DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING MEMORANDUM

GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT PIN X729.94

Between 92nd Street and the Battery Tunnel/BQE Borough of Brooklyn,

July 1997

New York State Department of Transportation July 1997

Dear Reader:

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is preparing a Draft Environmenta Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project on the Gowanus Expressway (I-278) between 92nd Stree and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel/Brooklyn Queens Expressway. As part of the DEIS preparation process, NYSDOT conducted a "scoping" process to identify the social, economic and environmental issues to be evaluated in the DEIS. This process ensures that the DEIS is a concise, accurate and comprehensive document that covers all concerns and issues for public and agenc review.

The scoping activities included scoping discussions with other agencies, public scoping meetings, and related public outreach efforts. Many individuals, organizations and interest groups participated in this process, and helped our agency better understand those issues of greatest importance and concern to the community, and those for which detailed studies were considered most essential in understanding the potential beneficial and adverse impacts of various project alternatives.

The enclosed Scoping Memorandum represents a summary and formal documentation of the results of this process, and will be used by NYSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to prepare the DEIS. It provides an outline of how the potentially feasible project alternatives will be selected, and how the potential impacts of each will be analyzed.

Thank you for your valuable assistance in the scoping process. Your participation has been important in assuring that the Gowanus Expressway project can successfully proceed with minima and acceptable impacts.

Very truly yours,

Crai Siracusa Deputy Regional Director NYSDOT Region 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OVERVIEW OF GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT ...... 1 a. Location and History of the Gowanus Expressway ...... 1 b. Gowanus Expressway Project - Project Purpose ...... 1 c. Environmental Review Process ...... 4 d. Role of the Scoping Process ...... 4

2. DEIS SCOPING ACTIVITIES FOR THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT . . . 5

3. SUMMARY & RESULTS OF SCOPING MEETINGS ...... 7 a. Summary of Key Topics Raised ...... 7 b. Non-DEIS Comments ...... 9 c. Scope of the DEIS ...... 10 • Proposed Purpose & Need ...... 10 • Proposed Project Alternatives ...... 10 • Probable Impacts of Project Alternatives ...... 13

4. PROJECTED SCHEDULE FOR EIS PROCESS ...... 19

5. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS . . 20

1 SCOPING MEMORANDUM GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT July 1997

1. OVERVIEW OF GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT a. Location and History of the Gowanus Expressway

The Gowanus Expressway was built in 1941 and expanded in the 1950s and 1960s to become a component of the region’s Interstate highway network. The expressway has not had a major rehabilitation in more than 30 years. This 5.7-mile long highway between 92nd Street and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel is a critical component of the highway system in the metropolitan area. As part of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE -- Interstate 278), it is the only mixed-traffic, limited access interstate highway in Brooklyn. It provides connections with key highway facilities, including the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge (VNB), Shore Parkway, Prospect Expressway, and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel (BBT), and serves the boroughs of Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and .

The Gowanus Expressway viaduct is one continuous highway bridge, stretching from Sixth Avenue and 65th Street to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. The route is a vital link for the movement of people and goods in Brooklyn and the metropolitan area, and its operation is essential to the economic health of the area. Daily traffic volumes over the Gowanus Canal (the section between the Prospect Expressway and the BBT), is 175,000 vehicles, with a proportionately high number of trucks. Two-thirds of the trucks using the facility serve western Brooklyn, while the rest are through trips serving New York City, Long Island, and other regional needs. Brooklyn is the primary origin of expressway users, with Staten Island second, while Manhattan is the leading destination. b. Project Purpose

The Gowanus Expressway Project began in 1985 with plans to rehabilitate portions of the highway and to create a median bus lane. Preliminary studies preformed at that time indicated extensive deterioration of the highway, and NYSDOT decided in 1990 to rehabilitate the entire viaduct.

The project purpose is to preserve transportation services of the Gowanus Expressway that are currently in jeopardy due to accelerating deterioration of the structure. Without any major rehabilitation in the past 30 years, the steel structure and the riding surfaces are experiencing extensive deterioration. The condition of the viaduct surface and structural steel is continuously monitored and the structure is frequently repaired. The extensive repair work causes traffic diversions and increasing uncertainty regarding the safe life span remaining in the structure. A fiscally responsible solution should be implemented quickly and cost effectively.

Three ways to achieve this goal include: (1) rehabilitating, (2) reconstructing, or (3) replacing the existing expressway. Reconstruction or rehabilitation will not only rebuild or preserve the existing

2 facility, but will also include, as practical, changes to resolve the operational and safety deficiencies of the existing facility. Replacement actions are of significantly larger scope, but still must be designed to provide: (1) people and goods moving services equivalent to those currently provided by the Gowanus Expressway; (2) continuity with adjacent portions of interstate (I-278); and (3) avoidance of community impacts due to emergency closures.

The Metropolitan Region’s Long Range Plan does not recommend increasing the number of general use travel lanes of the Gowanus Expressway. It does, however, recommend that a continuous High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane be implemented along the Gowanus Expressway, and that opportunities for improving operating deficiencies be considered when portions of this route are upgraded, replaced, or rehabilitated.

Based on NYSDOT’s study of existing conditions and deficiencies of this study area, the purpose of the project can be defined as to:

• Preserve the transportation services and capacity currently provided by the Gowanus Expressway; • Provide a structurally sound transportation system; • Enhance the safety, mobility and operations in the corridor; • Minimize environmental, social and economic impact; • Minimize the acquisition of property; and • Minimize community disruption during construction.

These stated purposes of the proposed project would be achieved by meeting the basic project objectives, which fall into the following three areas:

• Transportation Goals:

Preserve the transportation services and capacity currently provided by the highway, and provide services that are efficient, reliable, enhance safety and operational effectiveness, and are designed to accommodate traffic demand in a cost-effective manner.

Objective 1: Eliminate infrastructure deficiencies;

Objective 2: Improve traffic operations and safety;

Objective 3: Preserve existing transportation services and capacity, including connections to regional and local roadway networks;

Objective 4: Improve the highway’s geometrics;

Objective 5: Be consistent with the long-range plan of the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Organization -- MPO (the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council in the New York City region).

3 • Mobility Goals

Implement measures to move people and goods more effectively on I-278 between the VNB and the BQE.

Objective 1: Provide a continuous Bus/HOV lane;

Objective 2: Eliminate or remove traffic bottlenecks;

Objective 3: Divert vehicle trips to alternative modes;

Objective 4: Improve goods movement on I-278.

• Program Goals

During Construction: provide transportation service which is feasible to construct; minimizes adverse social, economic and environmental impacts; is cost effective; and which minimizes the investment of limited resources.

Objective 1: Minimize construction, right-of-way, operations and maintenance costs;

Objective 2: Minimize social and economic impacts on the community;

Objective 3: Minimize air quality and other environmental impacts;

Objective 4: Minimize construction duration and traffic diversions.

Long-Term: provide transportation service which maximizes social, economic and environmental benefits; minimizes adverse social, economic and environmental impacts; and which is generally acceptable to the surrounding community.

Objective 5: Minimize acquisition of residential and commercial properties and adverse impacts on these uses;

Objective 6: Minimize adverse effects on historic sites, or on educational, religious or recreational facilities;

Objective 7: Maximize beneficial and minimize adverse impacts on air quality;

4 a. Environmental Review Process

Since the mid-1980s, the escalating deterioration of the Expressway has increased the necessary scale of work required on the Expressway, resulting in the decision to rehabilitate the entire viaduct and (where feasible) to improve interchanges. With this expansion in the required level of work, NYSDOT decided in 1992 to prepare an Environmental Assessment under procedures mandated by the Federal-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). On October 16, 1995 the Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation was released for public review.

Due to the nature and number of comments received, NYSDOT, in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), concluded that it was appropriate to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. The Draft and Final EIS documents will be used by each involved agency to consider environmental concerns when making decisions. These documents will also serve as a public disclosure of the project’s environmental effects. b. Role of the Scoping Process

The scoping process is the earliest opportunity for the public to be involved in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process. It is a public process designed to determine the scope of issues to be considered and addressed in the DEIS. The purpose of scoping is to ensure that the DEIS is a concise, accurate and comprehensive document that covers all concerns and issues for public and agency review. This Scoping Memorandum represents a summary and formal documentation of the results of this process, and will be used by NYSDOT and FHWA to finalize the scope of the DEIS and the alternatives to be considered.

Scoping is also an opportunity for the public to recommend the consideration of other alternatives. In deciding which actions will be evaluated further in the environmental review process, NYSDOT will consider:

• whether the action meets the project’s purpose and goals as listed above; • how well the action maintains the transportation services currently provided by the Gowanus Expressway; • the relative cost of these services or other benefits; and • whether short- and long-term environmental, social and economic impacts can be minimized given the implementation of the alternative.

5 2. DEIS SCOPING ACTIVITIES FOR THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT

The DEIS scoping process normally involves:

(1) scoping discussions with other agencies, particularly those with a direct or indirect involvement in the proposed project’s corridor and study area; and

(2) public scoping meetings, which are held to provide the public with information about the project, and to assist in formulating the scope of the environmental studies in the DEIS. Plans showing alternatives being considered to date are presented, with agency personnel available to answer questions. Comments on the proposed project and the scope of the DEIS are then received from the public.

The scoping process completed for the DEIS for the Gowanus Expressway Project included the following three components:

(1) formal public scoping meetings, (2) meetings with public agencies, and (3) related public outreach efforts

The following is a listing of the formal public scoping meetings, the informal follow-up scoping meetings, and the agency meeting held as part of the DEIS Scoping Process for the project:

Formal Meeting #1 Formal Meeting #2 Formal Meeting #3 Tuesday, January 14, 1997 Wed., January 22, 1997 Thursday, January 30, 1997 Brooklyn Borough Hall St. Michaels Church New Dorp High School Auditorium Court Room Auditorium 465 New Dorp Lane 209 Joralemon Street 4222 4th Avenue Staten Island, NY Brooklyn, NY Brooklyn, NY Session I: 5:30 - 7:00 P.M. Session I: 3:00 - 5:30 P.M. Session I: 3:00 - 5:30 P.M. Session II: 8:00 - 9:30 P.M. Session II: 6:30 - 9:00 P.M. Session II: 6:30 - 9:00 P.M.

Informal Meeting #1 Informal Meeting #2 Agency Scoping Meeting Tuesday, February 27, 1997 Wed., March 5, 1997 Monday, April 7, 1997 St. Mary’s Church Our Lady of Angeles NYSDOT, Region 11 467 Court Street Auditorium Hunts Point Plaza Brooklyn, NY 11231 347 74th Street 47-40 21st Street, Room 820 Session I: 5:30 - 7:30 P.M. Brooklyn, NY 11209 Long Island City, NY 11101 Session I: 6:30 - 8:00 P.M. Session I: 10:00 A.M.

6 Input from these various activities were received and recorded as follows:

• A stenographic record was kept for each of the three formal public scoping meetings, augmented by note-taking by representatives of the Gowanus project team. Written comments were also submitted at these hearings, and a “Scoping Comment Sheet” within the Scoping Information Package provided a simple form on which attendees could write down and submit scoping comments.

• Written comments were separately mailed or faxed to NYSDOT’s offices as part of the overall public scoping process.

• Comments made at the two informal scoping meetings were taken down by multiple members of the Gowanus project team, with all attendees’ notes compared and consolidated to insure a complete and comprehensive record. Draft minutes of the informal scoping meetings were also shared with the parties that sponsored the meetings (Congresswoman Velasquez and Congressman Towns for the February 27, 1997 meeting and N.Y. State Democratic Committeeman Ralph J. Perfetto for the March 5, 1997 meeting) to provide a further check on the completeness of the comments recorded from those meetings.

• Comments on DEIS scoping issues were obtained from other involved government agencies in writing and at the Agency Scoping meeting held April 7, 1997.

Formally, the time period for the receipt of comments on the DEIS scope was closed on March 5, 1997. However, NYSDOT continued to allow scoping input past that date through participation in (a) the two informal scoping meetings noted above, and (b) the Gowanus Expressway Task Force, which was formed during the Environmental Assessment process and includes elected officials, community boards, local civic and business organizations and other interested parties.

The Gowanus Expressway Task Force will continue to serve as the main instrument for the public participation program and as the springboard for outreach to the wider general public. Persons interested in obtaining further information on the Task Force can contact the Office of the Brooklyn Borough President at 718-802-3900.

The next step in the scoping process was the integration of public input from the oral and written comments received through each one of the forums noted above. With these comments successfully recorded and categorized, the substantive DEIS issues and concerns become part of the public record and are reflected as warranted in the planned scope of the DEIS.

The following sections summarize the results of the scoping process.

7 3. SUMMARY & RESULTS OF SCOPING MEETINGS a. Summary of Key Topics Raised

During the DEIS scoping process, oral and written comments were submitted by many individuals, agencies and organizations. The following is a summary of the key comments made during this process -- i.e., those that were stated most frequently, and which held the most importance in terms of possible impact on the proposed project development or on the manner in which it is analyzed in the DEIS. A more detailed listing of the comments made during the scoping process is provided in a separate Appendix to this report, which also includes copies of the hearing transcripts and all written comments submitted at the hearings or separately to NYSDOT. The ways in which the scope of the DEIS was developed in response to comments is then described.

Comment: A Tunnel Alternative Should be Included in the DEIS

Numerous commentors called for the inclusion of some type of tunnel alternative in the DEIS. There were a variety of concepts mentioned, including different possible locations for the tunnel (under 3rd Avenue, under 2nd Avenue, along the shoreline, etc.), starting and ending at different points along the highway (starting at 92nd Street near the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, starting at 65th Street, exiting at various locations in Red Hook), and including connections to the local roadway and highway system as mandated by the project’s objectives and goals as presented in Section 1.b above. Many viewed the work being done by the Regional Plan Association (RPA) to identify possible tunnel concepts as an initial effort in this process, and called for NYSDOT to work with RPA and the community groups to study these concepts further.

Comment: Other Alternatives. While the tunnel concept received the most support, interest in other alternatives was also mentioned by a number of commentors. These included (a) “waterfront” highway concepts, with unspecified ideas regarding location or type of highway (tunnel, at-grade, viaduct); (b) some of the alternatives presented in the EA, particularly those including some form of rail transit within the highway’s reconstruction design or change in the use of the proposed Bus/HOV lane; (c) alternative viaduct schemes (e.g., double-decking concept along 3rd Avenue or other avenues); (d) possible future tunneling of the BQE north of the Gowanus Expressway study limits (i.e., through Carroll Gardens and Brooklyn Heights), and (e) an alternative (viaduct or tunnel) that would increase the highway’s capacity above its present level. The treatment of these alternatives in the DEIS is discussed in Section 3.c below.

Comment: Potential Effects of the Project on Community Health

A number of commentors stated that: (a) neighborhoods near the Gowanus Expressway, especially Sunset Park, have high rates of asthma, emphysema and other respiratory diseases within the their residential populations, (b) the highway was a factor in these high rates, and (c) construction-related activities would exacerbate these problems. They called for the DEIS to include these health-related concerns in its analyses. In addition, the construction of a tunnel to replace the existing viaduct, with vehicular emissions released further away from residential populations, was mentioned by some as a way to reduce these health problems.

8 Comment: Traffic Impacts during Construction

Many commentors feared that traffic conditions in the communities near the highway would be substantially worsened during construction. The major concern was large numbers of vehicles, especially trucks, diverting off the viaduct to avoid construction areas, and using local streets (especially the north-south avenues) as diversion routes. These actions would result in congestion, delays, higher accident rates, unsafe pedestrian conditions, vibration impacts on buildings, and other problems. Construction activities and equipment blocking traffic lanes and removing parking (primarily along 3rd Avenue) was also mentioned, reducing accessibility and parking availability for local residents and businesses. The commentors wanted these impacts studied, and mitigation measures identified, in the DEIS.

Comment: Other Traffic Issues. A wide variety of other traffic-related comments were made during the scoping process, including: (a) traffic safety concerns related to higher volumes (due to diversion), construction traffic, and traffic diverted past sensitive land uses like schools, senior citizen centers and similar uses; (b) general traffic growth or changes in employment patterns and associated traffic patterns and volume; (c) recent or future changes in volumes along specific routes (e.g., Third Avenue, near various entrance/exit ramps, etc.) and for specific projects (e.g., proposed Hub Port and rail freight tunnel); (d) specific suggestions for traffic management strategies, during construction or on a permanent basis, to improve traffic flow or safety (e.g., bicycle lanes, better signalization, etc.); and (e) continuity of the existing HOVL during construction. The ways in which the scope of the DEIS will address these concerns is described in Section 3.c.

Comment: Economic Impacts of Highway Reconstruction

Numerous commentors stated that construction of the proposed project would result in substantial adverse impacts on the residential, commercial and industrial land uses in the surrounding communities. Most of this related to the traffic concerns noted in the comment above. Business owners stated that construction-related delays would slow down truck pick-up and delivery, make it harder for customers and employees to get to their locations, and in general reduce the viability of their present locations near the Gowanus Expressway. Some commentors mentioned concerns regarding a specific business or group of businesses (usually those with whom the commentor was affiliated), while others focused on areawide economic concerns. Many called for measures (signage, traffic agents, etc.) to insure that (a) traffic was not diverted down into the community, and (b) vehicular access to local businesses was maintained during construction. Programs were requested to provide economic assistance (e.g., low-interest loans) for businesses and property owners impacted by construction.

9 Comment: Long-Term Land Use and Economic Impacts of Highway

Many speakers at the scoping meetings stated that construction of the existing expressway, especially the viaduct section along 3rd Avenue in Sunset Park, had divided the community and had a long-term adverse impact on the viability of the surrounding neighborhoods. In assessing the potential impacts of reconstructing the viaduct, they wanted these local land use and economic impacts to be reflected in the DEIS, including the impacts on business activities, property values and future economic growth. In this context, when considering the tunnel alternative, these commentors called for the DEIS to include the expected positive economic impact of the viaduct’s removal on growth along and near 3rd Avenue, on property values, and on property and other tax revenues generated in the community. b. Non-DEIS Comments

Comment: Major Investment Study

Numerous individuals and groups commented that a project of this type and magnitude required the completion of a Major Investment Study (MIS) prior to, or possibly simultaneous to, completion of the DEIS. The rationales given to support this position were: (a) the cost and size of the project, (b) that an MIS would identify the economic impacts of the project, (c) the plans for a cross-harbor rail freight tunnel and a “Hub Port” container facility on the Brooklyn waterfront, and (d) that consideration of a tunnel alternative required an MIS. The commentors indicated that all of these parallel proposals for transportation projects must be reflected in the DEIS.

FHWA and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council have already determined that an MIS is not required for this project. The DEIS and FEIS will contain appropriate analyses to address these issues.

Comment: Community Engineer

Many of the participants at scoping meetings requested that NYSDOT provide funds for a “Community Engineer” who could provide the local community groups with an independent assessment of the often complex and lengthy documents produced during the EIS process. NYSDOT indicated that throughout the previous EA process and into the DEIS process, it had provided detailed assessments of all aspects of the project, responded to community requests to consider project changes and held numerous, regularly scheduled meetings with community groups and elected officials. Given this history, and that this same close cooperation with the community would continue, the role of Community Engineer is essentially being provided by NYSDOT and its overall project team.

The Brooklyn Borough President recently decided to provide funds for a community engineer to work with the Gowanus Expressway Task Force on the Gowanus Project, and is presently working with New York City DOT on the best method of selecting and retaining an appropriate firm. NYSDOT will work cooperatively with whatever firm is selected by the Task Force.

10 c. Scope of DEIS

Based on the review of the extensive public comments made on the DEIS process, by local citizens, businesses and various organizations and interest groups, as well as involved public agencies, the scope of the DEIS has been defined. The following is a listing of the projected scope for each section of the DEIS. The areas where the scope reflects the comments received during the public scoping process are noted.

• Proposed Purpose & Need

The basic goals and purpose of the proposed project, as originally defined in the EA, restated in the Scoping Information Package (January 1997) and presented above in Section 1.b, have not changed. As discussed below, some of the actions previously proposed in the EA to meet those goals have been revised or refined based on further engineering studies. Based on scoping comments, further studies by NYSDOT, and continued discussions with community groups and elected officials, new alternative actions have also been suggested

• Proposed Project Alternatives

The DEIS will include a detailed screening of all alternatives presented in the EA and since modified, as well as all reasonable alternatives requested for consideration during the scoping process. The DEIS will screen each of these concepts in the context of the project’s goals and objectives. This screening process, the results of which will be presented in the DEIS, will select for detailed consideration only those alternatives found to be reasonably consistent with the proposed project’s goals and needs.

The following is a full listing of alternatives that were either defined during the EA process or were added for consideration since the EA based on further engineering studies and discussions with community groups and elected officials. As noted above, the DEIS will document the process by which alternatives were screened for detailed consideration in the DEIS.

« No Build Alternative. Under NEPA and SEQRA regulations, the DEIS is required to include a “No Build” or “No Action” alternative. The No Build “Maintenance” Alternative, as presented in the Scoping Information Package,” essentially means “Do Nothing” except continue the current practice of making repairs to the most serious areas of deterioration, such as patching holes in the concrete deck and steel beams. However, the results of on-going monitoring of the Expressway indicate that the long-term viability of this type of “repair as needed” approach must be re-evaluated, since the viaduct’s underlying structural problems would eventually make major rehabilitation or replacement of this transportation facility inevitable. These issues will be fully discussed in the DEIS.

11 « Rehabilitation with Operational and Safety Improvements Alternative. This alternative would replace the deteriorated deck, rehab or replace structural members between 6th Avenue and Clinton Street, and make major improvements to the highway’s interchanges (BQE-Gowanus, Gowanus- Prospect, Gowanus-Shore Pkwy); further refinements to this alternative have been under study by NYSDOT since the EA (e.g., 3rd Avenue access ramp, 38th/39th Street access ramps, etc.), as discussed later in this section;

« Tunnel Alternatives. In response to comments in the scoping process, detailed assessments of possible tunnel alternatives are being performed as part of the DEIS process. These studies, being performed in close consultation with the Gowanus Expressway Task Force, will have three phases:

• Phase 1. Potential tunnel routes and alignments will be identified, utilizing available data on subsurface conditions, utilities, building foundations, subways, etc., to screen possible candidates in terms of key engineering issues and potential impacts.

• Phase 2. If feasible routes are identified, these alternative routes will receive a planning-level analysis. Preliminary engineering drawings will be prepared which follow established design criteria and identify possible portal locations, interchange configurations, right-of-way requirements and related preliminary design issues. Preliminary assessments of the project’s construction duration and staging, short- term (during construction) and long-term traffic impacts, and potential social, economic and environmental impacts will be completed. Capital and operating cost ranges for both full and partial tunnel options, using bore and cut-cover tunnel construction methods, will be prepared.

• Phase 3. The results of the first two phases will be reviewed with the Gowanus Expressway Task Force, the RPA and others as appropriate. For any tunnel alternative deemed financable and cost-effective and which meets the project’s goals and objectives, more detailed engineering, environmental and socio-economic analyses will be performed, consistent with the level prepared for other rehabilitation and reconstruction options receiving detailed consideration in the DEIS.

The DEIS will include the results of this tunnel review process, up to the level warranted by the three-phase assessment process noted above.

« Innovative Construction Techniques. In response to public concern over the possible diversion of traffic into the surrounding community during construction, and the projected length of the construction process, NYSDOT has explored a number of innovative ways of constructing the highway. These concepts, which were summarized in the Scoping Information Package, included :

q four innovative construction methods of constructing and phasing the 12 basic rehabilitation project, and

q two other innovative construction methods -- relief viaduct above existing structure and new bi-level structure -- which would result in a somewhat different highway viaduct than presently exists, and therefore different alternatives.

The DEIS will assess and document these proposed construction alternatives.

« Access Re-evaluation. In response to requests made by community and business groups, NYSDOT will re-evaluate the findings in the EA regarding highway access at the following locations:

q 38th/39th Street On-Ramps -- adding on-ramps from the vicinity of 38th/39th Street to the inbound and outbound Gowanus expressway: these ramp concepts will be assessed in the DEIS; it is also assumed that any other alternatives under consideration (e.g., innovative viaduct concepts, tunnel options) should similarly expand access to the highway in the 38th/39th Street area;

q Red Hook-BQE Inbound Ramp -- proposed closing of the tunnel ramp connecting the BBT to the northbound BQE, as proposed in the EA; the closing of this tunnel ramp is presently being reevaluated by NYSDOT and will be assessed in the DEIS;

q Third Avenue-Shore Parkway On-Ramp to Inbound Gowanus -- revisions to the Shore Parkway/Third Avenue interchange presented in the EA called for the Third Avenue on-ramp to be closed; based on further studies of this proposal, NYSDOT has decided that the Third Avenue access ramp should remain as part of any viaduct rehabilitation alternative, and will be retained as a key highway access point for the project alternatives.

q Henry Street Pedestrian Bridge -- the EA indicated that this bridge might have to be relocated, but further studies by NYSDOT have identified ways to keep this bridge in its present location; this same type of pedestrian access will also be considered in the project alternatives under review.

The results of these studies will be discussed and documented in the DEIS.

« Alternatives Addressed in the EA. The EA included detailed consideration of a number of other project alternatives, including:

• Reconstruct Interstate on New Alignment; • At-grade Controlled-access Interstate; • At-grade Arterial Within Existing ROW;

13 • At-grade Arterial Within Existing ROW With LRT Line.

As with the other alternatives noted above, the DEIS will document the process by which these alternatives were screened against the project’s goals and objectives, and only those that are selected will receive detailed consideration in the DEIS.

« Other Project Alternatives. A number of commentors expressed interest in some of the other alternatives presented in the EA, and wanted them to be considered in the DEIS. As noted above, all alternatives presented in the EA will be discussed in the DEIS, although only those deemed both reasonable and feasible in the context of the project’s goals and objectives will receive detailed assessment in the DEIS. The scoping process indicated interest in various “waterfront” proposals, both at-grade and elevated, those that included rail transit within the reconstructed highway (e.g., the At-Grade Arterial Within Existing ROW with LRT Line from the EA), “double-decking” or similar alternative viaduct designs, and the possible future tunneling of sections of the BQE north of the Gowanus Expressway study area (i.e., those passing through Carrol Gardens and Brooklyn Heights). These and other project concepts will be presented in the DEIS, along with an assessment of whether each concept warrants further study based on its reasonable consistency with the proposed project’s goals and needs.

• Probable Impacts of Project Alternatives

« Land Use, Neighborhood Character & Socioeconomic Conditions. For the alternatives selected for detailed analysis, the DEIS will include a thorough assessment of the existing land use and socio-economic conditions in the project’s study area. This section will include compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, which assesses whether any of the project alternatives receiving full consideration in the DEIS would have disproportionally high and adverse effects on minority and low income populations.

As noted under Section 3.a above, considerable concern was voiced during the scoping process regarding the potential impacts of the proposed project on property values, local employment levels and future development in the surrounding communities. These concerns focused primarily on construction- related impacts, but also mentioned the possible long-term effects of re- establishing a highway that some commentors felt had divided the community and suppressed development in adjacent neighborhoods. (These latter comments were typically given in relation to possible tunnel alternatives.)

Reflecting the considerable amount of concern mentioned in this area, and the fact that a wide range of possible alternatives are being considered, the DEIS will include an assessment of these types of local land use, development, economic and fiscal impacts. These will include impacts on the viability of 14 existing businesses, possible changes in local property values, and associated local property and related business taxes. Each of the project alternatives will also be assessed under common economic and cost-benefit criteria, taking into account construction, right-of-way, operations and maintenance costs and related benefits to highway users due to reduced travel time, reduced accidents, and improved incident management.

« Traffic (Long-Term Impacts), Public Transit & Freight Considerations. The DEIS will review the planning status of the trans-harbor rail freight tunnel, and the Hub-Port for the Brooklyn waterfront. These proposals are presently under preliminary review by a number of local and regional agencies. NYSDOT will assess the effects of these proposals on the Gowanus project. If these proposals are not in design development stages sufficient for our study, development assumptions will be made in consultation with the agencies in charge of these projects to help us perform this analysis. This work will be incorporated into the overall assessment of planned development in the area.

The DEIS will include an assessment of the area’s transit network under existing and future conditions, and the potential impact of the project’s alternatives to those conditions. A number of commentors noted that improvements to various transit services in the Gowanus corridor or elsewhere (e.g., Staten Island ferry, various subway or bus service concepts) could help conditions on the Gowanus Expressway. The DEIS will include a reevaluation of these and other types of Transportation Systems Management (TSM) measures that could potentially impact conditions in the Gowanus corridor. Continuation of Park-’n’-Ride lots after highway reconstruction is completed will be addressed, along with various methods of continuing HOV lane operations throughout the construction phase.

« Truck Traffic Issues. Many commentors noted the substantial number of trucks traveling on the highway and, more importantly, on local streets through their neighborhoods. They wanted the DEIS to consider this issue in a number of ways, including (a) controlling diversion of trucks from the highway during construction, and (b) the present ramp system and whether revisions to it could reduce the use of local streets by trucks.

The EA included extensive analyses of freight movements in the Gowanus corridor, by both truck freight and other freight modes. The DEIS will include an assessment of truck freight patterns in the Gowanus corridor, including identification of major truck generators in the area, and present and projected truck volumes on the highway and along key arterials during and after construction. The extent to which proposed changes in the highway under each alternative would alter the routing of trucks in the corridor (e.g., due to the 38th/39th Street on-ramps) will be fully assessed, along with the associated impacts on traffic flow, air and noise quality, and related issues.

« Air Quality & Noise.

Air Quality. The general approach to the air quality analyses will be the same as 15 presented in the EA. The EA studies included microscale dispersion analysis to determine the potential for the proposed project (either during construction or on a long-term basis) to have significant adverse impacts on carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations during peak traffic conditions. Predicted CO concentrations were then compared against the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO. Construction period assessments in the EA were performed for 12 locations, focusing on those avenues and key cross streets most likely to be impacted by diverted traffic. Analysis of the fully built project focused on five locations near those portions of the expressway with operational changes.

The same modeling procedures will be followed in the DEIS, although the number and location of CO analyses will likely be different than those in the EA, since (a) traffic diversion during construction is projected to be less due to innovative construction procedures, (b) the operational changes for which the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) requires analysis will be somewhat different in the DEIS, and (c) some alternatives not considered in the EA may be analyzed in the DEIS. Under each alternative receiving detailed analysis, the screening and selection of locations for analysis, and the associated modeling studies, will be performed following procedures outlined in the EPM.

As noted in Section 3.a above, concerns were raised about connections between air quality and health in the surrounding communities, both due to the highway’s reconstruction and its long-term presence in the community. In response to these comments, NYSDOT will do an assessment of particulate concentrations in areas near the expressway, and the potential of those concentrations to exceed the health-based NAAQS for particulates. (The latest Federal guidance on

particulates, including the proposed change from PM10 to PM2.5 criteria, will be followed in these studies.) The results of these studies will be documented in the DEIS.

As required under Federal and State regulations, conformity of the proposed project with the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 will also be documented.

Noise Analysis. The noise analysis in the DEIS will follow the procedures and methods presented in the EPM. The EA included analyses of potential changes in ambient sound levels during construction and upon completion of the project. Seven locations directly adjacent to the existing viaduct, from the vicinity of the BBT/Hamilton Avenue interchange to the 7th Avenue ramp at 66th Street, were analyzed. Measures to potentially mitigate sound levels at various locations were identified and assessed. Noise impacts due to project construction -- both from diverted traffic and from construction equipment and activities -- were also addressed. These same procedures, consistent with the EPM and applicable Federal guidelines, will be carried out of each of the project alternatives analyzed in the DEIS.

« Cultural Resources. The assessment of potential impacts on historic and archaeological resources in the project’s study area will be similar in detail and 16 format to the assessments included in the EA. These studies will therefore include a review of all known historic and archaeological resources in the project area, and an assessment of the extent to which these resources could be potentially impacted by any of the proposed alternatives, both during construction and after completion.

« Visual Character. The assessment of the visual environment within the project area under existing conditions, and the potential changes that the proposed project alternatives would have on those conditions, will be included in the DEIS. This section will substantially follow the visual environment and impact assessments included in the EA. Those analyses, and those to be completed for the DEIS, focused on the visual environment near the three main segments of the highway -- 92nd Street to Lief Erickson Park/65th Street, along the 3rd Avenue viaduct, and from the Prospect interchange to the BQE. The dominance of the highway in those areas, and how the proposed project would alter those environments will then be assessed for each of the project alternatives.

« Water Resources & Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. These analyses will be similar in format and content to the sections on ecology and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife presented in the EA. The principal water resources with potential involvement with the project are the Gowanus Canal and Creek and the Gowanus Bay.

« Coastal Zone Management and Floodplains. These analyses will be similar in format and content to the Coastal Zone Management and Floodplain Management sections of the EA. These studies focus on the project s consistency with applicable coastal zone plans and programs of New York City and State, the possible impacts of the project’s construction or long-term operation on floodplain conditions in the project area.

« Utilities and Other Infrastructure. The analyses in this section will be similar to the analyses included in the utilities assessment included in the EA. These studies will focus on the extent to which the proposed project alternatives would result in the relocation or other impacts on area utilities.

« Hazardous Materials. This section will be similar in format and content to the sections on contaminated materials that were included in the EA. These studies address the extent to which the proposed project would require construction in areas potentially contaminated by past industrial, transportation or commercial uses of the properties in question. Previously performed field surveys and sampling will be updated or expanded where needed, and measures to mitigate potential problems will be identified.

« Energy. This section will assess the potential energy impacts of the proposed action -- both energy used in construction of the various project alternatives and changes in energy use by vehicles in the corridor (primarily due to higher average speeds and less diversion onto alternative routes).

17 « Construction Impacts. As in the EA, the DEIS will include assessments of construction-period traffic, noise and air quality conditions that were reviewed earlier in this scope.

As in the EA, the potential for traffic effects during construction will receive a detailed assessment for the feasible alternatives. The studies will estimate the amount of traffic diversion from the highway that is projected to occur during construction, assign that diverted traffic to the local roadway network based on past studies and surveys of drivers’ origin-destination patterns and their reactions to similar construction events. The traffic effects will then be assessed and measures to limit the amount of diversion and to smooth the flow of traffic on local streets will then be identified and assessed. The amount of construction-related traffic diversion to be predicted in the DEIS is expected to be considerably less than the level estimated in the EA, due to the development of innovative construction techniques that will enable a greater portion of the highway’s capacity to be maintained during critical peak traffic periods.

The applicability of mitigation concepts raised in scoping to help reduce construction period traffic problems -- e.g., traffic agents, interactive signage, etc. -- will be addressed. Finally, a considerable number of comments were raised regarding construction safety concerns due to traffic near sensitive land uses -- schools, senior centers, parks, etc. The DEIS will include an assessment of this issue, and (where needed) will identify and assess measures to mitigate these types of safety concerns.

The DEIS will also include an assessment of construction period effects in each of the key social, economic and environmental impact areas, including the issues of air and noise quality and land use and local economic conditions, which were mentioned most frequently during the DEIS scoping process.

« Section 4(f) Evaluation. A Draft Section 4(f) evaluation is required since the proposed project would potentially take publicly-owned recreational space for transportation purposes. The Section 4(f) evaluation will be similar in format and content to the equivalent section included in the EA. The analysis in the EA identified the potential need to acquire portions of three park areas to enable improvements to be made in highway ramps in those areas -- the Vincent J. Di Mattina Playground, and two unnamed park areas: one at 3rd and Hamilton Avenues, and a second at 7th Avenue and 65th Street. The Section 4(f) evaluation in the DEIS will reassess the need for those areas, or any other areas associated with the proposed project alternatives. The usage levels and conditions of these park areas, the impacts of the proposed project alternatives on these parks (access, noise, air quality, etc.), and the potential for other alternatives to avoid these impacts or action to minimize the harm to these areas will also be assessed.

« Other Sections of the DEIS. The DEIS will also include the following additional sections:

18 • Executive Summary -- summarizes the proposed project s purpose and needs, the identified project alternatives, the projected impacts of those alternatives, and any required mitigation measures, as well as brief summaries of all other sections of the DEIS;

• Relation Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment & Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity -- relates the short term beneficial and adverse impacts during construction with the projected changes in the long-term productivity of the facility and its relation to local and regional goals;

• Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources -- briefly summarizes the natural and man-made resources that would be irreversibly used in developing the proposed project;

• Summary of Impacts of Proposed Project Alternatives -- summarizes in tabular and text format the beneficial and adverse impacts of each of the project alternatives and presented in the DEIS’s impact section;

• Summary of Mitigation Commitments -- summarizes the measures identified under each project alternative to mitigate projected impacts, either related to construction activities on to long-term project impacts;

• Agency and Public Participation and Coordination -- summarizes the efforts by NYSDOT prior to and throughout the DEIS process to involve the public and to coordinate with transportation and other agencies.

These sections are standard components of any DEIS for this type of project, and they will be prepared in a manner consistent with applicable state and federal guidelines.

« Other Issue Raised in the Scoping Process. The DEIS scoping process generated a wide-ranging set of comments on almost every section of the DEIS. Many of them stated concerns and scoping issues that were already scheduled for full assessment in the DEIS (e.g., traffic impacts, assessment of construction traffic, consideration of other projects in the area, analysis of air and noise quality impacts, etc.). There were calls for continued, close and responsive interaction with community groups throughout the DEIS process -- something that NYSDOT has done throughout the EA process and will continue to do during the EIS process. Each of those comments has not been called out in this report, as they are already incorporated into the DEIS scope and associated plans for public involvement and participation. While these comments did not raise new issues, they did emphasize for NYSDOT the importance of these issues to the community, and provided critical localized input about institutions within the community that will help focus the DEIS’s analyses.

4. PROJECTED SCHEDULE FOR EIS PROCESS

19 The DEIS will be prepared consistent with all applicable Federal and State requirements and guidelines. Upon review and acceptance of the DEIS by FHWA, the document is published and made available for public review. A number of public hearings will be held on the DEIS, similar in format to the recent scoping meetings. At those hearings, members of the public as well as interested groups and agencies will submit oral and written comments on the DEIS. The Final EIS will include any changes or additions required in the EIS based on these comments, as well as written responses to each comment. After the FEIS is accepted by FHWA, it is published for public review. Based on the content of the FEIS, the FHWA will prepare required environmental “findings” and a “Record of Decision” indicating the conclusions of the EIS process and the grounds on which a particular alternative is to be selected, and grant final design approval for the selected alternative. It is presently projected that the DEIS will be circulated for public review in the Spring of 1998.

5. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS DURING SCOPING PROCESS

The four tables provided below summarize the oral and written scoping comments that were generated during the public scoping process. These tables list the individuals who made the comments, their affiliation, and the topics with which each commentor was concerned.

These tables include:

• Table 1 lists the names of the individuals who spoke at a scoping meeting. For each commentor, the location of the scoping meeting at which that person spoke (1 = Borough Hall, 2 = St. Michael’s Church, etc.), and the time of the session (A = afternoon, B = evening) are noted. If the person in question is speaking on someone else’s behalf, this is also indicated. Each commentor is then assigned a number, which is then used in Table 2.

• Table 2 summarizes the comments made by each speaker (whose numbers are listed along the left-hand side) according to the common topics of concern, which are listed along the top. An “X” indicates that the speaker in question expressed either an interest or concern with the given topic.

• Table 3 is similar to Table 1, except that it lists the names of individuals who made written scoping comments. The “Affiliation” column lists the group or organization that the speaker represents or is a member of, or the group or individual on whose behalf the comments were submitted. Each submitter was assigned a “Packet # ” which was used to organize the review of the large volume of written comments.

• Table 4, identical in form to Table 2, indicates that the written comments in question expressed either an interest or concern with the given topic.

20 Table 1

COMMENTERS AT THE SCOPING MEETINGS CONCERNING THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT Site Location Commenter # Commenter Name Commenter for

1A 1 Howard Golden 1A 2 Ralph Perfetto 1A 3 Howard Graubard Senator Connor 1A 4 Robert Cassara 1A 5 Frederick Hilles 1A 6 Meg Braun 1A 7 JoAnne Simon 1A 8 Blaine Palmer 1A 9 Carol Olson 1A 10 Louise Finney 1B 11 Kenneth Fisher 1B 12 Celia Cacace 1B 13 Elizabeth Daly 1B 14 Lawrence Stelter 1B 15 Ellen Colyer 1B 16 Bill Galligan 1B 17 Joan Millman 1B 18 Mohammed Adamjee 1B 19 Richard Gualtieri 1B 20 Walter Goodman 1B 21 Mark Leger 2A 22 Honarable Joan Griffin McCabe 2A 23 Buddy Scotto 2A 24 Maryann Maltese Vincent Gentile 2A 25 Tracy McDonagh Sal Albanese 2A 26 Tracy McDonagh Carole Snyder 2A 27 Noel Feustel 2A 28 Richard Hernandez Martin Connor 2A 29 S. M. Kojina-Allen 2A 30 Charles F. Otey 2A 31 Jane McGroarty 2A 32 Daniel Dray 2A 33 Helen Soloski 2A 34 Richard Cusumano 2A 35 Robert Bernard 2A 36 Beatrice De Sapio 2A 37 John Logue 2A 38 Edward Wade 2A 39 Rick Gimeranez 2B 40 Honorable Nydia Velazquez 2B 41 Amanda Bonilla Felix W. Ortiz 2B 42 Albert Appleton 2B 43 Steve Faust 2B 44 Dominick Massa 2B 45 Ronald LaClaustra Table 1

COMMENTERS AT THE SCOPING MEETINGS CONCERNING THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT Site Location Commenter # Commenter Name Commenter for 2B 46 Ben Meskin 2B 47 Ann Grieco 2B 48 Victoria Fuentes 2B 49 Arthur Springer 2B 50 Carol Mezzacappa 2B 51 Craig Gabrian 2B 52 Eleanor Preiss 2B 53 Jack Deacon 2B 54 Paul Harrison 2B 55 Margaret Hughes 2B 56 Robert Cassara 2B 57 Lucy Lopez 2B 58 Susan Peebles 2B 59 John McGettrick 2B 60 Elizabeth Yeampierre 2B 61 Marilyn Kneeland 2B 62 Sister Mary Geraldine 2B 63 Carlos Salamanca 2B 64 Eddie Bautista 2B 65 Angel Rodriguez 2B 66 Susan Matloff 2B 67 Larry Littlefield 2B 68 Mariano Chavez 3A 69 Thomas Jost 3A 70 Mark Palladino John A. Fusco 3A 71 Vincent Gentile 3A 72 George Haikalis 3B 73 Bob Ballard, Jr. 3B 74 Greg Kisloff Robert R. Crawford 4B 75 Salvatore F. Albanese 4B 76 James F. Brennan 4B 77 Elizabeth Rose Daly 4B 78 JoAnne Simon 4B 79 Buddy Scotto 4B 80 Jerry Armer 4B 81 Frank Verderame 4B 82 Colleen Giunta 4B 83 Robert Bernard 4B 84 Ben Meskin 4B 85 Stephen DiBrienza 4B 86 Paul Harrison 4B 87 Edie Stone 4B 88 Nancy Felella 4B 89 Carl Picco 4B 90 Anthony Puglisi Table 1

COMMENTERS AT THE SCOPING MEETINGS CONCERNING THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT Site Location Commenter # Commenter Name Commenter for 5B 91 Bruce Solomon Vincent Gentile 5B 92 Chuck Otey 5B 93 Bob Cassero 5B 94 Cody McLone 5B 95 Phyllis O'neill 5B 96 Robert Bernard 5B 97 Victoria Hotnuo 6A 98 Naomi Leisman 6A 99 Michael Primeggia 6A 100 Michele Bager 6A 101 Karen Alexander 6A 102 Lou Venech 6A 103 David Fogel 6A 104 Palmer Reale 6A 105 John Ardizone 6A 106 Joseph Cocozza 6A 107 Gonzalo Corredor 6A 104 Paul Gawkowski

Site Locations & Sessions 1 Borough Hall, Brooklyn 2 St. Michaels Church, Brooklyn 3 New Dorp High School, State Island 4 St. Mary's Church, Brooklyn 5 Our Lady of Angels Auditorium, Brooklyn 6 NYSDOT, Region 11, Long Island City A Afternoon Session B Evening Session Table 2 GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT MATRIX OF SCOPING MEETINGS ISSUES SITE SPEAKER ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS Rail Tolls Noise Tunnel M. I. S. Subway Trucking Light Rail Congestion Bicycle Path Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Ground Level Alternative 3-5 Parking Issues Bus/HOV Lane Economic Impact Alternative 6A-6B Pollution/Air Quality Traffic Impact Study Community Engineer Better Traffic Signals School Safety Issues Health/Asthma/deaths Traffic Growth/Counts General Safety Issues General Quality of Life Changing Job Patterns Construction Damages Full Evaluation of the Alt. Specific Areas/Locations 1st Ave. / Waterfront Align.

General Business / Ind. Impact OTHER 1A 1 X X X X X X X X X 1A 2 X X X X X X X 1A 3 X X X X X X X 1A 4 X X 1A 5 X X X 1A 6 X X 1A 7 X X X X X X X X X 1A 8 X X 1A 9 X 1A 10 X X X X X X X 1B 11 X X 1B 12 X X X X 1B 13 X X X X X X 1B 14 X X X X 1B 15 X 1B 16 X X X X X X X 1B 17 X X X 1B 18 X 1B 19 X X X 1B 20 X X X X X 1B 21 X X The Organic Community Garden. 2A 22 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2A 23 X X X X X X X X 2A 24 X 2A 25 X X X 2A 26 X X X X 2A 27 X X X X X 2A 28 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2A 29 X 2A 30 X X X X X 2A 31 X X X XX 2A 32 X X X X X X X X Surveys returned 2A 33 X X X X X X 2A 34 X X X 2A 35 X X X X X X X 2A 36 X X X X X X X X X X 2A 37 X X X X X 2A 38 X X X X X X X 2A 39 X X X X X X X X X X 2B 40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X One more scoping meeting in Bklyn. 2B 41 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Table 2 GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT MATRIX OF SCOPING MEETINGS ISSUES SITE SPEAKER ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS Rail Tolls Noise Tunnel M. I. S. Subway Trucking Light Rail Congestion Bicycle Path Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Ground Level Alternative 3-5 Parking Issues Bus/HOV Lane Economic Impact Alternative 6A-6B Pollution/Air Quality Traffic Impact Study Community Engineer Better Traffic Signals School Safety Issues Health/Asthma/deaths Traffic Growth/Counts General Safety Issues General Quality of Life Changing Job Patterns Construction Damages Full Evaluation of the Alt. Specific Areas/Locations 1st Ave. / Waterfront Align.

General Business / Ind. Impact OTHER 2B 42 X X X X 2B 43 X X X X X X X X 2B 44 X X X 2B 45 X X X X 2B 46 X X X X X X X More scoping meetings in Bklyn. 2B 47 X X X X X 2B 48 X X X X X X 2B 49 X X X X 2B 50 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2B 51 X X XXXXX 2B 52 X X X X 2B 53 X X Give the community back to the people. Consider 1st Avenue. 2B 54 X X X X X X X X X X X X 2B 55 X X X X X X X 2B 56 X X X X X X X X X 2B 57 X X X X X X 2B 58 X X X X X X 2B 59 X X X X 2B 60 X X X X X X 2B 61 X X X X X X 2B 62 X X X X X X X X X X 2B 63 X X X X X X 2B 64 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2B 65 X X X X X X X X X 2B 66 X X X X X X X X X 2B 67 XX 2B 68 X X X 3A 69 X X X X X X X Improved SI Ferry & Railway Services. 3A 70 X X X X X X X X 3A 71 X X X X 3A 72 X X X X X X X 3B 73 X X X X 3B 74 X X X X X 4B 75 X X X X X X Info.should appear regulary in the press 4B 76 X X X X X Tunnel option has lower life-cycle costs 4B 77 X Use engineering students to study new alternatives 4B 78 XXUse engineering students to study new alternatives 4B 79 X X X X X X Gowanus needs a Calming Study 4B 80 X X The State needs an incident mgm system that works. 4B 81 X X X X X X 4B 82 X X X Table 2 GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT MATRIX OF SCOPING MEETINGS ISSUES SITE SPEAKER ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS Rail Tolls Noise Tunnel M. I. S. Subway Trucking Light Rail Congestion Bicycle Path Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Ground Level Alternative 3-5 Parking Issues Bus/HOV Lane Economic Impact Alternative 6A-6B Pollution/Air Quality Traffic Impact Study Community Engineer Better Traffic Signals School Safety Issues Health/Asthma/deaths Traffic Growth/Counts General Safety Issues General Quality of Life Changing Job Patterns Construction Damages Full Evaluation of the Alt. Specific Areas/Locations 1st Ave. / Waterfront Align.

General Business / Ind. Impact OTHER

4B 83 X X X X Education & enforcement to Sunset Park residents 4B 84 X X X X X X 4B 85 X X X X X X 4B 86 X XX XConsider Koscousko & LI corridor as part of MIS 4B 87 X X X X X 4B 88 X X 9th Street is too narrow for 2-way traffic 4B 89 X 4B 90 X X 5B 91 X X X 5B 92 X X X X X X X 5B 93 X X X 5B 94 X 5B 95 Should document everything. 5B 96 X X 5B 97 X 6A 98 X X 6A 99 XX 6A 100 X X X 6A 101 X X X X 6A 102 X X 6A 103 X X X X X 6A 104 X X X X 6A 105 X 6A 106 X 6A 107 X 6A 104 X Site Locations & Sessions 1 Borough Hall, Brooklyn 2 St. Michaels Church, Brooklyn 3 New Dorp High School, State Island 4 St. Mary's Church, Brooklyn 5 Our Lady of Angels Auditorium, Brooklyn 6 NYSDOT, Region 11, Long Island City A Afternoon Session B Evening Session Table 3

DEIS Scoping Meetings Written Comments Pack # Last Name First Name Affiliation 1 Albanese Sal F. New York City Council 2 Anastasi J.J. PASCO 3 Annonymous Resident 4 Appleton Albert F. Regional Plan Association 5 Armer Jerry Cobble Hill Association 6 Asciutto JoAnn Principal - PS 314 7 Baer Kenneth J. Resident 8 Balboza Sandy Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association 9 Basile Robert J. LWP Lucky Window Products 10 Bell Sandra Bay Ridge Sunset Park Dialysis Center 11 Berger Karyl Resident 12-14 Bernard Robert 72nd Precinct Community Council President 15 Bonilla Amanda Assemblyman Felix W. Ortiz 16 Borrone Lillian The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey 17 Boyle Robert Con Edison 18 Burke G. Gregory Prospect Expressway Committee 19 Caldwell Marion L. MTA Bridges and Tunnels 20,21 Cassara Robert Resident 22 Clemente Frank Clem Snacks, Inc. 23 Cogen Nancy Resident 24-26 Connor Martin New York State Senate 27 Crockenberg Edie Resident 28 Daly Elizabeth Rose Resident 29 Davidson Peter Davidson Pipe Supply Co., Inc. 30 DeCorato Joseph Cagney Industries Ltd. 31 DeLuca Carolyn Community Board 10 32,33 Desapio Beatrice Community Board Chairperson 34 Deutsch Itchie Ace Surgical Supply Co. 35 Diamondstone Kenneth Resident 36,37 Dray Danial Southwest Brooklyn Industrial Development Corp. 38 Durso Deanna Pork Packers, Inc. 39 Feldman Arlene B. Federal Aviation Administration 40 Ferguson John J. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 41 Figliolia Alfonso Sunset Industrial Park Associates 42 Forni Lawrence Teacher IS 259 43 Fusco R. Ben Creative Energies, Inc. Table 3

Pack # Last Name First Name Affiliation 44 Gabrian Craig Young Dancers in Repertoir Co-Director 45 Gandolfo M. Resident 46 Geraldine Sister Mary Center for Family Life Director 47-49 Giordano Tony Sunset Park Restoration 50,51 Golden Howard Borough of Brooklyn President 52 Haggerty James W. Corps of Engineers, New York District 53 Haikalis George Auto-Free New York 54 Hallmark Rufus Resident 55 Hanan Martin Ceramic World 56 Hargrove Robert W. The Environmental Protection Agency 57 Harrison Paul Transportation Alternatives 58 Hayes Kevin F. Resident 59 Hernandez Richard NYS Senator Martin Connor 59a Hevesi Alan G. NYC Controller 60,61 Hilles Fredrick W. Atlantic Avenue Association Local Development Corp. 62 Holt Kenneth W. National Center for Environmental Health 63 Hughes Margaret Neighbors Envisioning the Waterfront 64 Jones George H. Resident 65 Jost Thomas Borough Pres. Guy V. Molinari 66,67 Kaiserman Carl B. ROSTAS, Park Slope Civic Council Inc. 68 Kassof Gary First Coast Guard District Chief 69 Ketcham Brian Community Consulting Services, Inc. 70,71 Kneeland Marilyn A. Resident 72 Lapp Floyd NYC Dept. of City Planning 73 Livoti Philip Apsco Enterprises 74 Lopez Lucy Resident 75 Maltese Maryann NYS Senator Vincent Gentile 76 Matloff Susan Female District Leader - 51st AD 77 McCabe Joan Griffen City Council Member 78 McGroarty Jane The Brooklyn Heights Association 79 McLoughlin Anita Young Dancers in Repertoir Parent 80 Mead Lawrence Mead & Josipovich, Inc. 81 Mezzacappa Carol Young Dancers in Repertoir Director 82 Miller Pam Resident 83 Millman Joan Democratic District Leader 84 Molinari Susan Congresswoman 85 Muir John C. Brooklyn Center for the Urban Environment 86 Murphy Robert A. Wire-O Binding Co., Inc. Table 3

Pack # Last Name First Name Affiliation 87 Nadler et al US Representatives for Gowanus Project Area 88 New York Cross Harbor Railroad 89 O'Hara Elizabeth Resident 90 Paci Bruce Utrecht Manufacturing Corp. 91 Palinkas Robert Mariposa Products Corporation 92 Palmer Blaine Resident 93 Reed Sheryl Young Dancers in Repertoir Parent 94 Reichman Harry The Maramont Corporation 95 Reuter Lawrence G. MTA New York City Transit 96 Rittgers Jon Deputy Regional Administrator - USDOC 97 Robles Genoveva Resident 98 Rodgers Rebecca J. Advisory Council On Historic Preservation 99 Rodriguez Angel Democratic State Committee 100 Salamanca Carlos Hispanic Young People's Alternatives 101 Santucci Gina NYC Landmarks Preservation Commision 102 S'Dao Richard Silly Phillie Creations Inc. 103 Seligman M. Lowel-Light Manufacturing 104 Sillaro Santo N. Sillaro Sons 105,106 Simon Jo Anne Boerum Hill Association 106a Simon et al Attendees of Gowanus Scoping Meeting 107 Smith Patricia S. Member of the Brown Hill Association 108 Snyder Carole A. American Lung Association of Brooklyn 109 Spessot Julius Juno Chef's 110 Springer Arthur Asthma/Emphysema Network 111 Theler Jean Resident 112 van Slyke Irene Resident 113 Vazquez Florence Resident 114 Velazquez Nydia M. Congresswoman 115 Verderame Frank First Place Tri-Block Association 116 Walsh Robert J. Lutheran Medical Center 117 Wheeler William MTA Metropolitan Transportaion Authority 118 Yeampierre Elizabeth C. United Puerto Rican Organization of Sunset Park Table 4 GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT MATRIX OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS Written Com. ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS Rail Tolls Noise Tunnel M. I. S. Subway Trucking Light Rail Accidents Congestion Bicycle Path Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Ground Level Alternative 3-5 Parking Issues Bus/HOV Lane Economic Impact Alternative 6A-6B Pollution/Air Quality Traffic Impact Study Community Engineer Better Traffic Signals School Safety Issues Health/Asthma/deaths Traffic Growth/Counts General Safety Issues General Quality of Life Changing Job Patterns Construction Damages Full Evaluation of the Alt. Specific Areas/Locations 1st Ave. / Waterfront Align.

General Business / Ind. Impact OTHER 1X XXXXXX XX XXInfo.should appear regulary in the press 2X X X 3XXXXXAnonymous 4XXX XXXXXXXXX X XXXXX 5XXXX X XXXX X X XXThe proposal to add a lane to the start of the BQE 6XX 7X X XXX XX 8XXXXXXXXXXInclude Atlantic Ave. in Study 9XX No tolls at Battery Tunnel 10 X X X 11 X X 12 X X X X X X X X X X 13 X X 14 X X X X Education & enforcement to Sunset Park residents 15 X X 16 X X 17 X X X 18 XX 19 Will cooperate on study 20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 21 X X X X X X X X X 22 X X X X 23 X 24 X X X X X X X X X Consider mass transit options (not specific) 25 X X X 26 X X X X X X X X X 27 X X X X X 28 X X X X X X Consider an engineering student for new alternative. 29 X X X Construct upper level 30 X X X Construct upper level 31 X X 32 X X X X X X X X X X Make 38th/39th Street Exit full interchange 33 X X X X X X X X X X 34 X X 35 X X X X X X 36 X X X X X X X X Surveys returned 37 X X X X X X X X Surveys returned 38 X X X 39 No comments at this time 40 Will participate as necessary 41 X X X X Table 4 GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT MATRIX OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS Written Com. ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS Rail Tolls Noise Tunnel M. I. S. Subway Trucking Light Rail Accidents Congestion Bicycle Path Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Ground Level Alternative 3-5 Parking Issues Bus/HOV Lane Economic Impact Alternative 6A-6B Pollution/Air Quality Traffic Impact Study Community Engineer Better Traffic Signals School Safety Issues Health/Asthma/deaths Traffic Growth/Counts General Safety Issues General Quality of Life Changing Job Patterns Construction Damages Full Evaluation of the Alt. Specific Areas/Locations 1st Ave. / Waterfront Align.

General Business / Ind. Impact OTHER

42 X XX Park n' Ride lot in Staten Island to Bayridge subway 43 X X X X 44 X X X X X X 45 X X Home damaged by traffic conditions 46 X X X X X X X X X 47 Concerned that disreputable contractors not be used 48 49 X X X X X X X X X X Community input is necessary 50 X X X X X X X X X 51 X X X X X X X X X 52 Need permit to dredge canal 53 X X X X X X X 54 X X X X 55 X X X X 56 X X 57 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Consider Koscousko & LI corridor as part of MIS 58 X XX X 59 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 60 X X X 61 X X X 62 X X X X X X X 63 X X X 64 X X X X X X X Improved SI Ferry & Railway Services. 65 X X X 66 X XX Consider life-cycle cost alternatives 67 Permit needed from Coast Guard for canal work 68 X X X X X X X X X 69 X X X X X X 70 X X X 71 Willing to participate in study 72 X X X 73 X X X X X X 74 X 75 X X X X X X X X X 76 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 77 X 78 X X X XX 79 X X X X 80 X X X X 81 X X X X X XXX XXXX X X 82 X X Table 4 GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT MATRIX OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS Written Com. ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS Rail Tolls Noise Tunnel M. I. S. Subway Trucking Light Rail Accidents Congestion Bicycle Path Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Ground Level Alternative 3-5 Parking Issues Bus/HOV Lane Economic Impact Alternative 6A-6B Pollution/Air Quality Traffic Impact Study Community Engineer Better Traffic Signals School Safety Issues Health/Asthma/deaths Traffic Growth/Counts General Safety Issues General Quality of Life Changing Job Patterns Construction Damages Full Evaluation of the Alt. Specific Areas/Locations 1st Ave. / Waterfront Align.

General Business / Ind. Impact OTHER 83 X X X 84 X X X 85 X X X 86 X X X X 87 X 88 X X X X 89 X X X 90 X X X X 91 X X X X 92 X X 93 X X X 94 X X X X 95 XXX Include transit alternatives in any option 96 97 X X X X X 98 No historic properties noted 99 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 100 X X X X X X 101 Willing to participate 102 X X X X 103 X X X X 104 X X X X 105 X X X X X X X X X X Consider an engineering student for new alternative. 106 X X X X X X X 107 X X 108 X X X X 109 X X X X 110 X X X X 111 X X 112 X X X X 113 X X X 114 X 115 X X X X X X 116 117 X X X X 118 X X X X X X