehouse, which may require other improvements,may be used to house a walled garden, café, or space for arts groups. Near these structures, at thewater’s edge, the existing open water cove would be retained to allow park visitors to reach theshoreline. The existing New York City Department of Environmental Protection building adjacentto the Manhattan Bridge at Washington Street may be reused for community, cultural, educational,or other uses.

North of the Manhattan Bridge

The northernmost precinct of the proposed park is at a bend in the river and is bordered by alarge electrical transformer to the east. Given the existing circulation network, it would benecessary to travel city streets to get from this area to the remainder of the park. To form aconnection that allows for the internal continuity of the park, a pedestrian connection, in the form ofan overwater platform, joining the existing Main Street Park and the John Street site is proposed.The creation of a hill at this major park entrance would result in one of the most spectacular harborviews within the park, encompassing the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges to the south, and theEast River to the north. To facilitate river-viewing, the mounded site would feature planting, pavedarea, site furnishings, and lawn.

DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS

Requirement that the Park be Financially Self-Sustainable

Under the terms of the 2002 MOU between the state and city that created the project, thepark is required to be financially self-sustaining, i.e., the park’s annual maintenance and operationbudget must be funded through revenue generated from within the park. The annual maintenanceand operations costs for the park are preliminarily projected to be approximately $15.2 million, in2004 dollars. This budget assumes a park of approximately 85 acres, and is comprehensive, onlyexcluding administration costs for special events, costs for special programming, and costs formajor structural repairs, which would be handled through a maintenance reserve.

Identification of Development Parcels

Once the annual maintenance and operation costs of the park were calculated, there wereseveral additional steps necessary to establish a development program. First, the planning teamidentified possible sites for new buildings. The challenge for locating proposed new developmenton the site is three-fold:

The potential locations of new buildings on the project site are severely restricted by the


13

view planes and viewsheds across the site; any new buildings would have to be located soas not to obstruct views of the harbor and the Lower Manhattan skyline from the BrooklynHeights Promenade and to protect viewsheds from the foot of Atlantic Avenue and OldFulton Street and from the base of the Manhattan Bridge.

Development, in order to be successful, must be accessible, and the opportunities forsuch access in the project site are essentially limited to Atlantic Avenue, Old Fulton Streetand D.U.M.B.O. Thus the search for development locations was focused in these threeareas.

Development should maximize parkland while minimizing building footprints.Planning for development in the project area included the reuse of existing structures.

Selection of Appropriate Land Uses

In the next step in the analysis, the team considered a range of land uses and tested themagainst three major criteria: feasibility, compatibility with park uses, and the ability to maximizeparkland while creating the necessary income stream for park maintenance and operation. Theinitial range of uses analyzed recreational uses, public parking, office, local retail, destination (largeformat) retail, housing, and hotel. These uses were screened as follows:

Recreational uses, such as an ice hockey facility or an Olympic-sized swimming pool,would require government subsidy and would not be able to generate any revenue for thepark. These uses were eliminated as infeasible.

An examination of demand for monthly and daily parking within a reasonable distanceof the park site found that there would not be enough demand to justify the construction ofadditional parking structures as a revenue-generating use for the park.

The project site was found to be infeasible for office use for several reasons: (1) the siteis not located near enough to public transportation; (2) since the location is not competitivewith more central office locations it could not command rents commensurate with newconstruction; (3) office uses are only active during business hours, and are therefore notconsidered to be park compatible; and (4) the footprints of modern office buildings arelarge, and development of this use would therefore not maximize the area available forparkland.

Local retail, ancillary to other proposed development, could be accommodated in thepark; however, this location is too far from population centers to generate the foot trafficnecessary to support a significant amount of stand-alone local retail.

Destination (“big box”) retail, at a size adequate to produce a revenue flow for the park,was found to require substantial acreage including parking, to generate large amounts ofautomobile and truck traffic, and to be generally incompatible with park use.

Although big box retail would not be appropriate for the park, a concentration of retail


14

and restaurant uses in the existing Empire Stores buildings was considered suitable, becauseit would add population to the park entrance and be contained in existing structures.

Hotel and residential uses were found to be feasible, compatible with park use, and ableto maximize parkland. These uses, which could be accommodated in a relatively small areaof parkland, have the advantage of being active seven days a week, even in winter. Theywould provide patrons for the park and eyes on the park, as well. Finally, there is demandfor both of these uses in this location, so that they would be able to produce the revenueflow required for park maintenance and operation. These uses are the most economicallyeffective in terms of meeting the primary goal of having the greatest possible amount ofopen park space and leaving at least 80 percent of the total area as open public park andrecreation space.

The final step in the analysis was to create the smallest program that could prudentlysupport the annual maintenance and operations of the park. The park planners established arevenue budget based on development budgets for each site. Components of the developmentbudget included comparable land sales and construction costs and financing assumptions basedupon industry standards.

Development Program by Park Subarea

Under the EIS proposed project, the park’s development components would includeapproximately 1,210 units of housing, 225 hotel rooms, 151,200 square feet of retail uses, 86,400square feet of restaurants, cafes and other eateries, 30,000 square feet of meeting space, 36,000square feet of offices, 128,400 square feet for research and development or educational uses, and1,283 parking spaces.

As discussed above, under the Proposed Project that is the subject of the GPP and thisFindings Statement, the following modifications have been made. The total number of housingunits would range from 1,210 to 1,240, as the number of housing units to be built on the Pier 1uplands could be increased from 150 under the EIS proposed project to 180. In addition, theheights of the two residential buildings on the Pier 6 uplands could be altered, although the totaldevelopment program for that location would remain the same. Specifically, under Option 1, theheight and footprint of the 30-story building would remain unchanged, while the footprint of the 8-story building (the building closer to Furman Street) would be reduced to 9,880 square feet from18,880 square feet, and its height would be increased to 14 stories. Under Option 2, the height ofthe 30-story building would be reduced to 20 stories (its footprint would remain unchanged), whilethe footprint of the 8-story building would be reduced to 9,880 square feet from 18,880 square feet,and its height would be increased to 20 stories. Also under Option 2, the existing Building 50 at thenorthwest corner of Joralemon and Furman Streets would be converted to residential use; it wouldexpanded and would also be increased in height from 43 feet to 54 feet.

The total number of hotel units under the Proposed Project would range from 170 to 225(the latter being the number of units presented in the EIS proposed project). The total program forthe Empire Stores would increase from 289,298 square feet to 398,760 square feet, as the space foreducational or research and development uses would be replaced by additional office, retail and


15

restaurant space and the introduction of showroom space. Finally, the total number of parkingspaces to be provided within the park boundaries would range from 1,211 to 1,283, as the 72parking spaces described in the EIS on the uplands of Pier 6 could be eliminated.

The uses proposed for each of the park’s subareas under the Proposed Project are describedbelow.

Uplands of Pier 6. Two new buildings would frame this major entrance to the park underone of the two options presented above. The visibility of the new structures would be diminishedfrom the surrounding area due to changes in elevation. The smaller building, located closer toFurman Street, is expected to include retail use on the ground floor. The new housing units wouldintroduce a critical mass of residents so that the site would benefit from neighborhood “eyes” on thepark. An estimated 72 parking spaces could be provided for residents and the public, or might beeliminated.

Uplands Between Piers 5 and 6. Separated from the park by a new roadway, 360 FurmanStreet, a former industrial building, would be converted to residential use as part of the ProposedProject. Up to two stories could be added to the building’s main roof, increasing the main roofheight from 146 to 169 feet (230 feet to the mechanicals). The building would accommodate up to500 residential units, ground floor retail and/or restaurant uses, and an estimated 650 parking spacesfor building residents and the public.

Uplands of Pier 1. The deteriorated and long-vacant National Cold Storage buildings wouldbe demolished. That site would accommodate a vibrant mix of development, including arestaurant, 150 to 180 residential units and an approximately 170 to 225-room hotel in twobuildings, one of 55 feet and one of approximately 100 feet in height.1 This hotel/residentialcomplex could include meeting rooms and a spa, as well as up to 300 parking spaces. A 17,500square foot restaurant/café could also be provided. Limited vehicular access would be permitted tothe development areas on uplands. The streets would be used to delineate the urban edge andprovide services and drop-off zones.

Fulton Ferry Landing and Interbridge Area. Under the Proposed Project, the now-vacantCivil War-era Empire Stores warehouses would be restored as a mixed-use project housing a totalof approximately 398,760 square feet of development, consisting of approximately 106,504 squarefeet of restaurant uses, approximately 106,752 square feet of retail, approximately 89,876 squarefeet of showroom space, and approximately 95,628 square feet of office space.

North of Manhattan Bridge—John Street Site. To advance the development of this area as amajor point of entry into the park, a parcel along John Street between Adams and Pearl Streets (theJohn Street Site) would include an approximately 170-foot high residential building withapproximately 130 units and up to 110 parking spaces; it could also accommodate ground-floorretail uses.

1 The height of the taller building proposed for the Pier 1 uplands was reduced between publication of theDEIS and FEIS from 110 feet to 100 feet. This change was indicated on page 8-14 of the FEIS, but wasinadvertently not reflected in other references in the document.


16

Revenue Analysis

The proposed development program for the park would provide the necessary revenues andreserves to fund park maintenance and operations. It is presently contemplated that return to thepark would be maximized by combining upfront payments from developers of the revenue-generating uses with payments from apartment owners and tenants. The upfront and other one-timepayments, including purchase fees from the developers, mortgage recording tax, and payments inlieu of sales taxes (“PILOSTs”) would form an “endowment”—a reserve and investment fund forthe park. Income from investing the endowment plus income from ground rent payments,payments-in-lieu-of-real estate taxes (“PILOTs”), and other annual fees and taxes would create anannual flow of revenue, which would be used to pay for park maintenance and operation.

In an effort to try to reduce the development program, the park planners considered lowerlevels of development and the associated cash flows. As discussed further below and in Chapter 20of the EIS, “Alternatives,” under this alternative – the Reduced Density Alternative, which wouldreduce the size of residential development on the Pier 6 uplands – the capital reserve could notrecover from lack of income in the early years, and the park would run out of money approximately10 years after it is built.

The FEIS contained revenue analyses for both the EIS proposed project and the ModifiedDesign Alternative set forth in Chapter 20, “Alternatives.” Those analyses demonstrate thefinancial viability of the Proposed Project.

The development program contained in the Proposed Project represents the minimal level ofdevelopment that is required to prudently support the annual maintenance and operations of thepark based on the analysis undertaken in 2004. However, the actual development will emerge asthe result of a competitive developer selection process, and therefore development may be smaller,if market conditions permit it, because the value of land and other factors may well be differentfrom those assumed in this analysis. Therefore, for purposes of the EIS studies and these Findings,the specific development program described herein applies, but it is also understood that theultimate program may vary somewhat from the proposed plan. Given that the EIS studies establishan “envelope” of maximum impact and the MOU stipulates the development footprint may notexceed 20 percent of the park, it is also understood that the actual program cannot exceed that of theproposed plan without further environmental analysis, and that the ultimate program may besmaller than what is studied in the EIS.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF LEAD AGENCY ACTIONS

To facilitate development of the proposed Brooklyn Bridge Park, UDC, doing business asESDC, the lead agency for the Proposed Project, would undertake several actions. In summary,ESDC actions would include the following in accordance with all applicable requirements of law:

Adoption of a General Project Plan (“GPP”) pursuant to the UDC Act. As part of theGPP, ESDC would exercise its override powers over portions of the New York City ZoningResolution and the requirements of the City Map, with concurrence by the City of New


17

York, and the Proposed Project is not subject to the city’s Uniform Land Use ReviewProcedure (“ULURP”).

Additionally, among the reviews, permits and/or approvals required to facilitate theProposed Project are the following:

Approval of the GPP by BBPDC;

Authorization to conduct in-water construction activities under Articles 15 and 25 of theEnvironmental Conservation Law by the New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (“NYSDEC”);

Possible NYSDEC Beneficial Use Determination for use of dredged materials on site;

Coastal zone certification by the New York State Department of State;

Conveyance of the Empire Stores property by the New York State Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”) to the BBPDC;

Federal permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) underSection 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;

New York City approval for the closing of Joralemon Street at Furman Street tovehicular traffic;

Potential disposition of New York City-owned parcels pursuant to the UDC Act; and

Approval for the disposition of the John Street Site may be required from the New YorkState Public Service Commission.

.IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2003, ESDC issued a Notice of Intent to serve as lead agency pursuant toSEQRA; a Positive Declaration determining that the Project might result in significant adverseenvironmental impacts and stating its intention to require that an environmental impact statement(“EIS”) be prepared; and a Draft Scope of Work to delineate the environmental areas to be analyzedin the EIS. A public scoping meeting was held on June 26, 2003. Written comments were alsoaccepted until the close of business on July 7, 2003. Comments were received respecting thepotential environmental impacts the proposed project might cause and which therefore should beaddressed in the EIS. A Final Scope of Work, reflecting comments made during scoping andrefinements to the proposed project, was issued on June 17, 2005. The following areas wereidentified for analysis in the EIS:

A. Land Use, Zoning and Public PolicyB. Socioeconomic ConditionsC. Community Facilities


18

D. Open Space and Recreational FacilitiesE. ShadowsF. Historic ResourcesG. Urban Design and Visual ResourcesH. Neighborhood CharacterI. Water Quality and Natural ResourcesJ. Hazardous MaterialsK. Waterfront Revitalization ProgramL. InfrastructureM. Traffic and ParkingN. Transit and PedestriansO. Air QualityP. NoiseQ. Construction ImpactsR. Alternatives

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) was then prepared. The DEIS wasaccepted as complete with respect to scope, content, and adequacy and was published for publicreview on July 26, 2005. A public hearing on the DEIS was held by ESDC on September 19,2005. Oral and written comments were accepted at the hearing and throughout the public commentperiod, which was held open until November 2, 2005.

Numerous comments were received and reviewed. Preparation of the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement (“FEIS”) commenced thereafter. The FEIS includes a summary of and responsesto all substantive comments on the DEIS made during public review. It also includes changes tothe Proposed Project that were made subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS.

The FEIS was certified as complete by ESDC’s Directors on December 15, 2005 and theFEIS and a Notice of Completion were published and circulated. Public comments on the FEISwere accepted for a thirty-day period after publication, until January 17, 2006. By law, there is noformal comment period on an FEIS; SEQRA provides only for a 10-day period after the FEIS ispublished and before any Findings may issue. Nevertheless, to afford a further opportunity forpublic and agency review and comment, ESDC’s Directors provided a 30-day comment period onthe FEIS. All substantive comments on the FEIS have been reviewed and summarized andresponded to in a Technical Memorandum.

VI. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, HAVING REVIEWED THE DEIS, FEIS ANDSUPPORTING AND RELATED DOCUMENTS, THE DIRECTORS OF UDC, D/B/A ESDC,MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THOSEDOCUMENTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD:


19

A. LAND USE, ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY

LAND USE

Project Site

Overall, there would be no significant adverse impacts on land use on the project site,because the Proposed Project would replace vacant and underutilized land with recreationalfacilities and residential and commercial uses. These proposed uses would be compatible with,and in support of, the land uses found in the surrounding area and would represent a dramaticimprovement compared to the future without the project.

Study Area

No major changes to land use in the surrounding study area are expected as a result of theProposed Project. The Proposed Project would complement the predominantly residential landuses in the adjacent upland neighborhoods. The Proposed Project’s open spaces would serve theresidential neighborhoods of Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill and provide needed recreationalspace for residents. The mixed-use neighborhoods of D.U.M.B.O. and Vinegar Hill, which areexpected to continue their recent trend toward increased residential use, would also benefit fromnew recreational opportunities for residents. In addition, the residential buildings included in theProposed Project would be compatible with the residential character of the adjoiningneighborhoods. Restaurants and retail uses included in the Proposed Project would drawresidents of the adjacent neighborhoods to the park during both daytime and evening hours.Together, the components of the park would introduce active uses along the waterfront(particularly in the area between Old Fulton Street and Atlantic Avenue) and enliven an area thatis now underutilized and largely inaccessible. Overall, the Proposed Project would serve toconnect surrounding communities to the waterfront and to each other while enhancing the overallarea, and there would be no significant adverse impacts on land use in the study area.

LAND USE REGULATIONS: ZONING AND CITY MAP

Aspects of the Proposed Project would not conform to the project site’s M2-1 and M3-1zoning with respect to land use, since the proposed park, residential, and hotel uses would not bepermitted under these zoning districts. However, the Proposed Project would not involvechanges to zoning on the project site because ESDC anticipates an override of local zoning withconsent by the City. The Proposed Project would comply with the Special Scenic View Districtmapped across much of the project site by ensuring that views of the Manhattan skyline from theBrooklyn Heights Promenade would not be obstructed.2

2 Following completion of the FEIS, it was discovered that the existing piershed on Piers 3 and 5 intrudesinto the Brooklyn Heights Promenade view plane by approximately 10 feet. The recreation building thatcould be constructed on Pier 5 as part of the Proposed Project would be the same height as the existingstructure (although its footprint would be significantly reduced), and therefore would replicate thiscondition. Because the new building would not result in any additional intrusion into the view plane (andindeed would open up views along the pier due to its reduced footprint), it would not result in any newsignificant adverse impact to visual resources.


20

The land uses included in the Proposed Project are consistent with uses and underlyingzoning in the adjacent upland neighborhoods. The recreational, commercial, residential, andother proposed uses would be more compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods thanare the light industrial uses in the future without the Proposed Project. Although new buildingson the project site would increase bulk in certain parts of the park and create a building thatwould not conform to underlying zoning regulations, the total floor area across the entire projectsite would be within that permitted by the M2-1 and M3-1 zoning districts’ maximum floor arearation (“FAR”) of 2.0. Overall, there would be no significant adverse impacts with respect tozoning in the project site or the study area.

To facilitate park use, ESDC and BBPDC expect to override requirements regarding theCity Map for portions of the following streets that lie within the project site: Washington Street,New Dock Street, Atlantic Avenue, Joralemon Street, and Montague Street. The portions ofWashington Street, New Dock Street, and Atlantic Avenue within the project site would beincorporated into park entrances. The portions of Joralemon and Montague Streets that arewithin the project site would be part of the circulation system of the proposed park. The overrideof the City Map for these streets would not alter traffic circulation in the neighborhood andtherefore would not cause a significant adverse impact or affect operation of neighboringroadways.

PUBLIC POLICY

The Proposed Project would be consistent with the public policies that apply to the site. Itwould fulfill the mandate from Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg, as embodied in theMOU, to create a financially self-sustaining waterfront park. The residential, hotel, andcommercial uses are proposed to meet this requirement; they would generate the funds necessaryto support the annual maintenance and operations of the park, while also meeting the condition inthe MOU that no less than 80 percent of the project area be reserved as open space and dedicatedas parkland; the plan as proposed would use approximately 10 percent of the park area for thisdevelopment use. Because the proposed park would be financially self-sustaining, it would nothave to compete with other parks for scarce governmental resources.

In addition, the Proposed Project is consistent with the city’s policies focused onimproving public access to the waterfront. With the exception of two open spaces between theBrooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, all of the waterfront area within the project site is currentlyinaccessible to the public. The Proposed Project would result in continuous public waterfrontaccess from Atlantic Avenue to Jay Street. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistentwith public policies relating to the project site.

B. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The Proposed Project would result in no significant adverse socioeconomic impacts onresidents or businesses in the study area. Because there is no residential population or housinglocated on the project site, the Proposed Project would not result in any direct residentialdisplacement. The Proposed Project would directly displace three businesses and an estimated


21

221 workers that are currently located on the project site. However, these businesses representless than 1 percent of total study area employment, do not offer products or services that areunique or critical to the local or regional economy, and could likely relocate elsewhere in NewYork City.

The Proposed Project would also not result in significant adverse indirect residentialdisplacement in any of the three subareas. In general, household incomes, housing values, andrental rates are already high compared to Brooklyn and New York City, and a trend towardsdevelopment of market-rate and luxury housing is evident. This indicates that the study areadoes not contain a substantial population at risk of indirect residential displacement, and that thehousing that would be introduced by the Proposed Project would represent a continuation of anexisting trend rather than the introduction of a new one. That there are some low-incomehouseholds living in the study area despite a strong trend towards market-rate housing and high-income households indicates that most of these low-income households are living in housingunits such as public housing or rent protected units, which are shielded from market pressuresand therefore would not be affected by the Proposed Project. Any potential indirect residentialdisplacement would not lead to a change in neighborhood character and therefore would notresult in a significant adverse impact.

The Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse indirect businessdisplacement. According to the City Environmental Quality Review (“CEQR”) TechnicalManual, projects that introduce less than 200,000 square feet of commercial development or lessthan 200 residential units would not have the potential to cause indirect business displacement.The Proposed Project would introduce less than 200,000 square feet of commercial developmentin each of the three subareas (which conform more closely to the ¼-mile to ½-mile study areasrecommended in the CEQR Technical Manual than the larger Brooklyn Bridge Park study areadoes) and therefore would not have the potential to cause indirect business displacement in thisregard. The Proposed Project would introduce more than 200 residential units in the BrooklynHeights subarea. However, the additional residential units would not jeopardize existingcommercial properties in the subarea. Brooklyn Heights is already a well-established residentialarea with high commercial rents; the residential units would reflect, rather than alter oraccelerate, the trend of residential development in the study area.

Finally, the Proposed Project would not adversely affect the operation or viability of anyspecific industry. The commercial and industrial uses along Piers 1-6 consist of activewarehousing, storage, vacant structures and areas, surface parking, and a building occupied byDEP. The Proposed Project would not affect any particular category of business and has nopotential for significant adverse socioeconomic impacts.

The Proposed Project would have a positive economic effect on New York City andState, generating jobs, employee compensation, economic output, and tax revenues for the Cityand State. It is estimated that the ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would generate1,469 permanent full- and part-time jobs on the project site. As a result of that economicactivity, another 922 jobs would be created indirectly in New York State, with approximately 552of those jobs located in New York City. Total employee compensation and economic outputgenerated in New York State as a result of the Proposed Project (including direct, indirect, and


22

induced) is estimated at $101.4 million and $260.4 million, respectively. Of those amounts,$76.3 million in employee compensation and $224.2 million in economic output would occurwithin New York City. In addition, operation of the Proposed Project is estimated to generateapproximately $18.1 million annually in non-property related tax revenues for New York City,the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and New York State.

C. COMMUNITY FACILITIES

SCHOOLS

The Proposed Project would introduce 1,210 to 1,240 market-rate housing units toRegion 2 of Community School District (“CSD”) 13. The lower end of this range of units wouldintroduce an estimated 327 elementary and 121 intermediate school students into this region ofthe school district by 2012. Elementary schools in CSD 13 as a whole would operate at 70percent capacity in 2012, with 4,525 available seats and a total enrollment of 10,290. Althoughthere would be slightly more students associated with the upper end of the range of residentialunits, there would remain a sufficient number of available seats in the elementary schools.Therefore, increased enrollment attributable to the Proposed Project is not expected to result insignificant adverse impacts to public elementary schools. Total intermediate/middle schoolenrollment in the region would rise to 1,760, with a surplus of 792 seats (69 percent capacity),under the lower end of the range of new residential units. Intermediate/middle schools in CSD13 as a whole would operate at 80 percent in 2012, with 986 available seats and a totalenrollment of 4,033. Again, although there would be slightly more students associated with theupper end of the range of residential units, there would remain a sufficient number of availableseats in the elementary schools. Therefore, increased enrollment attributable to the ProposedProject is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to public intermediate schools. Inaddition, the provision of the nearby park as an educational resource would be a beneficial aspectof the Proposed Project for the intermediate/middle school population.

PARK SECURITY

Because the park would not directly affect a police facility, detailed impact studies ofmunicipal police service are not called for. However, with respect to current security plans, thepark is expected to be open to the public between 6 and 1 AM and most likely will be policed bydedicated Brooklyn Bridge Park security personnel, including police officers and park rangers.The number of officers and rangers will fluctuate based on the season and day of the week;preliminary planning calls for a daily staffing level ranging from 5 to 11 persons.

Park patrols would be done on foot, by bicycle or by vehicle depending upon the time ofday and season. Security staff would be supplemented by recreation, gardening, and maintenancestaff, who would be in radio communication, as needed, with police personnel. In addition topark patrols, security surveillance would be provided via installation of security camera at keypublic facilities.

In the event of an emergency or a major event it is expected that park security would callon the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) for support.


23

D. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

The Proposed Project would provide approximately 77 acres of open space anddramatically increase the recreational opportunities along and adjacent to the waterfront.Although the Proposed Project would add new worker and residential populations to the area, theamount and character of new open space created would result in substantial beneficial effects toopen space conditions and would not result in significant adverse open space impacts.

E. SHADOWS

There would be no significant adverse shadow impacts as a result of the Proposed Project.The proposed Brooklyn Bridge Park’s new buildings at the uplands of Piers 1 and 6 and on the JohnStreet Site would cast new shadows on some nearby public open spaces (including existing openspaces and the proposed park) and historic resources in the study area. However, according to theassessment criteria in the CEQR Technical Manual, none of the shadows cast by the ProposedProject would have a significant adverse impact on any of these open spaces or historic resourcesbecause of their short durations, limited occurrences in certain periods of the year, and smallcoverage areas. This would be true under either Option 1 or Option 2 for the residential buildingsto be constructed on the Pier 6 uplands.

The largest shadow increments from the Proposed Project on an open space resource wouldoccur during the winter, when shadows are longest because of the sun’s position in the sky. On theDecember analysis day, the shadow from the building on the John Street Site would cover a portionof the waterfront open space to the north. The landscape design for this portion of the park wouldaccount for these conditions. Since this open space would be created as part of the ProposedProject, the shadows that would be cast on the open space are not considered a significant adverseimpact. The two options for the Pier 6 uplands buildings would result in increased shadows on theBrooklyn Heights Historic District and the Palmetto Playground. However, given their shortdurations, the shadow increments would not be considered a significant adverse impact.

F. HISTORIC RESOURCES

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The project area has been determined to be sensitive for historic-period archaeologicalresources including landfilling devices, and former building foundations. Since construction of theproposed park could affect potential archaeological resources, subsurface archaeologicalinvestigations would be undertaken to determine the presence or lack of presence of archaeologicalresources. Any testing measures, and, if appropriate, mitigation measures, would be developed andimplemented in consultation with OPRHP. The consultation process respecting archaeologicalresources would occur in accordance with a Letter of Resolution (“LOR”) among ESDC, BBPDC,OPRHP, and the developer of the Empire Stores.


24

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

The project area contains several prominent architectural resources, including the BrooklynBridge, Manhattan Bridge, and portions of the Fulton Ferry and D.U.M.B.O. historic districts. TheProposed Project would positively affect these historic resources by improving their visibility andcontext and by rehabilitating and adapting for reuse the Civil War-era Empire Stores located withinthe Fulton Ferry Historic District. The conversion of this vacant storehouse to mixed commercialuse is being undertaken in consultation with OPRHP, with the rehabilitation being undertaken inaccordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Another proposed improvement includes opening view corridors to the Brooklyn andManhattan Bridges. This is achieved in two locations. First, the proposed demolition of thePurchase Building would remove a powerful barrier between the north and south portions of theproposed park. In comments dated June 21, 2005, OPRHP determined that the Purchase Buildingis not a contributing element of the Fulton Ferry Historic District since it post-dates the historicdistrict’s period of significance. OPRHP also determined it is not individually eligible as a result ofalterations. A study of the Purchase Building prepared by Beyer Blinder Belle in 1999 furtherasserts that the building is inconsistent with the historic commercial character of the Fulton Ferryarea, composed of 19th and early 20th century buildings, and that there are better examples ofbuildings designed in the International and Art Deco styles. The 1977 New York City LandmarksPreservation Commission (“LPC”) designation report for the Fulton Ferry Historic describes all theproperties within the boundaries of the district but does not distinguish between contributing andnon-contributing buildings. Even if it were assumed that the Purchase Building was a contributingelement to the historic district, its removal would not constitute a significant adverse impact tohistoric resources, for the same reasons OPRHP determined the Purchase Building to be non-contributing and not eligible for the Registers. Nevertheless, due to concerns raised regarding thepotential architectural significance of this building, the demolition would be treated in the samemanner as is if it were to have a significant adverse impact and therefore, mitigation in the formHistoric American Buildings Survey (“HABS”) documentation would be undertaken and submittedto an appropriate public repository.

Second, the former National Cold Storage buildings, located in the Pier 1 upland, would bedemolished, opening up views across the project site. These buildings, which are badlydeteriorated, have been determined to be S/NR-eligible by OPRHP. Although it has beendetermined that a revenue-producing development program cannot be accommodated in thesebuildings, and that an attempt to adapt the buildings to new uses would result in significant adverseimpacts to these historic structures, the demolition of these buildings would constitute a significantadverse impact on architectural resources. OPRHP has determined that the overall plan for thepark, which otherwise positively affects architectural resources, would to a large extent mitigate thedemolition of this historic resource. Additional mitigation measures would be developed inconsultation with OPRHP, as stipulated in the LOR, described above.

In addition, to avoid inadvertent damage to surrounding historic buildings in the project areaand study area during park construction, a construction protection plan would be developed andimplemented in consultation with OPRHP. This plan would provide for protective measures forhistoric buildings located within 90 feet of project construction.


25

G. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES

PROJECT SITE

In general, the proposed park would be a dramatic improvement to the Brooklyn waterfrontcompared to the future without the Proposed Project, and is expected to greatly enhance the visualcharacter of the project site. Vacant land and buildings, industrial uses, and parking lots on theproject site would be replaced with a major new waterfront park with passive and activerecreational facilities and residential, retail, and hotel uses. The area south of Old Fulton Streetwould be converted from an underutilized, industrial waterfront into a vibrant waterfront that ismore accessible and varied. Views from the project site of visual resources, including theManhattan skyline and the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges would be enhanced.

The Proposed Project would involve considerable changes to building types and forms aswell as their arrangement and use on the project site. The residential building to be constructed onthe John Street Site would be similar in height to existing buildings in D.U.M.B.O. and would besmaller than the 23-story residential building to be constructed in the neighborhood by 2012 in thefuture without the Proposed Project. At approximately 315 feet in height, the residential building tobe constructed on the upland area of Pier 6 under Option 1 would be taller than other buildings onand near the project site. However, the 146-foot-high building at 360 Furman Street, themechanical portion of which reaches a height of approximately 230 feet, would be immediatelyadjacent to the proposed building and sets a context for taller buildings in the area.

The massive industrial scale of the piersheds would be reduced and replaced with attractiveopen spaces and recreational uses. The proposed hotel, retail, and restaurant uses are expected tocomplement the existing residential uses in the study area and those proposed for the project site.Overall, there would be no significant adverse impacts to the urban design of the project site, as theproposed uses would represent a dramatic improvement compared to the future without the project.

The Proposed Project would enhance the project site’s views to visual resources, and wouldhighlight the visual resources existing within the project site itself. Views north along FurmanStreet to the Brooklyn pier of the Brooklyn Bridge would be improved by the removal ofdeteriorating buildings along this street; views south along the street would now include the newpedestrian bridge from Squibb Park to the Pier 1 hill, the hills between Piers 2 and 5, the newresidential buildings behind 360 Furman Street, and the hotel/residential complex on Pier 1. Viewsto Lower Manhattan would be opened up in the area south of Old Fulton Street and west of thenewly-created hills, through the removal of the majority of the piersheds. Views to and around theBrooklyn Bridge would be improved by the removal of the Purchase Building. The removal of thevacant National Cold Storage buildings would allow for the creation of a pedestrian bridge overFurman Street linking the park to the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood.

STUDY AREA

The uses proposed for the project site would be consistent or compatible with existing usesin the study area, and the residential uses proposed at the park’s edges would serve to lessen the


26

barrier that the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway creates around the area south of Old Fulton Street.The new uses would greatly increase the level of streetlife in this area during both daytime andevening hours. The two new residential buildings to be constructed adjacent to 360 Furman Streetare outside of the area protected by the Brooklyn Heights Scenic View District. Although the 30-story building under Option 1 would be taller than other buildings in the immediate area, thebuilding at 360 Furman Street, the tallest portion of which reaches a height of 230 feet (i.e., themechanicals), sets a context for taller buildings. Under Option 2, the two 20-story buildings wouldbe 215 feet in height, which is similar to the adjacent 360 Furman Street building. Views from theBrooklyn Heights Promenade are expected to be enhanced by the Proposed Project. Views withinD.U.M.B.O. would not change as considerably as views within, and to, the area south of Old FultonStreet. Views west along Water and Plymouth Streets to the Brooklyn pier of the Brooklyn Bridgewould be improved with the removal of the Purchase Building.

Views from the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges and the East River Esplanade would begreatly improved with the Proposed Project. Instead of a mostly industrial view of piersheds andparking fields, views would now be of landscaped open spaces interspersed with structures. Thenew buildings adjacent to 360 Furman Street and on Pier 1 and the John Street site would be visiblein these views; however, the taller buildings of D.U.M.B.O. and Downtown Brooklyn are alsopresent in these views, and from these perspectives the new buildings would blend in with thelarger Brooklyn skyline. The change in views would be most notable from south of the SouthStreet Seaport, where currently views toward the project site focus on the massive scale of thepiersheds on Piers 1 through 6. Overall, the Proposed Project would not have significant adverseimpacts on visual resources or significant views, as the project would represent a dramaticimprovement in the visual character of the project site.

H. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

As described above, the Proposed Project would have beneficial impacts on land use, openspace, and visual resources, and it would not create significant adverse impacts on communityfacilities. With the exception of the proposed demolition of the former National Cold Storagebuildings, the Proposed Project would positively affect architectural historic resources, in part byopening up greater views of the Brooklyn Bridge and Manhattan Bridges. The Proposed Projectwould also retain the Tobacco Inspection Warehouses in Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park andrehabilitate the Civil War-era Empire Stores into a mixed-use development, restoring an historicbuilding that has been vacant for approximately 50 years. The removal of the former National ColdStorage buildings would allow better physical access to the proposed park and would create newviews of the East River and the Manhattan skyline from the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood to theeast of the project site. Furthermore, removal of the buildings would allow for a pedestrian bridgeover Furman Street that would provide an access point to the park from Squibb Park in theadjoining Brooklyn Heights neighborhood. Measures to mitigate the adverse impact resulting fromthe demolition of the buildings would be developed in consultation with OPRHP, and their removalwould not adversely affect neighborhood character.

The vehicle trips generated by users of the park and its associated retail, hotel, andresidential buildings would result in significant traffic impacts requiring mitigation at a number ofintersections. While two of the impacts would remain unmitigated (three in the scenario in which


27

Furman Street were to remain one-way rather than being converted to two-way as is anticipated),these would occur at locations that are already heavily trafficked, so overall changes in trafficconditions would not substantially alter the area’s character.

If approved by the City of New York, the Proposed Project would include the closing ofJoralemon Street to vehicular traffic at Furman Street, but would remain open for pedestrians. Thisclosure would minimize park-generated traffic along Joralemon Street. To support the proposedclosure, the scenario with Joralemon Street remaining open to vehicular traffic at Furman Streetwas also examined. Although this scenario would increase vehicle trips along Joralemon Street, itwould not result in significant adverse traffic impacts. Whether Joralemon Street remains open oris closed, there would not be a significant adverse impact on neighborhood character by reason oftraffic impacts.

The Proposed Project would draw a large number of pedestrians to the area, the greatestconcentrations of which would likely occur in the vicinity of park entrance locations along OldFulton Street, Atlantic Avenue, Joralemon Street and Columbia Street. The increased pedestrianactivity would not result in significant adverse impacts and would enliven areas of the project sitethat are lacking in street life.

While noise levels in the park would be above the 55 dBA L10(1) CEQR criterion for“acceptable” noise conditions, they would be comparable to noise levels in a number of existingparks in New York City that are also located adjacent to heavily trafficked roadways, includingProspect Park, Riverside Park, Hudson River Park, and Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park. TheProposed Project would include hills on the uplands between Piers 2 and 5, which would providenotable noise abatement within this section of the park. The hills would not cause any increases innoise levels along the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and nearby residences due to reflected sound.Increases in noise levels at the other locations analyzed would not be perceptible.

I. WATER QUALITY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

The Proposed Project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on waterquality or natural resources. Specifically:

Passive recreation areas in the flood plain, such as the waterfront promenade, shallowwater habitat and new landscaped areas would not affect flooding in or near the project area.The increase in vegetated area in the upland portion of the park between Piers 1 and 6would benefit the floodplain by promoting absorption of rainfall and decreasing the amountof surface runoff in the project area. Design of new structures on the uplands of Piers 1 and6 would minimize potential floodplain impacts and losses due to flooding.

The fixed-pile-supported walkways proposed across littoral zone tidal wetlands in thecove under the Manhattan Bridge would not impede movement of tidal waters and so wouldnot result in significant adverse impacts on tidal wetlands. The proposed shorelineimprovements from modifications to the relieving platforms would actually benefit wetlandresources by creating intertidal wetland habitat along the newly exposed shoreline betweenPiers 1 and 5.


28

The Proposed Project would institute a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(“SWPPP”) during construction and operation, an Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”)strategy, and stormwater management to minimize impacts on water quality and aquaticbiota from discharge of stormwater during construction and operation of the park.

Operation of the proposed marina and use of wave fences would not result in significantadverse impacts on water quality, fish, or macroinvertebrates within the project area. Thewave fences would be designed to minimize disturbance to circulation and sedimentationprocesses, and water depths in the marina would be sufficient to minimize the potential forincreased suspended sediment from boat activity. Contaminants accidentally released as aresult of marina operation would be flushed rapidly. Implementation of best managementpractices to minimize environmental impacts of marinas presented in the 2003 NYSDECpublication, “Environmental Compliance, Pollution Prevention, and Self-Assessment Guidefor the Marina Industry,” would further reduce the potential for marina-related impacts.

Dredging (5,000 to 8,000 cubic yards) would be limited to certain areas in the safe waterzone and the marina. Impacts from this minimal dredging activity would be temporary,localized, and not significant.

The Proposed Project would meet the objective of the proposed plan in resulting in nonet increase in overwater coverage. The formation of a pile field through removal of aportion of the Pier 1 platform, the creation of new shallow-water habitats, and thereplacement of existing bulkhead and relieving platforms with riprap would increase thediversity of aquatic habitats in the project area, benefiting both fish and macroinvertebratesand Essential Fish Habitat (“EHF”)—those waters and substrate necessary to fish forspawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity (16 USC § 1802(10)). In addition, theendangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), which would only be expected tooccur as occasional transients in the project area, would not be adversely affected by theProposed Project.

Marine turtles and aquatic mammals (e.g., seals) would only be expected to occurwithin the project area as occasional transient individuals. The floating walkways wouldcontain barriers to limit the opportunity for seals to haul out and interact with park visitorsor their pets. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant adverseenvironmental impact on these fauna.

The Proposed Project has the potential to benefit the state-endangered peregrine falconby increasing prey availability through the creation of natural habitats that would attractadditional birds to the project area. The Proposed Project would not affect the availabilityof a nesting location that is occasionally used within the project area, nor wouldconstruction activities affect nesting success.

The Proposed Project would create a diverse complex of terrestrial habitats throughout thesite which would significantly benefit birds and other wildlife—particularly grassland species,whose habitat is currently limited within the New York metropolitan region. The creation of shall-


29

water habitats has the potential to increase foraging habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, andshorebirds.

J. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Development of the Brooklyn Bridge Park would involve excavation and disturbance of theexisting on-site soil. Groundwater may be encountered as part of construction activities. Theseactivities could temporarily increase exposure pathways for construction workers and workers onnearby sites to contaminants in the subsurface. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment revealedthat most of the park site has historically been used for shipping and warehousing, primarily of foodproducts, with some manufacturing and light industrial operations in the upland areas and on theadjacent blocks to the east.

Subsurface sampling found that most of the soil throughout the site contains above-background concentrations of contaminants that are associated with the importation of poor qualityurban fill material containing ash or other wastes for past grading and site development activities.Known petroleum underground storage tanks were identified at the maintenance garages on theproject site and on the property north of the Manhattan Bridge. Soil exhibiting elevatedconcentrations of petroleum-related contaminants above recommended cleanup guidelines wasfound at some of these locations. Other localized areas of soil contamination from former on-siteoperations not identified by the subsurface investigations already conducted at the site may also bepresent.

The analyses of the groundwater samples collected did not indicate the presence ofsignificant wide-spread contamination. However, trace levels of contaminants were identified inlocalized areas near underground storage tanks or former maintenance facilities where the use ofpetroleum and/or solvents was common.

Based on the age of the existing buildings on the site, it is likely that asbestos-containingmaterials, PCB-containing electrical equipment, and lead-based paints might be present. Suchmaterials at the subject property that may be disturbed by renovation/demolition activities will bemanaged in accordance with proper regulatory protocols prior to commencing such activities. Anyidentified asbestos remaining at the property will be regularly inspected and maintained under asite-specific Operation and Maintenance (“O&M”) Plan to prevent deterioration.

The environmental conditions identified at the project site during the environmentalinvestigations would be remediated prior to initiating operation of the proposed park and providingpublic access to the project area. Localized areas of contaminated soil would be delineated,excavated, and properly disposed of off-site as part of site development. Identified spills would bereported to the proper regulatory agencies and remedial measures would be implemented asrequired to close such spills. All soil excavated as part of soil remedial activities would bemanaged and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. Ifconstruction and development activities at the park that extend below the water table exposelocalized areas of contaminated groundwater, corrective action in accordance with regulatoryprotocols would be followed, including notification of the proper regulatory agencies and clean-upunder regulatory guidance.


30

Potential impacts during construction and development activities would be avoided byimplementing a construction health and safety plan (“CHASP”). Such a plan would insure that theconstruction workers, the surrounding community, and the environment are not adversely affectedby environmental conditions exposed by or encountered during the construction activities. Theimplementation of these remedial actions would remove all environmental conditions that couldaffect the health and safety of the visiting public once the park is in operation. With thesemeasures, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be expected to occuras a result of the construction activities of the Proposed Project and subsequent public use of thepark.

K. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

The project site is located in the coastal zone designated by New York State and New YorkCity. Therefore, the Proposed Project is subject to the city and state’s coastal zone managementpolicies. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the city’s 10 Local WaterfrontRevitalization Program policies.

Specifically, the Proposed Project’s development of an approximately 85-acre public parkon the project site would be consistent with goals in Brooklyn and throughout New York City tocreate and improve public access to the waterfront. The Proposed Project would also support thecoastal zone policies by dramatically increasing recreational uses along the East River.

L. INFRASTRUCTURE

The Proposed Project would increase infrastructure demands by adding residential, hotel,commercial, and community facilities uses, as well as restaurants, park space, a marina, and otherfacilities to the project site. The estimated levels of water, sanitary sewage, solid waste, and energydemand for the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the infrastructure thatprovides these services.

M. TRAFFIC AND PARKING

The Proposed Project would result in new trips to and from the project site. Based on ananalysis of the weekday midday, weekday PM, and Sunday peak hours, under the scenario in whichFurman Street is converted by the New York City Department of Transportation (“NYCDOT”) totwo-way operation, as is anticipated, there would be significant impacts at 16 of the 49 intersectionsanalyzed, all but two of which would be mitigated.

The new demand would result in 12 intersections with one or more potential significantlyimpacted movements in the midday peak hour, 15 intersections in the PM peak hour, and 7 in theSunday midday peak hour. These impacts would occur along intersections in the main accesscorridors of Cadman Plaza West/Old Fulton, Atlantic Avenue, and Tillary Street. The unmitigatedlocations would be at Tillary and Adams Streets and Cadman Plaza West at the Brooklyn Bridgeoff ramp.


31

The Proposed Project would generate new parking demand and also would provide 1,211 to1,283 new accessory parking spaces. The projected parking demand would be slightly higher thanthe number of new spaces provided in the weekday and Sunday midday hours. However, the off-site parking system has more than sufficient available spaces in the weekday midday and onSunday. As such, any project-generated overflow can readily be accommodated and no significantadverse parking impacts are expected.

An analysis was prepared to determine the potential traffic impacts associated with theProposed Project, assuming that the NYCDOT initiative of changing the traffic operation ofFurman Street from one-way to two-way is not implemented by 2012. This analysis concludes that17 intersections would be impacted in one or more analysis peak hours, all but three of whichwould be mitigated. (Similarly, the scenario with Furman Street remaining one-way also resulted inthree unmitigated impacted intersection under the EIS proposed project.)

To support the proposed closure of Joralemon Street to vehicular traffic at Furman Street,an analysis was prepared of the Proposed Project’s traffic impacts with Joralemon Street remainingopen. Such an analysis affords a comparative basis for assessing the impact of the street’s closure.The closure is subject to approval by the City of New York. This analysis showed that the additionof a low level of project-generated traffic to a westbound one-way Joralemon Street would notresult in any significant traffic impacts on Joralemon Street. Further, it is not expected that thisscenario would affect the mitigation for the Proposed Project’s significant adverse traffic impacts,or that any of the previously identified traffic impacts on either Atlantic Avenue or Old FultonStreet would be eliminated. This would be the case if Furman Street were two-way or remainedone-way. (This would likewise be true under both the EIS proposed project and the ProposedProject that is the subject of the GPP and this Findings Statement.)

N. TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIANS

No unmitigated significant adverse impacts related to transit and pedestrians are expected asa result of the Proposed Project. The project would result in a net increase of subway trips in alltime periods studied, but would result in no significant adverse impacts at any stairways or farearrays. Significant adverse pedestrian impacts are also not expected to occur at sidewalks, cornerareas, and crosswalks along the principal pedestrian access corridors serving the Proposed Project.However, in the future with the Proposed Project, the B25, B61 and B63 local bus routes would besignificantly adversely impacted in their peak directions in the weekday PM peak hour. Asstandard practice, New York City Transit (“NYCT”) monitors bus ridership and increases servicewhere operationally warranted and fiscally feasible. As such, the capacity shortfall on these routeswould be addressed by NYCT, and no project-initiated mitigation is required for the ProposedProject.

The analysis identifies the need for the provision of improved pedestrian conditions andmeasures to address safety concerns along the pedestrian corridors to the project site. As projectplanning advances, a set of coordinated steps will be undertaken to ensure safe pedestrian pathwaysfor park visitors. Specifically, BBPDC would coordinate with other agencies to ensure that thepark’s design and user needs are addressed through the implementation of any off-siteimprovements or other measures that may be determined to be necessary. Once the park isconstructed, park staff would be specifically responsible for monitoring pedestrian safety within the


32

park and the surrounding area, and would coordinate with NYCDOT and relevant initiatives toaddress any safety concerns that may emerge.

O. AIR QUALITY

No significant adverse air quality impacts are expected to result from the Proposed Project.The Proposed Project would result in emissions generated by stationary sources associated with theproposed developments, such as emissions from fuel burned on site for heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (“HVAC”) systems, and from motor vehicles (“mobile sources”) traveling to and fromthe project site. The Proposed Project would also include parking facilities; ventilation of air fromthe garages could potentially result in increases in carbon monoxide (“CO”) concentrations in theimmediate vicinity of the ventilation outlets.

The results of the air quality analyses demonstrated that the maximum predicted CO andparticulate matter (“PM 2.5”) concentrations from project-generated mobile sources would notresult in any significant adverse air quality impacts, with Furman Street operating as either a two-way or one-way street and with Joralemon Street open or closed. The parking garage analysisdetermined that CO emissions from the parking facility with the greatest vehicle capacity would notcause any significant adverse air quality impacts. At proposed development sites in close proximityto elevated roadways, the maximum predicted CO and PM 10 impacts were below the ambient airstandards. (PM 2.5 impacts were not analyzed in this case, since it is assessed as an increment, andin the No Build condition, no development would occur. Therefore, it is impossible to assess whatthe incremental impacts of PM 2.5 would be.) Thus, the Proposed Project would not havesignificant adverse air quality impacts from mobile source emissions.

A stationary source screening analysis and subsequent detailed dispersion modeling wasconducted for the HVAC systems of the proposed development site at 360 Furman Street and thelower building at Pier 6, and from the proposed Empire Stores development site. With properexhaust placement, there would be no potential significant adverse air quality impacts from theproposed development’s HVAC systems.

With respect to the initial industrial source analysis, the maximum 1-hour particulate matterconcentration at receptor locations within the project site was predicted to be 111.0 micrograms percubic meter (“µg/m3”). This concentration is well below the guideline concentration SGC of 380µg/m3 established by the New NYSDEC. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse airquality impacts from industrial facilities on the Proposed Project.

The conclusion that the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse air qualityimpacts would not be altered with or without the closure of Joralemon Street.

P. NOISE

High noise levels exist in much of the study area today, and the same is expected in thefuture. Depending on location, noise levels in the project area are due to a combination of sources:traffic on nearby streets, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and the Brooklyn Bridge; traffic andtrains on the Manhattan Bridge; aircraft flyovers; and boat traffic on the East River. The proposed


33

Brooklyn Bridge Park would add new traffic to nearby streets and roadways and thereby increasesurrounding noise levels. In addition, the Proposed Project would increase noise as a result ofboating activities associated with the park, and people using the park. The noise analysis examinesthe cumulative effect of noise from all of these sources on future noise levels with the ProposedProject.

Regarding off-site locations, the Proposed Project would not result in any significantadverse noise impacts.

In terms of on-site locations, noise levels both with and without the Proposed Project wouldbe high. They are high in the western portion of the project site, even with the hills planned as partof the park design, principally due to noise generated by traffic on the Brooklyn-QueensExpressway and along the eastern portion of the project site principally due to noise generated byvehicular traffic and trains on the Manhattan Bridge. The project site was an industrial area at thetime the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and Manhattan Bridge were built, and noise from thesefacilities was not a significant concern. While noise at the proposed park would be similar to noiseat other New York City parks which are adjacent to heavily trafficked roadways, based upon CEQRnoise criteria, ambient noise levels would have a potentially significant noise impact on users of thenew park. There are no feasible and practicable mitigation measures that could be implemented toeliminate the potential significant adverse impacts within the proposed park. Buildings on-sitewould be designed with sufficient attenuation measures to comply with all applicable CEQRguidelines. Similarly, mechanical systems would be designed to meet all applicable noise codesand regulations.

The conclusions of the assessment of potential noise impacts would not be altered with orwithout the closure of Joralemon Street or with Furman Street operating one-way or two-way.

Q. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

As with most construction projects, construction activities would cause increases in traffic,fugitive dust, emissions from equipment and vehicles, and noise. Although these constructionimpacts may be a source of annoyance, they would be temporary and are not considered significant.Construction activities could also result in temporary increases in potential exposure pathways tohazardous materials. A site-specific CHASP would be developed for the site to protectconstruction workers and the public from adverse environmental conditions during construction.Construction activities that disturb sediment, disturb terrestrial habitat, and increase runoff alsohave the potential to disturb water quality and natural resources on the project site. However, it isnot expected that any significant adverse impacts to these resources would result. Existing utilitiesare anticipated to be able to accommodate new service needs. In addition, during construction ofthe project, appropriate measures would be closely followed to minimize fugitive dust emissions,control noise and vibration levels, control the rodent population, and thus reduce impacts to thesurrounding area.

R. ALTERNATIVES

Six alternatives to the EIS proposed project were considered in this FEIS: a No Action


34

Alternative, which assumes that Brooklyn Bridge Park would not be built; a Reduced DensityAlternative, in which a building approximately the same height as 360 Furman is constructed on theuplands of Pier 6 and no 8 story building is constructed on the pier uplands; a Modified DesignAlternative in which 30 additional residential units are constructed along Furman Street, the parkmay have fewer parking spaces, with no parking at the Pier 6 uplands or the John Street Site, and adifferent development mix occurs at the Empire Stores site; an alternative with modified height andmassing of the Pier 6 residential buildings; an alternative that utilizes wind turbines to generateenergy; and an alternative that avoids any unmitigated adverse impacts. The impacts from thesealternatives were compared with those of the EIS proposed project. As indicated, elements of theModified Design Alternative (i.e., a possible reduction in housing units and increase in hotel unitsat the Pier 1 uplands, a possible elimination of parking from the uplands of Pier 6, and the increasedEmpire Stores program) and the Modified Pier 6 Residential Building Design Alternative (i.e.,Options 1 and 2 for the residential buildings on the Pier 6 uplands) have been incorporated into theProposed Project that is the subject of the GPP and this Finding Statement.

1. No Action Alternative

Rather than becoming an important public open space resource, the project area wouldremain primarily a mix of storage, parking, and commercial uses, with public access only at thenorthern end at Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park and Main Street Park. The substantial publicbenefits and transformation of the shoreline associated with provision of a major new waterfrontpark along Brooklyn’s waterfront would not occur.

This alternative would not be consistent with public policies concerning the waterfront.Like the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, this alternative would not significantlyadversely impact socioeconomic conditions, open space, community facilities, shadows,infrastructure, or parking, subways, pedestrians, or air quality.

With this alternative, the increased public access to and views of the riverfront throughoutthe project area would not occur, nor would the improvements in visual character associated withpark development. With this alternative, the conversion of almost 18 acres to a landscaped areawould not occur, nor would shoreline improvements that would create intertidal wetland habitatalong the shoreline or the creation of additional littoral zone.

This alternative has no potential to disturb archaeological resources, but would result in thesame historic resources impact related to demolition of the former National Cold Storage buildingsas would the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project. This alternative would generate lesstraffic than the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, especially during the weekend, andthe traffic impacts associated with the park would not occur. However, the major pedestrianamenity associated with the park esplanade would also not be provided. Unlike the EIS proposedproject and the Proposed Project, this alternative would not create the impact associated withdrawing people into a park setting characterized by high background noise levels.

With this alternative, the project’s removal of potentially contaminated soils would notoccur, nor would clean soil fill be placed in areas not covered by paving or other imperviousmaterials. Unlike the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, this alternative would not be


35

consistent with all applicable Waterfront Revitalization Program policies, particularly thoseencouraging public access to the water’s edge. Because there would be no construction of a parkwith this alternative, there would also be none of the temporary impacts associated with itsconstruction. The city and state would also not obtain the economic benefits associated with theconstruction.

2. Reduced Density Alternative

The Reduced Density Alternative considers a development program with less residentialand hotel use than the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project. Under this alternative, theresidential program in new construction on the uplands of Pier 6 would be reduced from 430 underthe EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project to 163 units. These units would be housed in asingle 15-story building approximately the same height as the existing 360 Furman building. Thisis compared to the 30-story and 8-story buildings presented under the EIS proposed project, and the30-story and 14-story, or two 20-story buildings plus Building 50, under the Proposed Project. Topotentially compensate for this loss of units, the program on the uplands of Pier 1 would bemodified under this alternative to yield 180 residential units (compared to 150 under the EISproposed project, and the same as the upper range under the Proposed Project); at the same time,the hotel would be reduced to 170 rooms (compared to 225 rooms under the EIS proposed project,and the same as the lower range under the Proposed Project).

Like the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, the existing building at 360Furman Street would be renovated for residential use under this alternative and 130 new unitswould be constructed on the John Street Site. The program for the Empire Stores would be thesame under this alternative as in the EIS proposed project. Overall, the Reduced DensityAlternative would result in 237 fewer residential units and 55 fewer hotel rooms than the EISproposed project (and up to the same reduction as compared to the Proposed Project). As with theEIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, hills would be constructed along Furman Street toreduce noise levels within the park.

The cash flow analysis for the Reduced Density Alternative found that the capital reservecould not recover from lack of income in the early years, and the park would run out of moneyapproximately 10 years after its completion. Under this Alternative, the park could not be self-sustaining, but would need public funding to make up the difference between anticipated revenuefrom development and the requirement for park maintenance and operation. Thus, this alternativewould not meet one of the essential requirements of the Proposed Project.

Because the Reduced Density Alternative would contain essentially the same park andproject area as the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, it would have equivalent impactsin the following technical areas: socioeconomic conditions, open space, historic resources, naturalresources, hazardous materials, waterfront revitalization program, and construction. With theexception of historic resources, there would be no significant adverse impacts in any of thesesubject areas.

As with the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, this alternative would replaceexisting uses on the site with a new park use and provide increased public access to and views of


36

the riverfront throughout the project area and improve the visual character of the project area. Aswith the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, the transformation of Brooklyn’swaterfront would be accomplished. Compared to the EIS proposed project and the ProposedProject there would be fewer residences, and thus fewer school-aged children attending publicschools. There would also be fewer residents and hotel guests utilizing the area’s infrastructure.Shadows cast from Pier 6 would be less than with the EIS proposed project and the ProposedProject, but new shadows would be cast from the residential buildings along Furman Street. Thesenew shadows would fall on the project-generated parkland and no shadows would fall on theneighboring Brooklyn Heights Promenade.

Like the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, this alternative would result in nosignificant adverse land use, zoning and public policy, community facilities, shadows, urban designand visual resources, neighborhood character, parking, subways, pedestrians, or air quality impacts.

The minimal reduction in travel demand from decreased development would not result indifferent traffic or bus impacts than those under the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project.As with the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project, implementation of mitigation measurescould address project traffic and bus impacts; however the same unmitigated vehicular impactswould still occur as with the EIS proposed project and the Proposed Project. Like the EIS proposedproject and the Proposed Project, there would be an unmitigated noise impact within the park due tohigh background noise levels from traffic bordering the park.

3. Modified Design Alternative

Given that the development program could evolve as it is addressed in greater detail, theModified Design Alternative considers several possible changes that could occur. They are asfollows:

Changes to the residential and hotel programs on Pier 1, as in the Reduced DensityAlternative. There would be 180 residential units, instead of 150 under the EIS proposedproject, and 170 hotel rooms, instead of 225 under the EIS proposed project.

The possibility of a reduction in on-site parking spaces by eliminating parking on Pier 6(72 spaces) and at the John Street Site (110 spaces); or the parking supply could remain atthe same level.

Increase in the commercial program at the Empire Stores. Under this alternative, thespace for educational or research and development uses would be replaced by additionaloffice, retail and restaurant space and the introduction of showroom space. With a moreintensive use of the existing building, the total program for the Empire Stores would risefrom 289,298 square feet to 398,760 square feet.

As indicated, the last of these changes has been incorporated into the Proposed Project thatis the subject of the GPP and these Findings, as have the possibility that the program on Pier 1would be as reflected in this alternative and that the parking would be eliminated on Pier 6.


37

The Modified Design Alternative would, like the EIS proposed project, be financially self-sustaining, with enough revenue stream to pay for ongoing park operations and maintenance. Itwould have the same impacts as the EIS proposed project with regard to socioeconomic conditions,open space, shadows, historic resources, natural resources, hazardous materials, waterfrontrevitalization program, and construction.

As with the EIS proposed project, this alternative would replace existing uses on the sitewith a new park use and provide increased public access to and views of the riverfront throughoutthe project area and improve the visual character of the project area. The transformation ofBrooklyn’s waterfront would be also accomplished. There would be a different variety ofdevelopment uses than with the EIS proposed project (addition of showroom space and eliminationof educational or research or development space) but the primary mix of land uses within the parkwould not change. Compared to the EIS proposed project there would be more residences, and thusmore school-aged children attending public schools. There would also be more residents utilizingthe area’s infrastructure. Like the EIS proposed project, however, this alternative would result in nosignificant adverse land use, zoning and public policy, community facilities, shadows, urban designand visual resources, neighborhood character, air quality impacts, infrastructure, subways, parking,or pedestrians impacts.

The increase in development programs with this alternative would result in an increase inboth pedestrian and vehicular trips compared to the EIS proposed project. Under this alternative itis expected that 16 intersections would have one or more impacted movements in any of the peakhours for the two-way Furman Street scenario and 17 intersections for the one-way Furman Streetscenario. As with the EIS proposed project, standard traffic measures, which would beimplemented by NYCDOT, would be available to mitigate impacts at these locations. There wouldbe no increase in unmitigated impacts from the EIS proposed project under the two-way FurmanStreet scenario, but there would be three unmitigated locations for the one-way Furman Streetscenario. The impact on the three analyzed bus routes identified with the EIS proposed projectwould worsen with this alternative. NYCT would be expected to adjust bus service toaccommodate any increased demand. The significant adverse noise impacts would not differ fromthe EIS proposed project.

4. Modified Pier 6 Residential Building Design Alternative

The Modified Pier 6 Residential Building Design Alternative was developed in response topublic comments on the DEIS and to provide flexibility in the design of the Atlantic Avenuegateway. As indicated, this alternative has been incorporated into the Proposed Project that is thesubject of the GPP and this Findings Statement. It considers two designs that modify the massand/or height of the two residential buildings proposed for that area; the overall developmentprogram and floor area for Pier 6 would be unchanged. This alternative has two variants: in Option1, the height of the taller building would be unchanged, while the smaller of the two buildingswould be taller and more slender, increasing in height from 8 to 14 stories and decreasing in floorplate size from 18,800 square feet to 9,880 square feet; in Option 2, the height of the 30-storybuilding would be reduced to 20 stories and the height of the 8-story building would be increased to20 stories. The existing Building 50 at the northwest corner of Joralemon and Furman Streetswould be expanded and would also be increased in height by one floor from 43 feet to 54 feet in


38

order to maintain approximately the same revenue as the EIS proposed project. Because the totaldevelopment program would be unchanged, the only areas of analysis in which these options wouldhave the potential for different impacts than those of the EIS proposed project would be Shadowsand Urban Design and Visual Resources.

The two Pier 6 buildings proposed under both Option 1 and Option 2 would cast shadowson the Park in the morning on each of the analysis days as would the proposed two buildings underthe EIS proposed project. These alternatives would result in increased shadows on the BrooklynHeights Historic District and the Palmetto Playground. However, given their short durations, theshadow increments would not be considered a significant adverse impact. Similar to the EISproposed project, this alternative would not result in significant adverse shadow impacts.

Similarly, as with the EIS proposed project, this alternative would not result in significantadverse impacts related to urban design and visual resources.

5. Wind Turbine Alternative

The park design has as a goal the use of renewable energy technology in meeting the park’senergy needs. Photovoltaic cells are included in the Proposed Project, and these would beintegrated into a number of park structures. Other technologies, such as wind turbines, are alsobeing considered for inclusion in the park program. The turbines, which are essentially modern,more slender versions of the windmill, would have to be designed and sited so as not to intrude intothe Brooklyn Heights scenic view district. They would also be integrated into the park lightingsystem. Any consideration of the wind turbines would require a design that would avoid anypotential impact on birds and would minimize noise emissions.

6. No Unmitigated Significant Adverse Impacts Alternative

With the Proposed Project, unmitigated adverse impacts could occur in three areas: historicresources, traffic and noise. In order to avoid the partially mitigated adverse impact to the formerNational Cold Storage buildings that would occur with the Proposed Project, the vacant buildingwould have to remain in-place. In this way, no resulting adverse historic resources impact relatedto its demolition would occur. However, retention of the buildings does not meet the park’s designobjectives related to preservation of view planes from the Brooklyn Heights Promenade andfinancial self-sufficiency. In addition, it would impede providing a pedestrian connection into thepark from Squibb Park.

In order to eliminate all unmitigated significant adverse vehicular traffic impacts, the projectwould have to generate 95 percent fewer total vehicular trips than are generated with the ProposedProject. Given the existing high traffic volumes in the area, any park project of this size—evenwithout associated residential, commercial, or institutional development—would result in someunmitigated significant adverse traffic impacts. A significantly smaller park would have to bedeveloped to avoid generating any unmitigated vehicular traffic impacts.

Noise impacts resulting from the Proposed Project are attached to the park itself: bydeveloping any park in a high noise area there would be unmitigated noise impacts. No practicable


39

mitigation measures are available to completely mitigate all significant adverse noise impacts at theproposed park from existing adjacent roadways, primarily the Brooklyn Queens Expressway andthe Manhattan Bridge. In order to avoid adverse impacts related to noise on park users alongFurman Street, a tall (over 45 feet high) noise wall would have to be constructed to block noisefrom the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. This wall would result in significant adverse visualimpacts and would not be compatible with the park design. As the wall would have to be designedto avoid any impacts of reflective sound onto the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and adjacent areas,it is likely that a wall that would entirely eliminate noise impacts at the park would not be feasibleor practicable. There would also be no practicable means of mitigating the high noise levels onpark users from the Manhattan Bridge.

Thus, there is no feasible park design that could completely eliminate all unmitigatedadverse impacts.

VII. SUMMARY OF THE MITIGATION TO BE IMPLEMENTED

A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

Since the Proposed Project area may be sensitive for archaeological resources, measures bywhich the presence of such resources would be evaluated, and any subsequent mitigation measuresimplemented, would be developed in consultation with OPRHP as specified in a LOR amongESDC, BBPDC, OPRHP, and the developer of Empire Stores. The Proposed Project woulddemolish the former National Cold Storage buildings to allow for the development of a new mixed-use residential and hotel development. The demolition of this historic structure would result in asignificant adverse impact to that historic resource.

However, SHPO has determined that the overall proposed park design would, with theexception of the demolition of the former National Cold Storage buildings, positively affect historicresources and would substantially mitigate the significant adverse impact from the demolition of theformer National Cold Storage buildings. The park design incorporates a number of existingwaterfront elements that reflect the development history of the Brooklyn waterfront. These includethe planned rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the historic Empire Stores; retention and reuse ofseveral existing buildings in the project area built by the New York Dock Company; retention ofPiers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and the reuse of portions of the piershed structures on Piers 2 and 3 as shadecanopies; retention of a float transfer bridge on Pier 4, and design elements such as walkways thatallow for views of the pier infrastructure. Additional mitigation measures would be developed inconsultation with OPRHP, as stipulated in the LOR, described above.

To avoid any inadvertent construction-related damage to historic resources, historicstructures located within 90 feet of project construction would be included in a constructionprotection plan to be developed in consultation with OPRHP.

B. TRAFFIC AND PARKING

The Proposed Project would result in significant adverse impacts at 16 differentintersections in one or more peak hours over the 2005-2012 period (17 if Furman Street were to


40

retain one-way operation). Five of the impacted intersections are located on the OldFulton/Cadman Plaza West corridor, four would be on Tillary Street, six on Atlantic Avenue, andone at Columbia Street at the BQE Ramps. Mitigation measures would be required, consisting of acombination of signal timing or signal phasing changes to the study area, re-striping of intersectionapproaches, and parking regulation changes. Nonetheless, two locations would have unmitigatedimpacts (Tillary Street at Adams Street and Cadman Plaza West at the Brooklyn Bridge off-ramp)in all peak periods. A third unmitigated impact at Atlantic Avenue and Boerum Place would beadded if Furman Street is assumed to continue with one-way operation.

These mitigation measures are standard traffic management measures, which would beimplemented by NYCDOT over time, as field conditions warrant. With these measures in place by2012, significant traffic impacts at fourteen (thirteen with Furman Street one-way) of the sixteenimpacted intersections would be eliminated.

With the Proposed Project, impacts on CO and inhalable particulate matter (PM10 andPM2.5) would be well below ambient air quality standards and New York City’s de minimis andinterim guidance criteria. The proposed traffic mitigation measures were evaluated to determine thepotential effects on air quality in the study area. Because the proposed mitigation measures seek toavoid or reduce the levels of congestion and delays at an intersection, an overall improvement intraffic conditions would occur for the study area as compared to the Build condition. Based on thetraffic mitigation analysis presented above, the proposed changes in levels of service and delaysthrough the network would result in similar, if not lower, predicted CO vehicular pollutantconcentrations under the Build with mitigation condition. Similarly, the Build with mitigationscenario would not alter the conclusion of no significant impact on inhalable particulate levels.

C. BUS SERVICE

According to current NYCT guidelines, increases in bus load levels to above their capacitiesat any load point is defined as a significant adverse impact, necessitating the addition of more busservice along the route. With the Proposed Project, all three analyzed bus routes would experiencePM peak direction load levels at their maximum load points exceeding their capacities. Asstandard practice, NYCT monitors bus ridership and increases service where operationallywarranted and fiscally feasible. As such, the capacity shortfalls on the B25, B61, and B63 routeswould be addressed by NYCT over the build-out period for the project, and no project-initiatedmitigation would be required.

D. NOISE

The Proposed Project would result in no significant adverse noise impacts at any off-sitelocations. However, because of noise generated independent of the Proposed Project (principallydue to traffic on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and traffic and trains on the Manhattan Bridge)ambient noise levels in the proposed Brooklyn Bridge Park would exceed the 55 dBA L10(1)CEQR criterion for public open spaces and would thus constitute a significant adverse noiseimpact.


41

VIII. POTENTIAL GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS

The Proposed Project is expected to generate a net increase in economic activity in the formof new businesses and employment within the park. These new businesses would contribute togrowth in the city and state economies. Because the surrounding area already has infrastructureservices and is developed, it is not expected that the Proposed Project would induce additionalnotable growth outside the project site.

IX. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are defined as those that meet the following twocriteria: 1) no reasonably practicable mitigation measures to eliminate the impacts; and 2) noreasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project that would meet the purpose and need of the action,eliminate the impact, and not cause other or similar significant adverse impacts.

For the Proposed Project, unavoidable significant adverse impacts were identified forhistoric resources, traffic, transit, and noise.

A. HISTORIC RESOURCES

As the former National Cold Storage buildings have been determined by OPRHP to meeteligibility criteria for listing on the S/NR, their demolition would result in a significant adverseimpact to that historic resource that cannot be fully mitigated. Retention of the National ColdStorage buildings and adapting them for residential/hotel use is not feasible due to a number ofconstraints. Their demolition would remove a building that violates the Brooklyn HeightsPromenade protected view plane, and also allow for a connection to be made from the Pier 1 uplandarea to Squibb Park, which would in turn connect Brooklyn Heights to the new park.

While there would be an unavoidable adverse impact on historic resources, SHPO hasdetermined that the overall proposed park design would, with the exception of the demolition of theformer National Cold Storage buildings, positively affect historic resources and would substantiallymitigate the significant adverse impact from the demolition of the former National Cold Storagebuildings. Furthermore, the park design incorporates a number of existing waterfront elements thatreflect the development history of the Brooklyn waterfront. Further mitigation measures may bedeveloped in consultation with OPRHP as stipulated in a LOR among ESDC, BBPDC, andOPRHP.

B. TRAFFIC

With Furman Street operating two-way, the Proposed Project would result in unmitigatedtraffic impacts at two intersections—Tillary Street at Adams Street and Cadman Plaza West at theBrooklyn Bridge off-ramp. With Furman Street remaining one-way, there would be one additionalunmitigated significant adverse impact at Atlantic Avenue and Boerum Place.


42

C. NOISE

Due to noise generated independent of the Proposed Project (principally due to traffic on theBrooklyn-Queens Expressway and traffic and trains on the Manhattan Bridge) ambient noise levelsin the proposed Brooklyn Bridge Park would exceed the 55 dBA L10(1) CEQR criterion for publicopen spaces and would thus constitute a significant adverse noise impact. The park design containsearth hills on the project site, along Furman Street between Pier 2 and Pier 5. These hills would notcause increases in noise levels along the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and nearby residences due toreflected sound. Acoustically, these earth hills were designed and located to shield park areas fromFurman Street and Brooklyn-Queens Expressway noise. As a result, within this section of the parkthe Build condition is significantly quieter (2 to 10 dBA) than the No Build condition. However,even with this notable mitigation built into the project, noise levels at many locations in the parkwould still be above the 55 dBA L10(1) CEQR criterion. No other feasible and practicablemitigation measures have been identified that could be implemented to reduce and eliminate theseimpacts. There are also no practicable mitigation measures to reduce the noise contribution fromthe Manhattan Bridge on the eastern portion of the park. Since there are no practicable measuresidentified at this time to fully mitigate the noise conditions, the high noise levels in the park wouldbe considered an unmitigated significant adverse impact. There are, however, a number of highquality parks in the city that are heavily utilized, such as Hudson River Park, that are narrow and areadjacent to heavily traveled roadways and thus have high levels of ambient noise. It iscommonplace for New York City parks (including Central Park, Hudson River Park, and ProspectPark) to experience noise levels in excess of the CEQR criterion.

X. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

There are several resources, both natural and built, that would be expended in theconstruction and operation of the Proposed Project. These resources include the building materialsused in construction of the project; energy in the form of gas and electricity consumed duringconstruction and operation of the park and related development; and the human effort (time andlabor) required to develop, construct, and operate various components of the Proposed Project.They are considered irretrievably committed because their reuse for some purpose other than theProposed Project would be highly unlikely. The land use changes associated with the developmentof the Proposed Project site may also be considered a resource loss. The proposed actins constituteand irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the site as a land resource, thereby rendering landuse for other purposes infeasible. As discussed above, the Proposed Project is expected toincorporate photovoltaic cell installations, which would reduce the net energy consumption.


43

XI. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SEQRA

Having considered the DEIS and the FEIS, including the comments on the DEIS and FEISand responses thereto, and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions, ESDCcertifies that:

(1) the requirements of SEQRA, and its implementing regulations, 6 NYCRR § 617.1et seq., have been met and fully satisfied;

(2) consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among thereasonable alternatives thereto, the proposed action is one which minimizes or avoidssignificant adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, including theimpacts disclosed in the FEIS and set forth in this Findings Statement; and

(3) consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, the significantadverse environmental impacts of the proposed action revealed in the environmental impactstatement process and set forth in this Findings Statement, have been minimized or avoidedto the maximum extent practicable by incorporating the identified mitigative measures asconditions to this decision.


44

NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONDOING BUSINESS AS THE EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

P:\0602\ SEQRA Findings\BBP Findings.doc


Cover Page 10/01/2008

The purpose of this Proposal Description and Environmental Screening Form (PD/ESF) is to provide descriptive and environmental information about a variety of Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) state assistance proposals submitted for National Park Service (NPS) review and decision. The completed PD/ESF becomes part of the “federal administrative record” in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The PD portion of the form captures administrative and descriptive details enabling the NPS to understand the proposal. The ESF portion is designed for States and/or project sponsors to use while the LWCF proposal is under development. Upon completion, the ESF will indicate the resources that could be impacted by the proposal enabling States and/or project sponsors to more accurately follow an appropriate pathway for NEPA analysis: 1) a recommendation for a Categorical Exclusion (CE), 2) production of an Environmental Assessment (EA), or 3) production of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The ESF should also be used to document any previously conducted yet still viable environmental analysis if used for this federal proposal. The completed PD/ESF must be submitted as part of the State’s LWCF proposal to NPS. Except for the proposals listed below, the PD/ESF must be completed, including the appropriate NEPA document, signed by the State, and submitted with each new federal application for LWCF assistance and amendments for: scope changes that alter or add facilities and/or acres; conversions; public facility exceptions; sheltering outdoor facilities; and changing the original intended use of an area from that which was approved in an earlier LWCF agreement. Consult the LWCF Program Manual (www.nps.gov/lwcf) for detailed guidance for your type of proposal and on how to comply with NEPA. For the following types of proposals only this Cover Page is required because these types of proposals are administrative in nature and are categorically excluded from further NEPA environmental analysis. NPS will complete the NEPA CE Form. Simply check the applicable box below, and complete and submit only this Cover Page to NPS along with the other items required for your type of proposal as instructed in the LWCF Program Manual.

□ SCORP planning proposal

□ Time extension with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope

□ To delete work and no other work is added back into the project scope

□ To change project cost with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope

□ To make an administrative change that does not change project scope Name of LWCF Proposal: Application for Temporary Non-Conforming Use at the Tobacco Warehouse Date Submitted to NPS: TBD Prior LWCF Project Number(s) List all prior LWCF project numbers and all park names associated with assisted site(s): LWCF Project #36-01225 Local or State Project Sponsoring Agency (recipient or sub-recipient in case of pass-through grants): New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation City of New York Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation Local or State Sponsor Contact:

Name/Title: Haley Stein, Senior Counsel Office/Address: New York City Law Department

100 Church Street New York, NY 10007

LWCF Proposal Description and Environmental Screening Form

2

10/01/2008

Phone/Fax: Phone: 212-788-0788 Email: [email protected]

Fax: 212-788-1619

3

10/01/2008

X

Using a separate sheet for narrative descriptions and explanations, address each item and question in the order it is presented, and identify each response with its item number such as Step 1-A1, A2; Step 3-B1; Step 6-A1, A29; etc.

____ New Project Application Acquisition Development Combination (Acquisition & Development) Go to Step 2A Go to Step 2B Go to Step 2C ____ Project Amendment

Increase in scope or change in scope from original agreement. Complete Steps 3A, and 5 through 7.

6(f) conversion proposal. Complete Steps 3B, and 5 through 7.

Request for public facility in a Section 6(f) area. Complete Steps 3C, and 5 through 7.

_____ Request for temporary non-conforming use in a Section 6(f) area. Complete Steps 4A, and 5 through 7. _____ Request for significant change in use/intent of original LWCF application. Complete Steps 4B, and 5 through 7.

_____ Request to shelter existing/new facility within a Section 6(f) area regardless of funding

source. Complete Steps 4C, and 5 through 7.

A. For an Acquisition Project 1. Provide a brief narrative about the proposal that provides the reasons for the acquisition, the number of acres

to be acquired with LWCF assistance, and a description of the property. Describe and quantify the types of existing resources and features on the site (for example, 50 acres wetland, 2,000 feet beachfront, 200 acres forest, scenic views, 100 acres riparian, vacant lot, special habitat, any unique or special features, recreation amenities, historic/cultural resources, hazardous materials/ contamination history, restrictions, institutional controls, easements, rights-of-way, above ground/underground utilities, including wires, towers, etc.).

2. How and when will the site be made open and accessible for public outdoor recreation use (signage, entries,

parking, site improvements, allowable activities, etc.)? 3. Describe development plans for the proposal for the site(s) for public outdoor recreation use within the next

three (3) years. 4. SLO must complete the State Appraisal/Waiver Valuation Review form in Step 7 certifying that the

appraisal(s) has been reviewed and meets the “Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions” or a waiver valuation was approved per 49 CFR 24.102(c)(2)(ii). State should retain copies of the appraisals and make them available if needed.

5. Address each item in “D” below. B. For a Development Project 1. Describe the physical improvements and/or facilities that will be developed with federal LWCF assistance,

including a site sketch depicting improvements, where and how the public will access the site, parking, etc. Indicate entrances on 6(f) map. Indicate to what extent the project involves new development, rehabilitation, and/or replacement of existing facilities.

2. When will the project be completed and open for public outdoor recreation use? 3. Address each item in “D” below.

Step 2. New Project Application (See LWCF Manual for guidance.)

Step 1. Type of LWCF Proposal

4

10/01/2008

C. For a Combination Project 1. For the acquisition part of the proposal:

a. Provide a brief narrative about the proposal that provides the reasons for the acquisition, number of acres to be acquired with LWCF assistance, and describes the property. Describe and quantify the types of existing resources and features on the site (for example, 50 acres wetland, 2,000 feet beachfront, 200 acres forest, scenic views, 100 acres riparian, vacant lot, special habitat, any unique or special features, recreation amenities, historic/cultural resources, hazardous materials/ contamination history, restrictions, institutional controls, easements, rights-of-way, above ground/underground utilities, including wires, towers, etc.)

b. How and when will the site be made open and accessible for public outdoor recreation use (signage,

entries, parking, site improvements, allowable activities, etc.)?

c. Describe development plans for the proposed for the site(s) for public outdoor recreation use within the next three (3) years.

d. SLO must complete the State Appraisal/Waiver Valuation Review form in Step 7 certifying that the

appraisal(s) has been reviewed and meets the “Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions” or a waiver valuation was approved per 49 CFR 24.102(c)(2)(ii). State should retain copies of the appraisals and make them available if needed.

2. For the development part of the proposal:

a. Describe the physical improvements and/or facilities that will be developed with federal LWCF assistance, including a site sketch depicting improvements, where and how the public will access the site, parking, etc. Indicate entrances on 6(f) map. Indicate to what extent the project involves new development, rehabilitation, and/or replacement of existing facilities.

b. When will the project be completed and open for public outdoor recreation use?

3. Address each item in “D” below. D. Additional items to address for a new application and amendments 1. Will this proposal create a new public park/recreation area where none previously existed and is not an

addition to an existing public park/recreation area? Yes ____ (go to #3) No ____ (go to #2) 2. a. What is the name of the pre-existing public area that this new site will be added to?

b. Is the pre-existing public park/recreation area already protected under Section 6(f)? Yes ___ No ___ If no, will it now be included in the 6(f) boundary? Yes ___ No ___

3. What will be the name of this new public park/recreation area? 4. a. Who will hold title to the property assisted by LWCF? Who will manage and operate the site(s)?

b. What is the sponsor’s type of ownership and control of the property? ____ Fee simple ownership ____ Less than fee simple. Explain: ____ Lease. Describe lease terms including renewable clauses, # of years remaining on lease, etc.

Who will lease area? Submit copy of lease with this PD/ESF. (See LWCF Manual for program restrictions for leases and further guidance.)

5. Describe the nature of any rights-of-way, easements, reversionary interests, etc. to the Section 6(f) park

area? Indicate the location on 6(f) map. Do parties understand that a Section 6(f) conversion may occur if private or non-recreation activities occur on any pre-existing right-of-way, easement, leased area?

6. Are overhead utility lines present, and if so, explain how they will be treated per LWCF Manual. 7. As a result of this project, describe new types of outdoor recreation opportunities and capacities, and short

and long term public benefits.

5

10/01/2008

8. Explain any existing non-recreation and non-public uses that will continue on the site(s) and/or proposed for the future within the 6(f) boundary.

9. Describe the planning process that led to the development of this proposal. Your narrative should address:

a. How was the interested and affected public notified and provided opportunity to be involved in planning for and developing your LWCF proposal? Who was involved and how were they able to review the completed proposal, including any state, local, federal agency professionals, subject matter experts, members of the public and Indian Tribes. Describe any public meetings held and/or formal public comment periods, including dates and length of time provided for the public to participate in the planning process and/or to provide comments on the completed proposal.

b. What information was made available to the public for review and comment? Did the sponsor provide

written responses addressing the comments? If so, include responses with this PD/ESF submission.

10. How does this proposal implement statewide outdoor recreation goals as presented in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) (include references), and explain why this proposal was selected using the State’s Open Project Selection Process (OPSP).

11. List all source(s) and amounts of financial match to the LWCF federal share of the project. The value of the

match can consist of cash, donation, and in-kind contributions. The federal LWCF share and financial matches must result in a viable outdoor recreation area and not rely on other funding not mentioned here. Other federal resources may be used as a match if specifically authorized by law.

Source Type of Match Value

$

$

$

12. Is this LWCF project scope part of a larger effort not reflected on the SF-424 (Application for Federal

Assistance) and grant agreement? If so, briefly describe the larger effort, funding amount(s) and source(s). This will capture information about partnerships and how LWCF plays a role in leveraging funding for projects beyond the scope of this federal grant.

13. List all required federal, state, and local permits/approvals needed for the proposal and explain their purpose

and status. Proceed to Steps 5 through 7

A. Increase/Change in Project Scope 1. For Acquisition Projects: To acquire additional property that was not described in the original project

proposal and NEPA documentation, follow Step 2A-Acquisition Project and 2D. 2. For Development Projects: To change the project scope for a development project that alters work from the

original project scope by adding elements or enlarging facilities, follow Step 2B-Development Project and 2D. 3. For Combination Projects: Follow Step 2C as appropriate. B. Section 6(f)(3) Conversion Proposal Prior to developing your Section 6(f)(3) conversion proposal, you must consult the LWCF Manual and 36 CFR 59.3 for complete guidance on conversions. Local sponsors must consult early with the State LWCF manager when a conversion is under consideration or has been discovered. States must consult with their NPS-LWCF manager as early as possible in the conversion process for guidance and to sort out and discuss details of the conversion proposal to avoid mid-course corrections and unnecessary delays. A critical first step is for the State and NPS to agree on the size of the Section 6(f) park land impacted by any non-recreation, non-public use,

Step 3. Project Amendment (See LWCF Manual for guidance.)

6

10/01/2008

especially prior to any appraisal activity. Any previous LWCF project agreements and actions must be identified and understood to determine the actual Section 6(f) boundary. The Section 6(f)(3) conversion proposal including the required NEPA environmental review documents (CE recommendation or an EA document) must focus on the loss of public outdoor recreation park land and recreational usefulness, and its replacement per 36 CFR 59, and not the activities precipitating the conversion or benefits thereof, such as the impacts of constructing a new school to relieve overcrowding or constructing a hotel/restaurant facility to stimulate the local economy. Rather, the environmental review must 1) focus on “resource impacts” as indicated on the ESF (Step 6), including the loss of public park land and recreation opportunities (ESF A-15), and 2) the impacts of creating new replacement park land and replacement recreation opportunities. A separate ESF must be generated for the converted park area and each replacement site. Section 6(f)(3) conversions always have more than minor impacts to outdoor recreation (ESF A-15) as a result of loss of parkland requiring an EA, except for “small” conversions as defined in the LWCF Manual Chapter 8. For NPS review and decision, the following elements are required to be included in the State’s completed conversion proposal to be submitted to NPS: 1. A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal. 2. A detailed explanation of the sponsor’s need to convert the Section 6(f) parkland including all efforts to

consider other practical alternatives to this conversion, how they were evaluated, and the reasons they were not pursued.

3. An explanation of how the conversion is in accord with the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

(SCORP). 4. Completed “State Appraisal/Waiver Valuation Review form in Step 7 for each of the converted and

replacement parcels certifying that the appraisals meet the “Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.” States must retain copies of the appraisals/waiver valuations and make them available for review upon request.

5. For the park land proposed for conversion, a detailed description including the following:

a. Specific geographic location on a map, 9-digit zip code, and name of park or recreation area proposed for conversion.

b. Description of the area proposed for the conversion including the acreage to be converted and any

acreage remaining. For determining the size of the conversion, consider not only the physical footprint of the activity precipitating the conversion, but how the precipitating activity will impact the entire 6(f) park area. In many cases the size of the converted area is larger than the physical footprint. Include a description of the recreation resources, facilities, and recreation opportunities that will be impacted, displaced or lost by the proposed conversion. For proposals to partially convert a Section 6(f) park area, the remaining 6(f) park land must remain recreationally viable and not be impacted by the activities that are precipitating the conversion. If it is anticipated that the precipitating activities impact the remaining Section 6(f) area, the proposed area for the conversion should be expanded to encompass all impacted park land.

c. Description of the community and population served by the park, including users of the park and uses.

d. For partial conversions, a revised 6(f) map clearly indicating both the portion that is being converted and

the portion remaining intact under Section 6(f).

6. For each proposed replacement site: a. Specific geographic location on a map, 9-digit zip code, and geographical relationship of converted and

replacement sites. If site will be added to an existing public park/outdoor recreation area, indicate on map.

b. Description of the site’s physical characteristics and resource attributes with number and types of

resources and features on the site, for example, 15 acres wetland, 2,000 feet beachfront, 50 acres forest, scenic views, 75 acres riparian, vacant lot, special habitat, any unique or special features, structures, recreation amenities, historic/cultural resources, hazardous materials/contamination history, restrictions, institutional controls, easements, rights-of-way, overhead/underground utilities including overhead wires, towers, etc.

7

10/01/2008

c. Identification of the owner of the replacement site and its recent history of use/function up to the present.

d. Detailed explanation of how the proposed replacement site is of reasonably equivalent usefulness and

location as the property being converted, including a description of the recreation needs that will be met by the new replacement parks, populations to be served, and new outdoor recreation resources, facilities, and opportunities to be provided.

e. Identification of owner and manager of the new replacement park?

f. Name of the new replacement park. If the replacement park is added to an existing public park

area, will the existing area be included within the 6(f) boundary? What is the name of the existing public park area?

g. Timeframe for completing the new outdoor recreation area(s) to replace the recreation

opportunity lost per the terms of conversion approval and the date replacement park(s) will be open to the public.

h. New Section 6(f) map for the new replacement park.

7. NEPA environmental review, including NHPA Section 106 review, for both the converted and

replacement sites in the same document to analyze how the converted park land and recreational usefulness will be replaced. Except for “small” conversions (see LWCF Manual Chapter 8), conversions usually require an EA.

Proceed to Steps 5 through 7

C. Proposal for a Public Facility in a Section 6(f) Area Prior to developing this proposal, you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance. In summary, NPS must review and decide on requests to construct a public indoor and/or non-recreation facility within a Section 6(f) area. In certain cases NPS may approve the construction of public facilities within a Section 6(f) area where it can be shown that there will be a net gain in outdoor recreation benefits and enhancements for the entire park. In most cases, development of a non-recreation public facility within a Section 6(f) area constitutes a conversion. For NPS review, the State/sponsor must submit a proposal to NPS under a letter of transmittal from the SLO that: 1. Describes the purpose and all proposed uses of the public facility such as types of programming, recreation

activities, and special events including intended users of the new facility and any agency, organization, or other party to occupy the facility. Describe the interior and exterior of the facility, such as office space, meeting rooms, food/beverage area, residential/lodging area, classrooms, gyms, etc. Explain how the facility will be compatible with the outdoor recreation area. Explain how the facility and associated uses will significantly support and enhance existing and planned outdoor recreation resources and uses of the site, and how outdoor recreation use will remain the primary function of the site. (The public’s outdoor recreation use must continue to be greater than that expected for any indoor use, unless the site is a single facility, such as a swimming pool, which virtually occupies the entire site.)

2. Indicates the exact location of the proposed public facility and associated activities on the site’s Section 6(f)

map. Explain the design and location alternatives considered for the public facility and why they were not pursued.

3. Explains who will own and/or operate and maintain the facility? Attach any 3rd party leases and operation and

management agreements. When will the facility be open to the public? Will the facility ever be used for private functions and closed to the public? Explain any user or other fees that will be instituted, including the fee structure.

4. Includes required documents as a result of a completed NEPA process (Steps 5 – 7).


8

10/01/2008

A. Proposal for Temporary Non-Conforming Use Prior to developing this proposal, you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance. NPS must review and decided on requests for temporary uses that do not meet the requirements of allowable activities within a Section 6(f) area. A temporary non-conforming use is limited to a period of six months (180 days) or less. Continued use beyond six-months will not be considered temporary, and may result in a Section 6(f)(3) conversion of use requiring the replacement of converted parkland. For NPS review, describe the temporary non-conforming use (activities other than public outdoor recreation) in detail including the following information: 1. A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal. 2. Describe in detail the proposed temporary non-conforming use and all associated activities, why it is needed,

and alternative locations that were considered and why they were not pursued. Please see document marked Attachment 1.

3. Explain length of time needed for the temporary non-conforming use and why.

Please see document marked Attachment 1.

4. Describe the size of the Section 6(f) area affected by the temporary non-conforming use activities and

expected impacts to public outdoor recreation areas, facilities and opportunities. Explain efforts to keep the size of the area impacted to a minimum. Indicate the location of the non-conforming use on the site’s 6(f) map. Please see document marked Attachment 1.

5. Describe any anticipated temporary/permanent impacts to the Section 6(f) area and how the sponsor will

mitigate them during and after the non-conforming use ceases. Please see document marked Attachment 1.

6. Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal.

Please see document marked Attachment 1.


B. Proposal for Significant Change in Use Prior to developing the proposal, you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance. NPS approval must be obtained prior to any change from one eligible use to another when the proposed use would significantly contravene the original plans or intent for the area outlined in the original LWCF application for federal assistance. Consult with NPS for early determination on the need for a formal review. NPS approval is only required for proposals that will significantly change the use of a LWCF-assisted site (e.g., from passive to active recreation). The proposal must include and address the following items: 1. A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal. 2. Description of the proposed changes and how they significantly contravene the original plans or intent of

LWCF agreements. 3. Explanation of the need for change in use and how the change is consistent with local plans and the SCORP. 4. Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal.

Proceed to Steps 5 through 7 C. Proposal for Sheltering Facilities

Step 4. Proposals for Temporary Non-Conforming Use, Significant Change in Use, and Sheltering Facilities (See LWCF Manual for guidance.)

9

10/01/2008

Prior to developing this proposal, you must consult the LWCF Manual for complete guidance. NPS must review and decide on all proposals to shelter an existing outdoor recreation facility or construct a new sheltered recreation facility within a Section 6(f) area regardless of funding source. The proposal must demonstrate that there is an increased benefit to public recreation opportunity. Describe the sheltering proposal in detail, including the following: 1. A letter of transmittal from the SLO recommending the proposal. 2. Describe the proposed sheltered facility, how it would operate, how the sheltered facility will include recreation

uses that could typically occur outdoors, and how the primary purpose of the sheltered facility is recreation. 3. Explain how the sheltered facility would not substantially diminish the outdoor recreation values of the site

including how the sheltered facility will be compatible and significantly supportive of the outdoor recreation resources present and/or planned.

4. Explain how the sheltered facility will benefit the total park’s outdoor recreation use. 5. Describe efforts provided to the public to review the proposal to shelter the facility and has local support. 6. Document that the sheltered facility will be under the control and tenure of the public agency which sponsors

and administers the original park area. 7. Consult the LWCF Manual for additional requirements and guidelines before developing the proposal.


10

10/01/2008

To avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary delays, describe any prior environmental review undertaken at any time and still viable for this proposal or related efforts that could be useful for understanding potential environmental impacts. Consider previous local, state, federal (e.g. HUD, EPA, USFWS, FHWA, DOT) and any other environmental reviews. At a minimum, address the following:

1. Date of environmental review(s), purpose for the environmental review(s) and for whom they were conducted. Please see document marked Attachment 2. 2. Description of the proposed action and alternatives. Please see document marked Attachment 2. 3. Who was involved in identifying resource impact issues and developing the proposal including the interested

and affected public, government agencies, and Indian tribes. Please see document marked Attachment 2. 4. Environmental resources analyzed and determination of impacts for proposed actions and alternatives.

Please see document marked Attachment 2. 5. Any mitigation measures to be part of the proposed action. Please see document marked Attachment 2. 6. Intergovernmental Review Process (Executive Order 12372): Does the State have an Intergovernmental

Review Process? Yes _____ No _____. If yes, has the LWCF Program been selected for review under the State Intergovernmental Review Process? Yes _____ No _____. If yes, was this proposal reviewed by the appropriate State, metropolitan, regional and local agencies, and if so, attach any information and comments received about this proposal. If proposal was not reviewed, explain why not.

7. Public comment periods (how long, when in the process, who was invited to comment) and agency response. Please see document marked Attachment 2. 8. Any formal decision and supporting reasons regarding degree of potential impacts to the human environment. Please see document marked Attachment 2. 9. Was this proposed LWCF federal action and/or any other federal actions analyzed/reviewed in any of the

previous environmental reviews? If so, what was analyzed and what impacts were identified? Provide specific environmental review document references.

Please see document marked Attachment 2. Use resource impact information generated during previous environmental reviews described above and from recently conducted site inspections to complete the Environmental Screening Form (ESF) portion of this PD/ESF under Step 6. Your ESF responses should indicate your proposal’s potential for impacting each resource as determined in the previous environmental review(s), and include a reference to where the analysis can be found in an earlier environmental review document. If the previous environmental review documents contain proposed actions to mitigate impacts, briefly summarize the mitigation for each resource as appropriate. The appropriate references for previous environmental review document(s) must be documented on the ESF, and the actual document(s) along with this PD/ESF must be included in the submission for NPS review.


Step 5. Summary of Previous Environmental Review (including E.O. 12372 - Intergovernmental Review)

11

10/01/2008

This portion of the PD/ESF is a working tool used to identify the level of environmental documentation which must accompany the proposal submission to the NPS. By completing the ESF, the project sponsor is providing support for its recommendation in Step 7 that the proposal either:

1. meets criteria to be categorically excluded (CE) from further NEPA review and no additional environmental documentation is necessary; or

2. requires further analysis through an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental

impact statement (EIS). An ESF alone does not constitute adequate environmental documentation unless a CE is recommended. If an EA is required, the EA process and resulting documents must be included in the proposal submission to the NPS. If an EIS may be required, the State must request NPS guidance on how to proceed. The scope of the required environmental analysis will vary according to the type of LWCF proposal. For example, the scope for a new LWCF project will differ from the scope for a conversion. Consult the LWCF Manual for guidance on defining the scope or extent of environmental analysis needed for your LWCF proposal. As early as possible in your planning process, consider how your proposal/project may have direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the human environment for your type of LWCF action so planners have an opportunity to design alternatives to lessen impacts on resources, if appropriate. When used as a planning tool in this way, the ESF responses may change as the proposal is revised until it is ready for submission for federal review. Initiating or completing environmental analysis after a decision has been made is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the law of the NEPA. The ESF should be completed with input from resource experts and in consultation with relevant local, state, tribal and federal governments, as applicable. The interested and affected public should be notified of the proposal and be invited to participate in scoping out the proposal (see LWCF Manual Chapter 4). At a minimum, a site inspection of the affected area must be conducted by individuals who are familiar with the type of affected resources, possess the ability to identify potential resource impacts, and to know when to seek additional data when needed. At the time of proposal submission to NPS for federal review, the completed ESF must justify the NEPA pathway that was followed: CE recommendation, production of an EA, or production of an EIS. The resource topics and issues identified on the ESF for this proposal must be presented and analyzed in an attached EA/EIS. Consult the LWCF Manual for further guidance on LWCF and NEPA. The ESF contains two parts that must be completed: Part A. Environmental Resources Part B. Mandatory Criteria Part A: For each environmental resource topic, choose an impact estimate level (none, negligible, minor, exceeds minor) that describes the degree of potential negative impact for each listed resource that may occur directly, indirectly and cumulatively as a result of federal approval of your proposal. For each impacted resource provide a brief explanation of how the resource might be affected, how the impact level was determined, and why the chosen impact level is appropriate. If an environmental review has already been conducted on your proposal and is still viable, include the citation including any planned mitigation for each applicable resource, and choose an impact level as mitigated. If the resource does not apply to your proposal, mark NA in the first column. Add any relevant resources (see A.24 on the ESF) if not included in the list. Use a separate sheet to briefly clarify how each resource could be adversely impacted; any direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may occur; and any additional data that still needs to be determined. Also explain any planned mitigation already addressed in previous environmental reviews. Part B: This is a list of mandatory impact criteria that preclude the use of categorical exclusions. If you answer “yes” or “maybe” for any of the mandatory criteria, you must develop an EA or EIS regardless of your answers in Part A. Explain all “yes” and “maybe” answers on a separate sheet.

Step 6. Environmental Screening Form (ESF)

12

10/01/2008

For conversions, complete one ESF for each of the converted and replacement sites.

A. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Indicate potential for adverse impacts. Use a

separate sheet to clarify responses per instructions for Part A on page 9.

Not Applicable-

Resource does not exist

No/Negligible Impacts-

Exists but no or negligible impacts

Minor Impacts

Impacts Exceed Minor EA/EIS required

More Data Needed to Determine

Degree of Impact EA/EIS required

1. Geological resources: soils, bedrock, slopes, streambeds, landforms, etc.

X

2. Air quality X 3. Sound (noise impacts) X 4. Water quality/quantity X 5. Stream flow characteristics X 6. Marine/estuarine X 7. Floodplains/wetlands X 8. Land use/ownership patterns; property values; community livability

X

9. Circulation, transportation X 10. Plant/animal/fish species of special concern and habitat; state/ federal listed or proposed for listing

X

11. Unique ecosystems, such as biosphere reserves, World Heritage sites, old growth forests, etc.

X

12. Unique or important wildlife/ wildlife habitat

X

13. Unique or important fish/habitat X 14. Introduce or promote invasive species (plant or animal)

X

15. Recreation resources, land, parks, open space, conservation areas, rec. trails, facilities, services, opportunities, public access, etc. Most conversions exceed minor impacts. See Step 3.B

X

16. Accessibility for populations with disabilities

X

17. Overall aesthetics, special characteristics/features

X

18. Historical/cultural resources, including landscapes, ethnographic, archeological, structures, etc. Attach SHPO/THPO determination.

X

19. Socioeconomics, including employment, occupation, income changes, tax base, infrastructure

X

20. Minority and low-income populations

X

21. Energy resources (geothermal, fossil fuels, etc.)

X

22. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies

X

23. Land/structures with history of contamination/hazardous materials even if remediated

X

24. Other important environmental resources to address.

X

13

10/01/2008

B. MANDATORY CRITERIA If your LWCF proposal is approved, would it… Yes No To be

determined 1. Have significant impacts on public health or safety? X 2. Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands, wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (E.O. 11990); floodplains (E.O 11988); and other ecologically significant or critical areas.

X

3. Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA section 102(2)(E)]?

X

4. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks?

X

5. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects?

X

6. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant, environmental effects?

X

7. Have significant impacts on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as determined by either the bureau or office.(Attach SHPO/THPO Comments)

X

8. Have significant impacts on species listed or proposed to be listed on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species.

X

9. Violate a federal law, or a state, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment?

X

10. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations (Executive Order 12898)?

X

11. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 13007)?

X

12. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area, or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112)?

X

The following individual(s) provided input in the completion of the environmental screening form. List all reviewers including name, title, agency, field of expertise. Keep all environmental review records and data on this proposal in state compliance file for any future program review and/or audit. The ESF may be completed as part of a LWCF pre-award site inspection if conducted in time to contribute to the environmental review process for the proposal. 1. Environmental Review

Claudia Cooney Vice President AKRF 440 Park Ave South 7th Floor New York, NY 10016

2. Historic Preservation Pat Arnett, PE Robert Silman Associates 88 University Place New York, NY 10003

Environmental Reviewers

14

10/01/2008

3. Legal Review Haley Stein

Senior Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007

The following individuals conducted a site inspection to verify field conditions. List name of inspector(s), title, agency, and date(s) of inspection. 1. David Lowin

Vice President of Real Estate Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation 334 Furman Street Brooklyn, NY 11201

Date of Inspection: September 7, 2012 2. James Neu

DBI 161 Avenue of the Americas, 13th Floor New York, NY 10003 Date of Inspection: August 15, 2012

State may require signature of LWCF sub-recipient applicant here: ____/s/ Haley Stein Date: November 5, 2012

15

10/01/2008

First, consult the attached list of “Categorical Exclusions (CEs) for Which a Record is Needed.” If you find your action in the CE list and you have determined in Step 6A that impacts will be minor or less for each applicable environmental resource on the ESF and you answered “no” to all of the “Mandatory Criteria” questions in Step 6B, the proposal qualifies for a CE. Complete the following “State LWCF Environmental Recommendations” box indicating the CE recommendation. If you find your action in the CE list and you have determined in Step 6A that impacts will be greater than minor or that more data is needed for any of the resources and you answered “no” to all of the “Mandatory Criteria” questions, your environmental review team may choose to do additional analysis to determine the context, duration, and intensity of the impacts of your project or may wish to revise the proposal to minimize impacts to meet the CE criteria. If impacts remain at the greater than minor level, the State/sponsor must prepare an EA for the proposal. Complete the following “State Environmental Recommendations” box indicating the need for an EA. If you do not find your action in the CE list, regardless of your answers in Step 6, you must prepare an EA or EIS. Complete the following “State Environmental Recommendations” box indicating the need for an EA or EIS.

SLO/ASLO Original Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Typed Name, Title, Agency:

Step 7. Recommended NEPA Pathway and State Appraisal/Waiver Valuation

State NEPA Pathway Recommendation

□ I certify that a site inspection was conducted for each site involved in this proposal and to the best of my knowledge, the information provided in this LWCF Proposal Description and Environmental Screening Form (PD/ESF) is accurate based on available resource data. All resulting notes, reports and inspector signatures are stored in the state’s NEPA file for this proposal and are available upon request. On the basis of the environmental impact information for this LWCF proposal as documented in this LWCF PD/ESF with which I am familiar, I recommend the following LWCF NEPA pathway:

□ This proposal qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion (CE). CE Item #: Explanation:

□ This proposal requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) which is attached and has been produced by the State/sponsor in accordance with the LWCF Program Manual.

□ This proposal may require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NPS guidance is requested per the LWCF Program Manual.

Reproduce this certificate as necessary. Complete for each LWCF appraisal or waiver valuation. State Appraisal/Waiver Valuation Review

Property address: Date of appraisal transmittal letter/waiver: Real property value: $ Effective date of value:

I certify that: □ a State-certified Review Appraiser has reviewed the appraisal and has determined that it was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.

OR

□ the State has reviewed and approved a waiver valuation for this property per 49 CFR 24.102(c)(2)(ii).

LWCF State Assistance Program NEPA Categorical Exclusions

1 10/01/2008

National Environmental Policy Act National Park Service-Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program Categorical Exclusions for Which a Record is Needed Note: The following are the NEPA Categorical Exclusions approved for use with all NPS programs. Only the unshaded categories apply to LWCF proposals. Before selecting a categorical exclusion (CE), complete the PD/ESF for the LWCF proposal to support the CE selection. A. Actions related to general administration (1) Changes or amendments to an approved action when such changes would cause no environmental impact. LWCF actions that are covered include amendments for:

- time extensions with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope;

-deleting work and no other work is added back into the project scope; -changing project cost with no change in project scope or with a reduction in project scope; -making administrative changes that do not affect project scope.

(2) Minor boundary changes that are accomplished through existing statutory authorities and that result in no change in land use. (3) Re-issuance/renewal of permits, rights-of-way, or easements not involving new environmental impacts provided that the impacts of the original actions were evaluated in an environmental document. (4) Conversion of existing permits to rights-of-way, when such conversions neither continue nor potentially initiate adverse environmental conditions, provided that the impacts of the original actions were evaluated in an environmental document. (5) Issuances, extensions, renewals, re-issuances, or minor modifications of concession contracts or permits that do not entail new construction or any potential for new environmental impact as a result of concession operations. (6) Incidental business permits (formerly called commercial use licenses) involving no construction or potential for new environmental impact. (7) Leasing of historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR 18 and NPS-38. (8) Modifications or revisions to existing regulations, or the promulgation of new regulations for NPS-administered areas, provided the modifications, revisions, or new regulations do not:

(a) increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or cause physical damage to it. (b) introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it. (c) conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses. (d) cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants


2 10/01/2008

(9) At the direction of the NPS responsible official, actions where NPS has concurrence or co-approval with another bureau and the action is a CE for that bureau, and where NPS agrees that there is no potential for environmental impact. (10) Routine transfers of jurisdiction between the NPS and the District of Columbia accomplished through existing statutory authority, where no change of use in the land is anticipated upon transfer. B. Plans, studies, and reports (1) Changes or amendments to an approved plan, when such changes have no potential for environmental impact. (2) Cultural resources maintenance guides, collection management plans, and historic furnishings reports. (3) Interpretive plans (interpretive prospectuses, audio-visual plans, museum exhibit plans, wayside exhibit plans). (4) Plans, including priorities, justifications, and strategies, for non-manipulative research, monitoring, inventorying, and information-gathering. (5) Agreements between NPS offices for plans and studies. (6) Authorization, funding, or approval for the preparation of statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plans (SCORPs). (7) Adoption or approval of academic or research surveys, studies, reports, and similar documents that do not contain and will not result in NPS recommendations. (8) Land protection plans that propose changes to existing land or visitor use when the changes have no potential for environmental impact. C. Actions related to development (1) Land acquisition within established park boundaries, if future anticipated uses would have no potential for environmental impact. (2) Land exchanges that will not lead to anticipated changes in the use of land and that have no potential for environmental impact. For LWCF, some small conversions may meet this criterion. See the LWCF Manual Chapter 8 for further guidance. (3) Routine maintenance and repairs to non-historic structures, facilities, utilities, grounds, and trails. (4) Routine maintenance and repairs to cultural resource sites, structures, utilities, and grounds if the action falls under an approved Historic Structures Preservation Guide or Cyclic Maintenance Guide or if the action would not adversely affect the cultural resource. (5) Installation of LWCF eligible signs, displays, and kiosks.


3 10/01/2008

(6) Installation of navigation aids. (7) Experimental testing of short duration (no more than one season) of mass transit systems, and changes in operation of existing systems, that have no potential for environmental impact. (8) Replacement in kind of minor structures and facilities with little or no change in location, capacity, or appearance--for example, comfort stations, pit toilets, fences, kiosks, signs and campfire circles. (9) Repair, resurfacing, striping, installation of traffic control devices, and repair/replacement of guardrails, culverts, signs, and other minor existing features on existing roads when no potential for environmental impact exists. (10) Changes in sanitary facilities operation resulting in no new environmental effects. (11) Installation of wells, comfort stations, and pit or vault toilets in areas of existing use and in developed areas. (12) Minor trail relocation or development of compatible trail networks on logging roads or other established routes. (13) Upgrading or adding new overhead utility facilities on existing poles, or on replacement poles that do not change existing pole line configurations. (14) Issuance of rights-of-way for overhead utility lines to an individual building or well from an existing line where installation will not result in visual intrusion and will involve no clearance of vegetation other than for placement of poles. (15) Issuance of rights-of-way for minor overhead utility lines not involving placement of poles or towers and not involving vegetation management or visual intrusion in an area administered by NPS. (16) Installation of underground utilities in areas showing clear evidence of recent human disturbance or areas within an existing road prism or within an existing overhead utility right-of-way. (17) Minor landscaping in areas showing clear evidence of recent human disturbance. (18) Installation of fencing enclosures, exclosures, or boundary fencing posing no effect on wildlife migrations. D. Actions related to visitor use (1) Minor changes in amounts or types of visitor use for the purpose of ensuring visitor safety or resource protection in accordance with existing regulations. (2) Minor changes in programs and regulations pertaining to visitor activities. (3) Issuance of permits for demonstrations, gatherings, ceremonies, concerts, arts and crafts shows, and so forth, entailing only short-term or readily remediable environmental disturbance.


4 10/01/2008

(4) Designation of trailside camping zones with minimal or no improvements. E. Actions related to resource management and protection (1) Archeological surveys and permits involving only surface collection or small-scale test excavations. (2) Restoration of non-controversial (based on internal scoping requirements in section 2.6) native species into suitable habitats within their historic range. (3) Removal of individual members of a non-threatened/endangered species or populations of pests and exotic plants that pose an imminent danger to visitors or an immediate threat to park resources. (4) Removal of non-historic materials and structures in order to restore natural conditions when the removal has no potential for environmental impacts, including impacts to cultural landscapes or archeological resources. (5) Development of standards for, and identification, nomination, certification, and determination of, eligibility of properties for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the National Historic Landmark and National Natural Landmark Programs, and biosphere reserves. (6) Non-destructive data collection, inventory (including field, aerial, and satellite surveying and mapping), study, research, and monitoring activities (this is also a Departmental CE). (7) Designation if environmental study areas and research natural areas, including those closed temporarily or permanently to the public, unless the potential for environmental (including socioeconomic) impact exists. F. Actions related to grant programs (1) Proposed actions essentially the same as those listed in paragraphs A-E above not shaded in gray. (2) Grants for acquisition to areas that will continue in the same use or lower density use with no additional disturbance to the natural setting or type of use. (3) Grants for replacement or renovation of facilities at their same location without altering the kind and amount of recreational, historical, or cultural resources of the area or the integrity of the existing setting. (4) Grants for construction of facilities on lands acquired under a previous NPS or other federal grant, provided that the development is in accord with plans submitted with the acquisition grant, and that environmental documents have been completed on the impacts of the proposal funded by the original grant. (5) Grants for the construction of new facilities within an existing park or recreation area, provided that the facilities will not:

(a) conflict with adjacent ownerships or land use, or cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants, such as would happen if use were extended beyond daylight hours.


5 10/01/2008

(b) introduce motorized recreation vehicles, including off-road vehicles, personal water craft, and snowmobiles. (c) introduce active recreation pursuits into a passive recreation area. (d) increase public use or introduce non-compatible uses to the extent of compromising the nature

and character of the property or causing physical damage to it. (e) add or alter access to the park from the surrounding area.

(6) Grants for the restoration, rehabilitation, stabilization, preservation, and reconstruction (or the authorization thereof) of properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, at their same location, and provided that such actions:

(a) will not alter the integrity of the property or its setting

(b) will not increase public use of the area to the extent of compromising the nature and character o the property.

Documents

ATTACHMENT 1 Responses to LWCF Proposal …brooklynbridgepark.s3.amazonaws.com/s/589/Application for...ATTACHMENT 1 Responses to LWCF Proposal Description and Environmental Screening