APPENDIX G – AGENCY COORDINATION AND CORRESPONDENCE DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX G AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE AND COORDINATION DOCUMENTS

Agency correspondence and coordination meeting documents are contained in this appendix, in date order shown on the list below.

Correspondence

Date Between which Agencies April 14, 2004 FTA and NYCLPC

April 13, 2004 MTA/NYCT and NYCDPR

April 1, 2004 NYCLPC and FTA

March 22, 2004 MTA/NYCT and LMDC

March 22, 2004 MTA/NYCT and PANYNJ

March 22, 2004 MTA/NYCT and NYSDOT

March 3, 2004 NYSOPRHP and MTA/NYCT

February 26, 2004 MTA/NYCT and NYSOPRHP

February 24, 2004 MTA/NYCT and NYSDOT (ICG)

February 17, 2004 NYSDOS and MTA/NYCT

February 17, 2004 NYSOPRHP and MTA/NYCT

February 6, 2004 MTA/NYCT and NYSDOT (ICG)

January 28, 2004 Delaware Nation NAGPRA Office and FTA

January 21-22, 2004 MTA/NYCT and NYSOPRHP (e-mail exchange)

January 22, 2004 NYCLPC and MTA/NYCT

January 20, 2004 MTA/NYCT and NYCDEP

January 20, 2004 MTA/NYCT and NYCLPC

January 6, 2004 MTA/NYCT and NYSDOS

January 6, 2004 NYCLPC and MTA/NYCT

January 6, 2004 FTA and Native American Tribes

December 30, 2003 MTA/NYCT and NYSDEC

December 29, 2003 MTA/NYCT and NYSOPRHP

December 27, 2003 MTA/NYCT Divisions (Signal Operations and Capital Program Management)

December 15, 2003 MTA/NYCT and NYCLPC

November 7, 2003 MTA/NYCT and NYSOPRHP

October 15, 2003 MTA/NYCT and NYCLPC

September 26, 2003 MTA/NYCT via Louis Berger Group and NYSOPRHP

July 30, 2003 MTA/NYCT and NYCEDC

June 18-24, 2003 MTA/NYCT and NYCDPR

April 19, 2002 MTA/NYCT via Louis Berger Group and NYSDEC

April 5, 2002 MTA/NYCT via Louis Berger Group and USFWS

Coordination Meetings (notes) Date Purpose

April 1, 2004 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCLPC, NYSOPRHP, and NYCDPR

February 24, 2004 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYSOPRHP

February 12, 2004 MTA/NYCT consultation with ICG (no notes or agenda)

December 18, 2003 MTA/NYCT Fulton Street Transit Center Technical Advisory Committee (agenda only)

November 14, 2003 MTA/NYCT conference call with NYSOPRHP and NYCLPC

November 13, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCDOT and NYSDOT

November 6, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCDOT and NYSDOT

October 27, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCDPR and The Battery Conservancy

September 22, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYSOPRHP

September 3, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYSDOT (attendance roster only)

August 28, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCDOT and NYCEDC

August 22, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCDOT (attendance roster only)

August 21, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCDOT and NYCEDC

August 14, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCDOT and NYCEDC

June 27, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCDOT and NYCEDC

June 11, 2003 MTA/NYCT Fulton Street Transit Center Technical Advisory Committee

June 2003 Community Board #1 meeting agenda notification

May 23, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCDPR (attendance roster only)

May 19, 2003 MTA/NYCT coordination with NYCEDC

Source: MTA/NYCT 2004

MTA/NYCT – Metropolitan Transportation Authority/New York City Transit NYSDOS – New York State Department of State NYSDEC – New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSOPRHP – New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation NYCLPC – New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission NYCEDC – New York City Economic Development Corporation NYCDPR – New York City Department of Parks and Recreation NYCDEP – New York City Department of Environmental Protection USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service NYCDOT – New York City Department of Transportation NYSDOT – New York State Department of Transportation ICG – Interagency Consultation Group LMDC – Lower Manhattan Development Corporation PANYNJ – Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

-----Original Message----- From: Hesch, Merrill (NYC2) [mailto:Merrill.Hesch@oprhp.state.ny.us] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:32 PM To: Ericsson, Collette Subject: RE: Request for Info on Battery Park L&WCF expenditures Colette--the project ID number was LWCF 36-00905. Grant was for $495,00 and the project term of the grant was 1/26/81-12/31/85. Work was the restoration of the Battery Park seawall and promenade and included asphalt pavement for promenade, ship rail fence restoration, removal and replacement of old timber fenders, removal & restoration of stone facing and caps, backfill behind seawall. I have a more detailed scope of work in the project file if you need it. -----Original Message-----From: Hesch, Merrill (NYC2) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:20 AM To: 'Ericsson, Collette' Subject: RE: Request for Info on Battery Park L&WCF expenditures Hi Collette--just got in and just got your message. I'm about to go into another meeting but I can get you this info later today. merrill -----Original Message----- From: Ericsson, Collette [mailto:CoEricsson@NYCT.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:39 PM To: Hesch, Merrill (NYC2) Subject: Request for Info on Battery Park L&WCF expenditures Dear Merrill: Would you please provide me with specific information regarding what the L&WCF grant to Battery Park was spent on? Whatever you have would be helpful. Thanks, Collette Collette T. Ericsson, P.E. Principal Engineer Sustainability & Environmental Management Capital Program Management MTA-New York City Transit 646-252-3513 Fax 646-252-3100 2 Broadway, 4th Floor New York, NY 10004

1

SOUTH FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Approach to Archaeology Meeting

Date: April 1, 2004 Time: 1:30 p.m. Location: NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission,

Municipal Building, 1 Center Street, Public Hearing Room MEETING NOTES Attendees: LPC – Amanda Sutphin, Arthur Bankoff, Mark Silberman, Ronda Wist. NY SHPO –

Robert Kuhn. City of New York Parks and Recreation – Joshua Laird, Paul Ersboll, Johanna Freeman. Battery Conservancy – Pat Kirshner, Steven Lagerstrom. MTA NYCT – Angelo Elmi, Collette Ericsson, Hollie Wells, Sankar Chakraborty, Tim Gianfrancesco, Uday Durg, Ronnie Hakim. FTA – Donald Burns. LBG – Zach Davis.

1. Purpose of meeting – Amanda Sutphin indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to

discuss the risks and benefits with testing before construction (as dictated by the Section 106 process) and/or during construction. It was unclear from the 2/24/04 meeting and subsequent conversations that NYCT has made its case that archaeological testing had to occur during construction.

2. Josh Laird described the previous coordination between Parks and NYCT regarding the design of the terminal. As originally proposed, the design would have created a large impact upon the park while the current design creates an impact to the park only during construction and does not leave any permanent penetration within the limits of the park. He also indicated that Parks is behind preliminary archaeological investigations being conducted prior to construction to determine the project’s archaeological potential, rather than during construction. Later in the meeting, he added that Parks is supportive of all approaches to archaeology. Parks will defer to Landmarks on issues related to archaeology and will be supportive of any approaches recommended by Landmarks.

3. Sankar Chakraborty provided some background for the project’s design and timeframe. NYCT does not prefer to create two seasons of impact to the park. The project is expected to begin (as design-build) in September 2004, given the following timeline: environmental documents will be released in May ‘04, the project will go out to bid at the end of May ’04 and the FONSI from FTA is expected by June/July ’04 at the end of environmental review. Once the FONSI is in place, the contract can be awarded. All supporting documentation to the contractor specifications can be provided as addendums up until mid-July ’04. According to NYCT, the ideal excavation/construction scenario in the park would be to start excavation in September ’04 by first installing a cut-off wall across the park (this would follow relocation of all utilities across the project). There are three possibilities to how this may happen: a secant pile wall, sheet-metal wall, or a slurry wall. It is likely that the excavation contractor will use a sheet-metal wall within Battery Park as the secant pile wall is more expensive and time consuming. This cut-off wall would seal the project area from the high water table (about 10 feet b.g.s.) and would extend just beyond the limits of the project area (approximately 45’ to 65’ wide within the park). All excavation equipment will enter the park from Peter Minuit Plaza and work will commence in the northern portion of the park and proceed south along the path of the new tracks. The width of the excavation area will allow for the movement of machinery around any area that needs to be investigated for archaeology. Additionally, ramps may by installed to protect areas identified as

2

archaeologically sensitive to allow for movement within the excavation area. The site will be excavated with heavy machinery and the first six feet of soil will be excavated at a normal excavation rate (subject to approval by SHPO and LPC) for heavy machinery (i.e., greater than 2’ in depth per bucket). Prior research has determined that the first six feet of soil contains extensive utilities and have been severely disturbed by previous excavation for these utilities. As excavation proceeds and soils are removed from the excavation area, the soils will be loaded onto dump trucks, which will then travel southward along the excavation area and out of the park at Peter Minuit Plaza. As soil is removed from the excavation area, wailers will be installed to provide cross-bracing to the sheet-metal walls, if the excavation contractor chooses this technique for the cut-off wall. Archaeologist will monitor the excavation of the soils below six feet b.g.s., either from the surface of the park or from within the trench, as long as the archaeologist’s safety is ensured by the excavation contractor. If archaeology is encountered during the heavy machinery excavation, then the archaeologist will have the time they need to investigate the archaeology. The heavy machinery can then work in other areas of the park while the archaeologists are conducting their work. The approaches described will be reflected in the ARMP and are subject to consultation and acceptance from SHPO and LPC. NYCT agrees that whatever excavation machines and methods may be needed for addressing potential archaeological issues will be used, taking into account both cost and schedule. Josh Laird expressed concern regarding the extra time and money, but NYCT (S. Chakraborty) assured everyone that the project would be done in accordance with terms reached with SHPO and LPC.

4. LPC (Mark Silberman) stated that the preferred method for conducting archaeology is to do it prior to construction, rather than during construction. A several points, Amanda Sutphin inquired if it was possible to conduct limited archaeological testing in specific areas of high sensitivity prior to construction. Angelo Elmi replied to say that to conduct the archaeological testing in an area would still require the construction of the cut-off wall and this could only be done under the design-build contract. Any archaeological testing would therefore be conducted during general excavation.

5. Zach Davis provided a brief summary of the archaeological potential across the project area. Potential archaeological resources include military fortifications from the original Fort Orange/George at the northern portion of the project area and the expansion of the fort in the 18th century within the central portion of the project. Potential piers, wharves and bulkheads may be located within Peter Minuit Plaza. Potential archaeological finds would entail large wood timbers that would have formed the foundation to the fort or the bulkhead walls and military effects associated with soldiers occupying the fort.

6. Bob Kuhn stated that the archaeologists must be given the appropriate time to fully investigate any archaeological resources. The discovery of archaeology will add time to the overall project and this must be accounted for in the Archaeological Resource Management Plan (ARMP). Both SHPO and LPC stated that the ARMP must reflect the appropriate course of action that will be followed when different archaeological resources are discovered. The ARMP must show how each archaeological resource will be evaluated. Similarly, the contract specifications must explain to the excavation contractor the excavation restrictions they must operate under and that the archaeologist will have control over the excavation in areas of archaeological sensitivity. B. Kuhn stated that the development of the specs may take time as they will be rather complex given all of the variables associated with this

3

design/build project. He cautioned that it may not be possible to have this finalized document by May when Transit wishes to bid the job especially given that nothing has been submitted to SHPO or LPC to date. NYCT (S. Chakraborty) responded that they could begin the bidding process and later provide an addendum. LPC (M. Silberman) noted that may not be the best strategy. The ARMP must also allow the archaeologist to have the necessary access to the excavations and to ensure their safety while working along the excavation. SHPO, LPC and Parks all requested that the ARMP and any contractor specifications be available for comment and revision prior to the project being sent out for bid. SHPO, LPC, and Parks expressed concern that the ARMP which will be adopted may not be sufficient to protect archaeological resources that are found during this design/build construction project.

7. The WTC Sphere is located within the limits of the excavation area and happens to be situated at the place of the 18th century fort. Sankar Chakraborty indicated that the Sphere would be underpinned during excavation and Collette Ericsson indicated that public access to the Sphere during construction would be assured.

8. Amanda Sutphin asked what control NYCT would have over the methods used by the excavation contractor. Sankar Chakraborty replied that NYCT would write into the contract specifications how the excavation contractor will proceed, such as excavating slowly within areas of high archaeological sensitivity. The excavation contractor would always follow the suggestions of NYCT engineers.

9. Josh Laird asked what would happen to any archaeological material that is found during construction; would it be left in place, reburied after the terminal is constructed or would the excavation contractor remove it? Hollie Wells replied that all excavated archaeological material becomes the responsibility of the archaeological consultant for analysis, conservation and temporary curation pending determination of a final curatorial location. It is not possible to leave archaeological material in place as the limits of the Terminal encompass the entire excavation area. It is unlikely that archaeological material could be redeposited within the excavation area after the construction of the Terminal. Bob Kuhn pointed out that if a burial is encountered, it would be excavated form the project area and it could be re-interred in a nearby location.

10. The common point to the meeting was that the ARMP and any contract specifications must be written such that they detail all possible archaeological finds and how the archaeologists will be able to investigate the archaeology without any pressure from the excavation contractor. LPC added that it may be useful for the excavation contractor to work with an archaeologist during the time when the methods of construction excavation are being developed, to ensure that the approach is conducive to the project’s archaeological sensitivity.

11. It was agreed by all that the archaeological investigation would proceed during the general excavation with close coordination between an on-site archaeologist (provided by NYCT) and the Contractor. The contract documents would reflect this coordination and indicate restrictions that would be imposed on the contractor during excavation in areas of archaeological potential.

4

12. Next Steps:

• NYCT will provide a time frame to SHPO, LPC and Parks as to when they can expect the ARMP and contract specifications for their review.

SOUTH FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Archaeological Management Plan Meeting

Date: February 24, 2004 Time: 11:00 a.m. Room A 3.02

MEETING NOTES Attendees: MTA NYCT – Collette Ericsson, Angelo Elmi, Chris Bastian, Sankar Chakraborty,

Frank Mondello, Ramesh Ramanathaiah, Hollie Wells. SHPO – Bob Kuhn. FTA – Donald Burns. New York City LPC – Amanda Sutphin. LBG – Valerie Young, Zach Davis, Chitra Radin – Radin Consulting

1. Introduction to South Ferry project – Angelo Elmi provided an overview of the South Ferry

conceptual plan. 2. Introduction to archaeological potential in the APE – Zach Davis described the

archaeological potential in the construction zone. He referenced two figures from the Phase IA Archaeological Assessment, one of which Angelo had annotated to identify the types of resources that might be encountered in the areas of sensitivity. He indicated that the resources could potentially be located between 5 and 20 feet below ground surface.

3. Discussion of construction methods and issues – Sankar Chakraborty indicated that the

project would be constructed under a design-build contract with a tight schedule. Because of the limitation to only be in Battery Park for 8 months, there would not be time to do the archaeological trenching first, and then go to construction. Under a design-build method, the contractor typically has greater flexibility in construction methods than a standard construction contract. For the South Ferry project, the contractor will know that there is the potential for archaeological resources to be encountered during construction, and that certain restrictions will apply to the work. The bid document would include a list of pre-determined actions the contractor would need to take if resources were encountered.

Chitra Radin indicated that two levels of actions, or restrictions, would need to be developed: actions to be taken during the construction itself, and actions to be taken if resources are found. Bob Kuhn, SHPO, stated that the ideal approach is to perform the archaeological testing in advance of construction, so the construction activity is not competing with the archaeological activity. Archaeological issues would then be known in advance of construction. Because of the schedule for South Ferry, and the design-build approach, it is necessary to come up with alternative approaches. However, he identified potential risks with the proposed approach.

• The proposed approach is not necessarily consistent with the regulations (Section 106, 36CFR Section 800.1c) which state that the Section 106 consultation must be complete prior to the expenditure of federal funds. The testing should be performed during the planning process, so that if impacts to resources are identified, alternatives to minimize them can be developed. If a resource is uncovered and needs to be moved or destroyed, the project may be subject to delays. He provided

an example of a State DOT project in Buffalo (Buffalo Inner Harbor Project), where a stone wall was discovered; the wall was determined to be part of the original connection of the historic Erie Canal to the Buffalo River. The project was funded by the FTA. The original approach to the discovery was to document it and cover it back up. However, the public wanted the stone wall permanently exposed and available for public viewing. The project was legally challenged, which delayed it for some time, and ultimately the project was changed to accommodate the public’s recommendation.

Chitra Radin suggested that the Programmatic Agreement (PA) could be drafted to address this kind of circumstance, and included in the EA so the public would have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed approach. If they didn’t comment during the review period, then brought the issue up as a new concern after the NEPA process was completed, the courts may not uphold such an action. Bob understood her point, but indicated that there were no guarantees against a legal challenge.

• The types of structural elements that could be encountered may have been left in the ground. If they were not removed, there is a good chance that the resources are still in the ground. One shouldn’t assume that nothing would be encountered. To the contrary, the evidence provided in the Phase IA report indicates a strong likelihood that something will be found.

• Performing the archaeological testing as part of the construction will make the

construction much more complex, and possibly confrontational. The archaeological monitor will have as much control over the construction activities as the contractor, if not more. The contract needs to be extremely clear as to what authority each party has, and what the time frames are for investigations and resolution of issues. This can make the construction job very challenging. The PA would need to be completely re-drafted to reflect the lines of authority and responsibility, and this language would need to be included in the specifications.

Discussion on this issue ensued. Frank Mondello indicated the schedule and construction approach might be able to accommodate the archaeological testing in advance of the construction. He used the schematic diagram of the schedule to show that two options for construction through Battery Park were identified (one in 2004-2005 and the other in 2005-2006). In either case, the construction would occur during the off-peak period for park use, i.e., from October through May. He suggested one option would be to perform the archaeological trenching during the first period, and then do the construction the following year. Most of the construction area is closed to the public already. The trenches would be filled back in for the period in-between the two construction periods. Ramesh Ramanathaiah indicated that there were difficulties with this approach. Each trench would require its own shoring, and would need to be dewatered. In essence, the same area would be excavated twice, first for the archaeological testing and then for the actual construction. Zach Davis asked if the construction could start with the archaeological testing, i.e., perform the trenching and testing, and then follow immediately behind with the construction trenching so the area would not have to be filled back in. Ramesh indicated there was not enough time in the 8-month schedule (this is actually 9 months, but was

misquoted in the mtg.) for both activities. Collette Ericsson indicated that the 8-month park schedule was required by the Battery Park Conservancy. Discussion then focused on how the construction and archaeological testing could be accomplished concurrently. Bob Kuhn suggested that if this concurrent approach were taken, the archaeologist must have control of the schedule to perform archaeological activities in the areas of concern and coordinate with the contractor’s activities. The excavation process would have to be described in detail, so the archaeologist can determine where and when to perform the testing and monitoring. Collette indicated that the construction zone is very narrow, to keep the park disturbance to a minimum. Bob indicated that specific amounts of time need to be allotted for each inspection activity. One time frame would be allotted for general construction inspection. The other time frames would be for evaluation of discovered materials. The contractor would need to accommodate these time assumptions into the schedule and the bid. Zach would need to identify how much time would be needed for the different types of resources that might be encountered. Hollie Wells asked if there are any special technologies (GPS, radiation, remote sensing, etc.) that could be used to help pre-determine the presence of underground resources. Bob indicated that these technologies exist, but they would likely have a low probability for success in the South Ferry project for several reasons. The resources are likely to be deep, and there may be a lot of material there. The sensing equipment would not be able to easily differentiate between what is or is not a resource. Zach also indicated that there are a lot of buried utilities in the construction area as well. Collette indicated that there was a high likelihood that resources would be encountered, but a lower likelihood that they would be items that would need to remain in place (i.e., had importance to remain in situ). Bob agreed, but stated it could be argued that they should be removed and curated if they were going to be destroyed anyway. The question of who would pay for this removal would then need to be addressed. Amanda Sutphin, NYCLPC, indicated that it is generally very difficult to stop construction once it is underway. There will be tremendous pressure on the contractor to keep the construction going. All agreed that it would be imperative to have a contractor with construction experience where archaeological resources were involved. Bob stated he had worked with such a contractor on a DOT project, and had shared the specifications from that project with Collette and Zach. The specifications have a process for conflict resolution, which he indicated would be very important to include for the South Ferry project. Donald Burns, FTA, indicated concerns about using a design-build contract where archaeology was an issue, due to the large number of unknowns.

4. Next Steps – Angelo recapped for everyone the agreed-upon action items:

• NYCT will prepare a detailed description of the excavation process and provide to Zach Davis.

• Zach will prepare a draft of the proposed monitoring/testing approach based on the excavation process, including time frames. He will provide this to NYCT, SHPO, and FTA.

• All parties will review and comment on the approach.

• NYCT will incorporate the approach into the revised PA.

Collette indicated that NYCT would try to get a document to SHPO and FTA by early next week to begin the review process. Collette asked Bob when would the APEs for the South Ferry project need to be formally approved by his office. He indicated that sooner rather than later would be better. Angelo Elmi will work on this item.