MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

CHAPTER 11: CULTURAL RESOURCES 11.1 INTRODUCTION 11.1.1 CONTEXT AND KEY ISSUES

Cultural resources are an important part of the character of a community. Cultural resources may include historic features, such as buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts, as well as archaeological resources, which are physical remains, usually buried, of past activities on a site. Archaeological resources can include remains from Native American people who used or occupied a site, including tools, refuse from tool-making activities, habitation sites, etc. These resources are also referred to as “precontact,” since they were deposited before Native Americans’ contact with European settlers. Archaeological resources can also include remains from activities that occurred during the “historic period” (the period beginning with European colonization of the New York area), and include remains such as battle sites, foundations, wells and privies.

This chapter presents the potential impacts on cultural resources from the construction and operation of the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC). The analysis of potential impacts was carried out in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C Section 470f and the implementing regulations under Section 106 that are codified at 36 C.F.R. 800. Section 106 and the Part 800 regulations require Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties, which are defined in the regulations as resources listed on or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Properties listed on or determined eligible for the National Register can include both archaeological and historic resources. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) (in accordance with which this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is being prepared), also requires the evaluation of impacts on cultural resources. The NHPA requires public outreach within the EIS process to ensure the environmental review of the FSTC is in compliance with the NHPA and NEPA. The New York State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) closely resembles the NHPA, and requires that State agencies consider the effect of their actions on properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Compliance with Section 106 satisfies the requirements of SHPA, set forth in Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law; therefore, a separate analysis of effects under SHPA is not required.

Historic properties are also protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and implementing regulations codified in 23 C.F.R. 771.135. Section 4(f) regulates actions by the Secretary of Transportation that require the use of a historic property that is listed on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register. Section 4(f) states: “The Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of...land of a historic site of national, state or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State or local officials having jurisdiction over the site), only if...a determination is made that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use, and all possible planning has been undertaken to minimize harm to the 4(f) property.” Section 4(f) also requires public outreach. The Section 4(f) Evaluation for the FSTC is contained in Chapter 22.

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) designates historically significant properties in New York City as landmarks or historic districts. Properties designated as landmarks or historic districts are protected under the New York City Landmarks Law, which requires LPC review and approval before any alterations or demolition can occur. Although the New York City Landmarks Law is not directly applicable to the Proposed Action, as MTA NYCT is a State agency and not therefore subject to this law, potential impacts to landmarks and historic districts have still been considered.

The condition and occurrence of archaeological and historic sites that are located in the study area, or Areas of Potential Effect (APE), have not been substantially altered as a result of the events of September 11. Based on research conducted, potential for archaeological deposits or features is considered possible

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-1 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation within the study area, despite the extent of construction disturbance that has historically occurred in the area, both pre- and post-September 11 and the extent of disturbance resulting from the New York City Transit subway facilities. Archaeological resources could potentially exist in several areas: at the northeast corner of the intersection of Dey and Church Streets, along the eastern sidewalk of Church Street, north and south of Dey Street; Dey Street, under the sidewalks; Cortland Street, west of Broadway; Maiden Lane, east of Broadway; Fulton Street, between Broadway and William Street; William Street, between Ann Street and John Street; and John Street, east of William Street. MTA NYCT is currently consulting with SHPO and New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission regarding appropriate measures to address archaeological resources that may be present. Further details of these measures are provided in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) (see the end of this chapter).

An initial APE for the FSTC was identified as part of the environmental analysis process and approved by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP), which serves as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in its letter of February 13, 2004 (see Appendix H). Subsequent to SHPO’s approval, the APE was expanded to the west to consider potential effects of the RW - E Connector. Historic resources within the APE include the Corbin Building (192 Broadway), the Fulton Street 45 Subway Station, the former AT&T Building (195 Broadway), the Bennett Building (139 Fulton Street), the East River Savings Bank (25 Dey Street) and St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard. Also included in the APE are a portion of the WTC site and a portion of the John Street- Maiden Lane Historic District. This National Register-eligible District includes the National Register- listed Corbin Building, which is located in the portion of the District within the APE, and the National Register-eligible Hays Building at 21-23 Maiden Lane, which is in the portion of the District outside the APE. The District also includes buildings that are not individually eligible for the National or State Registers but which are considered contributing elements in the District, such as the Dennison Building at 15 John Street. The FTA, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (acting on behalf of NYCT and MTA Capital Construction Company), SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) have executed a PA regarding the treatment of historic and archaeological resources within the APE that may be affected by the Proposed Action. A copy of the signed and executed PA is contained in Section 11.A, located at the end of this chapter.

The LPC has recently determined the Keuffel & Esser Building (127 Fulton Street) and Royal Insurance Building (150 William Street) eligible for designation as New York City Landmarks. Although neither building is in the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District, nor has been determined eligible for the NRHP as an individual resource, NYCT considers them historic resources for purposes of identification and mitigation of any adverse effects associated with the FSTC.

These historic resources in the APE are evaluated in the context of Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The analysis therefore compares the construction and operation of the FSTC against the prevailing future conditions in the study area for each of the analysis years, both with and without the project. As noted previously, the Section 4(f) Evaluation is contained in Chapter 22.

11.1.2 CONCLUSIONS

Under the No Action Alternative, the FSTC would not be constructed. Minor maintenance and rehabilitation activities could occur, including typical station and transit infrastructure maintenance and repair. The Existing Complex would remain in its current configuration and operational state. There would not be any impacts on cultural resources associated with the FSTC. A number of other major construction projects would be underway in the study area in 2005/2006, including the WTC Memorial, the Permanent WTC PATH Terminal, South Ferry Subway Terminal, and Route 9A (see Chapter 20: Cumulative Effects, for related impacts).

Under the Build alternatives, the FSTC would be constructed and operated as described in Chapters 3: Alternatives, and 4: Construction Methods and Activities. The only substantial differences with respect to cultural resources differ primarily with respect to the use of the Corbin Building. October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-2 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Under Alternative 9, the Corbin Building would remain in private ownership. An underground slurry wall or similar structure would structurally isolate the FSTC Entry Facility and Dey Street Passageway from the Corbin Building. Depending on the findings of the geotechnical and structural investigations that would be carried out during Final Design, Alternative 9 may require underpinning of the Corbin Building. This would be determined based on whether or not there is a risk of excessive movement of the Corbin Building during the construction of the Entry Facility. Such a risk could have implications for the project cost and schedule and would necessitate the use of underpinning or a similar protective technique, such as compensation grouting. Based on information available to date, NYCT would proceed with underpinning of the Corbin Building in Alternative 9 to avoid risks related to public safety and damage to the historic resources associated with unknown construction conditions. Underpinning, if used, would remain permanently in place. This could require temporary displacement of tenants in the basement of the Corbin Building. No other impacts to the Corbin Building are anticipated under this alternative, although impacts related to vibration during construction could occur. The PA (see Section 11.A) would ensure that adverse effects arising under this alternative would be satisfactorily mitigated.

Under Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative, the Corbin Building would be acquired by New York City Transit (NYCT) and underpinned and used as part of the FSTC Entry Facility and Dey Street Passageway. Tenants in the building would be permanently displaced. While this alternative would directly impact the Corbin Building, the intent of this alternative is to rehabilitate and adaptively re-use the building in a manner consistent with its historic character. The PA (see Section 11.A) would ensure that adverse effects arising under this alternative would be satisfactorily mitigated.

Other historic resources that would incur impacts as a result of the FSTC under both Build alternatives include the Fulton Street 45 Subway Station, the former American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Building and the Royal Insurance Building. As with the Corbin Building, the PA ensures that adverse effects arising under these alternatives would be minimized and satisfactorily mitigated.

Other historic sites that could incur vibration or soil settlement impacts from construction under both Build alternatives are the former East River Savings Bank, St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard, the Bennett Building, some buildings located within the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District (including the non- designated Dennison Building at 15 John Street which is a contributing element in the historic district, but not individually eligible for the National Register), and the NYC Landmark-eligible Keuffel & Esser Building. Under both Build Alternatives these historic sites may require measures to protect and stabilize buildings to address vibration and unplanned ground movement.. These impacts are not expected to compromise the structural integrity of these buildings nor the characteristics that qualify them for inclusion on the National Register. The PA (see Section 11.A) would ensure that adverse effects arising under this alternative would be satisfactorily mitigated. As described in the PA, appropriate measures will be taken during construction to avoid impacts to these historic resources, including those related to vibration, through a formal consultation process, a Construction Environmental Protection Program (CEPP) and related plans (Appendix C), and a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) (Appendix C). As archaeological resources may be encountered during the construction of either Build Alternative, the CRMP would include an Emergency Action Program (EAP), to address any potential archaeological impacts outside the current archaeological APE. This would include the requirement of an archaeologist certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) on the preliminary engineering team to address any potential archaeological issues that may be relevant to the final design of the FSTC. Measures for avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of adverse effects to these other historic sites or archaeological resources are included in the PA for the project (included at the end of this chapter).

The World Trade Center (WTC) site, a National Register-eligible historic resource, may be affected by the construction and permanent operation of the RW - E Connector, which would be located beneath Church Street near the Dey Street Passageway, and may require construction or be permanently located within the eastern boundary of the WTC site, where a remnant foundation wall from the former Hudson & Manhattan (H&M) railroad terminal exists. This wall is a remnant of the former H&M railroad facilities that ultimately became the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) in association with construction of the WTC. While realignment or removal of a portion of this wall would constitute a physical change in this October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-3 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation element of the historical site, it is not a contributing element and therefore would not diminish the characteristics of location, setting, feeling, materials and association with the events of September 11 that qualify the WTC site for inclusion on the National Register. The precise location of the RW - E Connector would be determined as engineering advances and would be developed in cooperation with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), as the Permanent WTC PATH Terminal and WTC site and Memorial is developed. Construction of the RW - E Connector would not have any adverse effects on the WTC as a historic resource, as construction of the RW - E Connector would not diminish the WTC site’s integrity of location, setting, feeling, materials or association with the events of September 11.

As noted above, the National Register-eligible Hays Building at 21-23 Maiden Lane is located within the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District, but is outside the APE; it would not be affected by construction activities as it is located more than two (2) city blocks from the closest area of proposed construction of the FSTC.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and NYCT have determined that the construction of the FSTC will have adverse effects on historic properties under either Alternative 9 or the Preferred Alternative. The FTA and NYCT will address the adverse effects of the FSTC on historic properties through the PA referenced above (see the end of this chapter). FTA and NYCT have developed and implemented the PA in consultation with the SHPO and ACHP. With respect to the proposed alterations of the Fulton Street IRT Station, the entire Fulton Street IRT Station will be recorded in accordance with HABS/HAER Level II guidelines prior to any alteration and the documentation of the station will be deposited by NYCT in publicly accessible repositories, including at the New York Historical Society and the New York City Public Library. The alterations of the station will adhere, where practicable, to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. In particular, the historic wall and tile work will be preserved in place to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the Project plan.

Any alterations of the Corbin building will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3(b)), where practicable as agreed per consultation with SHPO. In the event that NYCT undertakes to underpin or compensation grout the foundations of the Corbin Building, NYCT will consult with SHPO prior to any work performed for SHPO’s approval. Design plans for any alteration or rehabilitation to the building will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, LPC and LMEPF and the building owner. They will be submitted to SHPO for approval and, as appropriate, made available for public review. The PA also contains other specific measures by which identified impacts would be mitigated and sets forth the process and procedures for consultation, determination of effect, and resolution of any as yet unidentified adverse effects that would govern the planning, design, and implementation of the project from the date of the PA’s execution. A copy of the executed PA, with a detailed overview of all provisions is included in Section 11.A at the end of this chapter.

Initial and full operation of the FSTC (selected study years 2008 and 2025) was analyzed for Alternatives 9 and 10 - the Preferred Alternative. Under Alternative 9, the Corbin Building would remain in private ownership and would not be a recipient of Federal preservation protection. Under the Preferred Alternative, the Corbin Building would be publicly owned and would be assured of Federal preservation protection. The PA among the FTA, MTA, SHPO, and ACHP (see the end of this chapter) applies to both Build Alternatives.

The construction of the Entry Facility would not require the removal of any buildings within the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District. The Entry Facility would introduce new architectural elements into the existing setting of the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District, in the vicinity of the Corbin Building, the AT&T Building, the Bennett Building and, potentially, St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard. The alteration to the existing setting of the historic district would involve the removal of several buildings that lack historic or architectural significance, lack integrity, or both. The new buildings’ respective scale and massing would be consistent with those of the structures they replace and with the surrounding built environment, which includes: non-historic as well as historic buildings; stone and brick masonry facades October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-4 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation as well as contemporary face brick, metal and glass facades and building heights from two (2) to 20 stories. In accordance with the PA, the design approach for the new Entry Facility is, and would continue to be, receptive to and committed to achieving a design that respects the historic properties around it. The PA included with this FEIS establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by which the design of the FSTC (including the new Entry Facility) will be developed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Resources (as codified in 36 C.F.R 68.3(b) so as to avoid as practicable the introduction of visual elements that would diminish the integrity of the significant features of historic resources within the APE.

The construction of a new street-level subway entrance via the Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street will require the construction of a new switch back stair from the north mezzanine of the 23 Station to William Street. This may require modification of the external wall and archways of this building along the south side of William Street or may involve modification of the existing entrance and lobby of the building at 150 William Street. Pending the completion of the surveys for this part of the project a design will be developed in accordance with the provisions of the PA. The PA included with this FEIS establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by which the design of the FSTC (including the new street entrance at 150 William Street) will be developed so as to avoid as practicable the introduction of elements that would diminish the integrity of the significant features of the Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street.

Table 11-1 summarizes potential cultural resources impacts associated with the FSTC.

11.2 GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS

The NHPA and associated regulations establish procedures for the determination of impacts to cultural resources and form the basis for the steps outlined below.

Step 1: Determine the APE

The APE is the geographic area in which the project may cause effects to significant cultural resources directly through construction; indirectly through construction or operation; or cumulatively through other past, present or future actions undertaken in the community. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by it (36 C.F.R. 800.16).

Step 2: Identify Historic Properties and the Possibility of Archaeological Resources Being Present Within the APE

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 C.F.R. Part 800) defines a historic property as “any prehistoric or historic site, building structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.” Properties listed on or determined eligible for the National Register include archaeological resources.

Step 3: Determine Effects

The standard for determining effects of an action on historic properties is based on the Criteria of Adverse Effect defined in 36 C.F.R. 800.5(a) (1). An adverse effect is found when an action may alter characteristics of a historic property that qualify it for inclusion on the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the action that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative.

Consistent with these regulations, the analysis of the No Action and Build Alternatives’ effects on archaeological and historic resources is being conducted in coordination with the SHPO. Consultation has also been undertaken with the LPC. October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-5 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 11-1 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives: Cultural Resources

2005/2006 2008 2025 Planned Action (Construction) (Initial Operation) (Full Operation) (for Impacts) Corbin Building remains in private ownership No Action No impacts. without benefits Same as 2008 N/A associated with long term public ownership. Archaeological monitoring of Archaeological resources may be encountered. Ongoing construction activities in portions of the Alternative consultation with SHPO/LPC. CRMP implemented to address No impacts. APE that have not been previously 9 potential resources present in current APE and accommodate disturbed and contain potential for design changes outside existing APE. archaeological resources. Same as 2008 Corbin Building remains in private ownership Corbin Building structurally isolated and protected. Underpinning without benefits N/A or similar support likely required. associated with long term public ownership. Former AT&T Building (195 Broadway), Bennet Building and St Historic buildings protected subject to Paul’s Chapel may be underpinned. No alterations to historic EPCs, CEPP and Section 106 features proposed. requirements, including the PA. 45 Station rehabilitation conforms to U.S. Department of the Interior 45 Station rehabilitated. (USDOI) Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, as practicable, and PA. RW-E Connector constructed between Dey Street No impacts. Same as 2008 Passageway and WTC Site. No impacts on National Register N/A eligibility of WTC Site.

Potential vibration and ground settlement impacts on Corbin Building, John Street- Maiden Lane Historic District (Dennison Historic buildings protected subject to Building) (1), East River Savings Bank, St. Paul’s Chapel and EPCs, CEPP and Section 106 Graveyard, Bennett Building, Keuffel & Esser Building, and requirements, including PA. Royal Insurance Building1.

1 The Keuffel & Esser and Royal Insurance Buildings have been determined eligible for NYC Landmark designation and as such NYCT considers them historic resources for purposes of this assessment.

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-6 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table 11-1 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives: Cultural Resources

2005/2006 2008 2025 Planned Action (Construction) (Initial Operation) (Full Operation) (for Impacts) The Entry Facility would introduce new The PA establishes a consultation architectural elements into process and mitigation measures by the existing setting of the which the design of the FSTC will be John Street-Maiden Lane developed in accordance with the Historic District, in the Standards of the Secretary of the No impacts. Same as 2008 vicinity of the Corbin Interior so as to avoid as practicable Building, the AT&T the introduction of visual elements that Building, the Bennett would diminish the integrity of the Building and, potentially, significant features of historic resources St. Paul’s Chapel and within the APE. Graveyard The PA establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by The construction of a new street-level subway entrance via the which the design of the FSTC Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street may require (including the new street entrance at modification of the external wall and archways of this building 150 William Street) will be developed along the south side of William Street or may involve Same as 2005/2006 Same as 2008 so as to avoid as practicable the modification of the existing entrance and lobby of the building at introduction of visual elements that 150 William Street. would diminish the integrity of the significant features of the Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street. Archaeological monitoring of Alternative Archaeological resources may be encountered. Ongoing construction activities in portions of the 10 - the consultation with SHPO/LPC. CRMP implemented to address No impacts. APE that have not been previously Preferred potential resources present in current APE and accommodate disturbed and contain potential for Alternative design changes outside existing APE. archaeological resources. Corbin Building acquired by MTA and integrated Corbin Building adaptive reuse Same as 2008 with FSTC Entry Facility conforms to USDOI Standards for the Corbin Building integrated with FSTC Entry Facility. and is subject to benefits Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, as associated with long term practicable, and PA. public ownership. Former AT&T Building, (Dennison Building)(1) , Bennet Building Historic buildings protected subject to and St Paul’s Chapel may be underpinned. No alterations to No impacts. EPCs, CEPP and Section 106 historic features proposed. requirements, including PA. 45 Station rehabilitation conforms to USDOI Standards for the Rehabilitation 45 Station rehabilitated. No impacts. Same as 2008 of Historic Buildings, as practicable, and PA.

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-7 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Table 11-1 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives: Cultural Resources

2005/2006 2008 2025 Planned Action (Construction) (Initial Operation) (Full Operation) (for Impacts) RW-E Connector constructed between Dey Street Passageway and WTC Site. No impacts on National Register eligibility of No impacts. N/A WTC Site. Potential vibration and ground settlement impacts on Corbin Building, John Street- Maiden Lane Historic District Dennison Historic buildings protected subject to Building1, East River Savings Bank, St. Paul’s Chapel and No impacts. EPCs, CEPP and Section 106 Graveyard, Bennett Building, Keuffel & Esser Building, and requirements, including PA. Royal Insurance Building. The Entry Facility would introduce new The PA establishes a consultation architectural elements into process and mitigation measures by the existing setting of the which the design of the FSTC will be John Street-Maiden Lane developed in accordance with the Historic District, in the Standards of the Secretary of the No impacts. Same as 2008 vicinity of the Corbin Interior so as to avoid as practicable Building, the AT&T the introduction of visual elements that Building, the Bennett would diminish the integrity of the Building and, potentially, significant features of historic resources St. Paul’s Chapel and within the APE. Graveyard The PA establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by The construction of a new street-level subway entrance via the which the design of the FSTC Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street may require (including the new street entrance at modification of the external wall and archways of this building 150 William Street) will be developed along the south side of William Street or may involve Same as 2005/2006 Same as 2008 so as to avoid as practicable the modification of the existing entrance and lobby of the building at introduction of visual elements that 150 William Street. would diminish the integrity of the significant features of the Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street. 1 The Dennison Building is a contributing element in the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District but is not individually eligible for the National Register.

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-8 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Regulations implementing Section 106 of NHPA define the APE as the location(s) where “an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties (including archaeology), if any such properties exist.” The regulations define “effect” as “alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.” An adverse effect occurs “when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association” (36 C.F.R. 800.5(a)(1)).

The analysis identifies activities specific to the project that could affect historic properties or archaeology, such as: ground disturbance; demolition of existing buildings or structures; alteration of existing buildings or structures; introduction of new elements into an existing environment; or changes in land use. Some projects may involve all these types of activities and more, while others may be limited to one (1) or two (2) of these activities. The physical extent of the APE is, therefore, based on the known or reasonably- predicted physical extent of the various activities that are expected to occur during or as a result of implementation of the project.

11.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENTS (EPCs)

The FSTC would be implemented with EPCs, which are measures that would be proactively implemented to avoid or reduce potential impacts of the FSTC. With regard to cultural resources, they include the following:

• Establish coordination among projects to avoid or minimize interruption in access to cultural and historic sites; • Initiate public information and involvement outreach with sensitivity to local cultural resources; • Identify public information outlets that would receive and provide current information about access during construction, to minimize interruption in access to cultural and historic sites; • Consult with the SHPO and the LPC regarding potentially impacted, culturally significant sites to ensure that all potential impacts are identified and avoided or minimized to the greatest extent possible (see below); and, • Monitor noise and vibration during construction at such sites as appropriate to ensure that such sites are not inadvertently damaged by adjacent or nearby construction.

EPCs for other resources, such as noise and vibration, and access and circulation, may also contribute to avoidance or reduction of project impacts on cultural resources. A detailed discussion of those commitments is provided in the respective chapters addressing those resources.

11.4 METHODOLOGY 11.4.1 AGENCY COORDINATION

Several activities were performed at the beginning of the cultural resource analyses to ensure that the involved parties (consultants and agencies) were fully familiar and in agreement with the intended goals, objectives and methodologies for this effort. These activities included the following:

• Participate in working sessions with the involved agencies, such as the SHPO, LPC, PANYNJ, New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and LMDC to coordinate on the methodologies proposed and to share available data, as appropriate; • Provide opportunities for public comment and input via Community Board Meetings, American Institute of Architects (AIA) open public forums and the maintenance of the NYCT website; and, • Establish a study area and identification of resources (see Section 11.4.2).

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-9 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 11.4.2 ANALYSIS ELEMENTS AND STUDY AREA

The analysis of cultural resources is presented in two (2) sections: archaeological resources and historic/architectural resources.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The APE for archaeological resources encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance as a result of implementation of the FSTC. A resource sensitivity assessment identified known archaeological resources (i.e. resources recorded in the files of the SHPO and LPC) and resource types that could be present based on an analysis of prehistoric and historic period land use within the APE.

This assessment also considered the extent to which such potential resources, if they exist, may be intact or may have been damaged or destroyed by subsequent land use over time. For each area where research indicated that archaeological resources might be present, further research was undertaken to determine original site topography and any subsequent alterations through filling, grading, development, or other activities. The objective of this assessment was to identify locations where any archaeological resources, if originally present, may have survived later disturbances. Areas that may have archaeological resources are considered to be archaeologically “sensitive.” Areas where it can be demonstrated that modern urban development activities have disturbed the potential locations of archaeological resources are characterized as “disturbed” and do not require further assessment for archaeological resource potential.

For archaeologically sensitive areas, professional archaeologists would monitor test pits during construction to identify any archaeological resources potentially present. For any such resources, a range of possible mitigation measures would be identified, including avoidance, data recovery and curation.

Delineation of the APE for archaeology for the FSTC began with the areas where ground disturbance could affect archaeological resources if such resources are present (see Figure 11-1: Archaeological Resources APE). These areas of ground disturbance are as follows:

• The Entry Facility, located between Broadway, Fulton and John Streets (Block 79, Lots 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21); • The Dey Street Passageway, to be constructed below Dey Street, connecting the RW line Cortlandt Street Station with the Entry Facility and existing complex; • The Dey Street Access Plaza at the south corner of Dey Street and Broadway. This structure would include a stairway, escalator and ADA elevator; • Improvements to the AC mezzanine that runs west below Fulton Street from and including William Street, in particular the proposed widening of that portion of the mezzanine lying west of Nassau Street; • Improvements to the 23 Fulton Street Station at William Street; • The RW - E Connector below the west side of Church Street, south of Vesey Street; and, • Various stairs/elevators within new/renovated subway entrances throughout the FSTC.

The FTA and NYCT consulted with the SHPO concerning the initially proposed archaeological APE via letter in December 2003. SHPO’s concurrence was received by letter dated February 13, 2004 (see Appendix H). This APE was subsequently updated to include the RW - E connector listed above. Since the issuance of the DEIS, design changes have required the expansion of the area of proposed excavation into several sidewalks within the study area not previously impacted. Archaeological potential may exist in these areas. As part of the Section 106 process, MTA NYCT is currently in consultation with SHPO and New York City Landmarks regarding appropriate measures to address archaeological resources that may be present. The process to avoid or minimize impacts to archaeological resources is addressed in the PA.

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-10 Figure 11-1 New York City Transit

Potential Effect (APE)

Fulton Street Transit Center Archaeological Area of

t

e

e

r

. t

t S

m

a

i l e l i e W

tr

S

n

An

t

e

e

r

t

S

u

a

s

s a

N

w

o

R

k

r

a P

e n t a e L e

r

t n

e y

a S w

d d a o r i B n a h

o M J

t

e

e Feet

tr

S

t n e t

e Meters to e l r t e u r S t F

y S

e t

d D

n

a l t r E ffect

o

C

Archaeological

Area of Potential

t

e

e

r t

S h c r u h C 50 0 255075100 0 100 200 300 400 Source: NYCE Map GIS MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

The APE for historic/architectural resources encompasses all locations where significant resources could be directly or indirectly affected by the FSTC (see Figure 11-2; Historic Resources APE). The analysis identified historic/architectural resources that are listed on or considered eligible for inclusion on the National and State Registers.

Assessment of impacts to significant historic/architectural resources considers potential direct physical impacts (destruction, damage, or physical alteration from construction or operation of the FSTC) and indirect impacts. For the latter, the cultural resources analysis draws on information from other environmental studies prepared for this FEIS to determine impacts under NEPA and adverse effects under NHPA.

Construction of the Entry Facility would involve the deconstruction of existing buildings, specifically buildings currently located at 194, 198, 200, 204 and 189 Broadway, so the APE includes the locations of these buildings. The APE encompasses the Corbin Building at 192 Broadway, because it is adjacent to buildings to be removed; it also extends west and includes the WTC site (see Figure 11-2), to address any potential effects from construction of the RW - E Connector.

Removal of buildings and construction activities associated with the FSTC could affect adjacent buildings that share party walls or foundations with the deconstructed buildings, have walls or foundations abutting those buildings, or are close enough that construction-related ground vibration could damage their foundations or structural systems. In accordance with the New York City Department of Buildings Technical Policy and Procedure Notice No. 10/88 regarding potential construction-related damage to historic structures, the APE includes locations of buildings contiguous to or within a lateral distance of 90 feet from the FSTC. The APE therefore encompasses approximately the locations of buildings at a distance of 90 feet from 192 Broadway, 195 Broadway, 15 John Street, buildings flanking Dey Street from Church to Broadway, buildings flanking Fulton Street from Broadway to William Street, buildings flanking William Street from Ann Street to John Street, and on the northeast corner of John and William Streets.

The geographic extent of visual impacts resulting from the introduction of new elements into an existing historic built environment are typically linked to the extent to which the new element is visible from various vantage points from within and outside of that environment. The proposed Entry Facility would be up to five (5) stories high and would stand within the perimeter formed by the footprints of the buildings now existing on the site. The APE, therefore, has been further expanded to include locations from which the proposed FSTC and its adjacent built environment would be or could be visible. Such locations would encompass properties on the west side of Broadway from approximately Barclay to Cortlandt Streets, on the north side of Fulton Street east of Nassau Street and on John Street east of Nassau Street. The built environment encompassed in views of the proposed Entry Facility would also be included in the historic APE. This includes Broadway from approximately Barclay Street to Maiden Lane and the south side of Fulton Street west of Nassau Street (see Figure 11-2).

The FSTC would not introduce a new land use to this area; rather, it involves the repair and enhancement of a long-existing major public transportation facility and the building of a street-level focal point for that facility in the form of the Entry Facility. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that any land use changes involving historic buildings that could reasonably be attributed to the FSTC would be confined to the area heretofore described.

To place the historic APE of the FSTC in the overall context of historic resources in Lower Manhattan, a larger secondary study area was defined. This area comprises Lower Manhattan below Chambers Street (see Figure 11-3).

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-12 Legend Approximate Project Location Boundary Park Place APE for Historic Resources

Broadway Barclay Street

Vesey Street Park Row

Ann Street

William Street Fulton Street WTC Site

John Street

Nassau Street

Cortlandt Street ot 9A Route Maiden Lane

Church Street Liberty Street ,. Fulton Street Transit Center

Cedar Street Primary Study Area Area of Potential Effect (APE) 050 100 200 300 400 for Historic Resources Feet Thames Street Figure 11-2 Source: NYCE Map GIS ‡evu

ƒ„2ƒ„ viqixh re‚‚sƒyx2ƒ„ gu2ƒ„ i‚2ƒ„ ‡i epproxim—te2€roje™t2vo™—tion †e‚s ƒtudy2ere— p‚exuvsx2ƒ„ ‡rs„i2ƒ„ ristori™2‚esour™esD2˜y2„ypeX viyxe‚h2ƒ„

grewfi‚ƒ2ƒ„ ÚÊ x—tion—l2ristori™2v—ndm—rk‚s†i‚2„i‚ ‡y‚„r2ƒ„ @see2„—˜le2IIEPA „ryweƒ2ƒ„ visted2on2the2x—tion—l2or2ƒt—te2 ‡e‚‚ix2ƒ„ vepe‰i„„i2ƒ„ r hƒyx2ƒ„ „ri˜e™—2 5ƒ ‚egister2of2ristori™2€l—™esD2 h exi2ƒ„ ƒouth2 efri™—n2furi—l „i‚2ƒ„ iligi˜le2for2visting2on2the2x—tion—l2 gix„‚i2ƒ„ ixtension qounds2—nd feˆ or2ƒt—te2‚egister2of2ristori™2€l—™esD ‚iehi2ƒ„ the2gommons x‰g2v—ndm—rk2@see2„—˜le2IIEPA 5 ristori™2histri™ts 5ƒ 5 ST w ‚‚e‰2ƒ„ xy‚„r2ixh2e† 5ƒRV €ie‚v2ƒ„ €e‚u2€v q‚iix‡sgr2ƒ„ RURT ‡2f‚yeh‡e‰ SQ fe‚gve‰2ƒ„ 5ƒ5ƒ SP 5ƒ IT 5ƒ 5ƒ I RS f‚yeh‡e‰ 5ƒ5ƒ IRÊÚ

r2 2h2ƒ2y2x2222‚2s2†2i2‚ QU RW QV5ƒ 5ƒ ‡iƒ„2ƒ„ €e‚u2‚y‡ 5ƒ wehsƒyx2ƒ„ p v„yx2ƒ„ IS tohn2ƒtreetG ÊÚ ƒ€‚ gi2ƒ„ „2tewiƒ hi‰2ƒ„ w—iden2v—ne ƒ IQ fiiuwex2ƒ„ 5ƒ RR p‚exupy‚„2ƒ„ exx2ƒ„ 5ƒIP 5 5ƒ SH RQ 5ƒ 5ƒ tyrx2ƒ„ evfex‰2ƒ„ SI gihe‚2ƒ„ vsfi‚„‰2ƒ„ 5ƒ ge‚vsƒvi2ƒ„ QI IWÊÚ IV 5ƒ IH 5ƒ weshix2ve ƒy „r2ixh2e† PI 5ƒ ÊÚ W5ƒ II xeƒƒe 2ƒ„ hy†i ‡2„rewiƒ2ƒ„ ‚ig„y‚2ƒ„ ÊÚ 5ƒ QP PV SW ‚2ƒ„ TP ÊÚ 5ƒV 5ƒ €igu2ƒv gvspp2ƒ„ 5ƒ gr ‚gr2ƒ„ U ‡svvsew2ƒ„ fiiuwex2ƒ„ T 5ƒ RH €sxi2ƒ„ 5ƒ PS 5ƒ qyvh2ƒ„ p v„yx2ƒ„ ‡evv2ƒ„ QQ RI pvi„gri‚2ƒ„ SS ÊÚ 5ƒ 5ƒ tyrx2ƒ„ TI QW RP 5ƒ5ƒQR 5ƒ 5ƒ 5ƒ q‚iix‡sgr2ƒ„ PT iˆgrexqi2€v SR 5ƒ €ie‚v2ƒ„ fe„„i‚‰2€v R S 5ƒ SU 5ƒ 5ƒ f‚yyuv‰x 5ƒ 5ƒ xi‡2ƒ„ PW ‡e„i‚2ƒ„ fe„„i‚‰2„ xxiv Q ƒouth 5ƒ SV PQ ƒtreet P 5ƒ fie†i‚2ƒ„ PU 5ƒ p‚yx„2ƒ„ ƒe—port QH fe„„i‚‰2€v 5ƒ 5ƒ IU qy †i‚xi ‚2ve 5ƒ PR ‡rs„irevv2ƒ„ 5ƒ TH ÊÚ 5 5ƒ ƒ„yxi2ƒ„ ƒtone2yvh2ƒvs€ PP ƒtreet PH 5ƒ 5 5ƒ ƒ„e„i2ƒ„ pr—un™es „—vern QT f‚yeh2ƒ„ ƒy „r2ƒ„ph‚2h‚ 5ƒ i2e2ƒ2„2222‚2s2†2i2‚

QS 5ƒ xew2‰ork2gity2„r—nsit pulton2ƒtreet2„r—nsit2genter

hesign—ted2ristori™2‚esour™es SHH H SHH peet in2ƒe™ond—ry2ƒtudy2ere—

ƒour™esX2v—nd˜—seD2x‰g2hos„„Y2x‰g2hg€F pigure2IIEQ MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation FTA and NYCT consulted with the SHPO concerning the historic APE via letter in December 2003. SHPO’s concurrence with the initially proposed historic properties APE was received by letter dated February 13, 2004 (see Appendix H). As preliminary planning progressed, FTA and NYCT subsequently determined that the historic resources APE needed to be expanded to include the location of the proposed RW - E Connector at the eastern edge of the WTC Site.

11.5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter provides an overview of the Affected Environment, whereas a detailed background analysis of cultural resource issues is presented in Appendix H.

11.5.1 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT

Three (3) major periods are commonly used to describe the prehistoric cultures of New York: Paleoindian; Archaic; and Woodland. The Paleoindian period dates from approximately 11,000 to 10,000 BP2 (Curran, 1996; Fiedel, 1999), and its economy may have centered on the hunting of game. Although other economic activities, such as the gathering of plant foods or maritime resources, may have been equally important (Jones, et al., 2002, Roosevelt, et al., 1996; Sandweis, et al., 1998), they have left little or no trace in the archaeological record. Given the absence of known Paleoindian remains in the area, the potential for recovering cultural resources from the study area is low.

The Archaic period (10,000 to 3000 BP, or 8000 to 1000 BC3) is divided into Early, Middle and Late sub- periods, distinguished by differences in tool assemblages, projectile point types and preferred lithic materials. Of the several Early-Archaic sites (8000 to 6000 BC) identified in the City, most are located and now are identified in the primary study area.

The Woodland-period occupation (circa 700 BC to AD4 1500) in the City is characterized by the introduction of ceramic technology. Several Woodland sites have been identified in the City, but only a few sites on Manhattan have yielded Woodland period material. The end of the Woodland Period is marked by the encounter between the indigenous Native American population occupying the metropolitan region and European explorers. Evidence of this interaction between the native population and the European explorers has been documented archaeologically in Staten Island (Skinner, 1909), the Bronx (Skinner, 1919), and Manhattan (Skinner, 1920).

The principal Native American group in the area, the Munsee, had a settlement in Lower Manhattan just north of New Amsterdam in proximity to the Collect and Little Collect, spring-fed freshwater ponds located in what is now Foley Square (Geismar, 1993; Harris, et al., 1993). The area of City Hall Park would have been a desirable location for Native American settlement as it was comparatively level and close to the freshwater ponds, as well as swampland and the East River. Valentine (1856:426) noted that the location of City Hall marked the former site of “a large Indian village.”

By the time of permanent Dutch settlement at Lower Manhattan in 1623, the Munsee way of life was forever changed through the introduction of European items, including guns, metal, alcohol and glass.

11.5.2 HISTORIC CONTEXT

Europeans probably first set foot on Manhattan during Henry Hudson’s 1609 voyage up the river that now bears his name (Burrows and Wallace 1999:15). Following Hudson’s travels in the New York City area, Adriaen Block, sailing for the New Netherland Company, made four (4) trips to Manhattan. On the fourth trip in 1613-14, his ship, the Tyjger, burned where it rested on the western shore of Manhattan.

2 BP = Before Present, taken as before 1950 3 BC = Before Christ 4 AD = Anno Domini

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-15 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation In 1916, during construction of the IRT subway at the intersection of Dey and Greenwich streets, the charred keelson of a Dutch ship, possibly the Tyjger, was uncovered. Although the remainder of the ship’s hull was left in place, no further remains of the Tyjger were uncovered until the 1960s during construction of the WTC (Solecki, 1974). Block’s forced winter stay represents the first European settlement on Manhattan, with the Dutch sailors relying on the local Munsee for food. The remains of the Tyjger represent the earliest archaeologically documented European activity on Manhattan.

In May of 1623, the New Netherland sailed into New York Harbor with thirty Dutch families, mostly French-speaking Walloons, representing around 120 people (Gilder, 1936). These settlers were sent by the Dutch West India Company to create a permanent settlement to be called New Amsterdam. The New Netherland landed at the southern shore of Manhattan, about where Greenwich Street and Battery Place now intersect (Gilder, 1936:4), as Greenwich Street runs along what was then the western shore of Manhattan. These colonists immediately began constructing a fort for their protection from the elements and the local Munsee population.

These families settled at various locations in the metropolitan area, including parts of what are now Staten Island, Brooklyn and Jersey City. This dispersed pattern was designed to strengthen the Netherland Company’s territorial claims to the New York City area. When Peter Minuit assumed control of New Amsterdam in 1626, he recognized the hazards of a dispersed population pattern and concentrated the colonists on Manhattan after his famous purchase of the island from the Native American inhabitants. The settlement on Manhattan grew slowly throughout the middle years of the 17th Century. The settlement on Manhattan continued to be concentrated at the southern tip of the island for most of the 18th Century, although farms and villages were located farther north. The location of the proposed FSTC was part of a farm called the “King’s Farm”, property owned by the English crown. This farm had originally been called the “Company’s Farm” by the Dutch, which they had set aside for use by the Company only. When the English took over the Dutch territories in the New World, the Company’s Farm was handed over to the Duke of York. When he ascended to the English throne, the land became known as the King’s Farm and when Queen Anne came to power in 1702, it was known as the “Great Queen’s Farm”. Governor Lord Cornbury granted the entire estate to the English Church of Manhattan Island in 1705 (Janvier, 1894). Eventually, this land came to be owned by a Thenius Dey, a Dutch gardener and miller in the 18th Century (Feirstein, 2001:26). The modern Dey Street, which had also been known as “Batteau Street”, is named for this Dutch gardener (Stokes 1915:997).

After the Civil War, various factors (in particular rapid population growth, increasing industrialization, the domestic revolution with its consequent separation of the home and the workplace and construction of roads) led to the expansion of Manhattan. Streets had been established within the project area by the end of the war as the remainder of the Queen’s Farm had been divided up and sold off by the English crown. Modern Fulton Street was known as Partition Street and Church Street did not continue northward past Cortland Street until 1867 (Greenhouse Consultants 1985:10).

11.5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

In 2003, NYCT commissioned a Phase IA literature search to assess the potential of the archaeological APE (Figure 11-1) to contain prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources that, if present, could be affected by the FSTC Build Alternatives 9 and the Preferred Alternative (see Appendix H). Early 19th Century maps of the project area indicated that residential structures had been constructed in the project area, but it was not until the mid-19th Century that maps with sufficient detail were available to ascertain the types of structures within the archaeological APE. The Dripps 1851 map of the project area indicates that the location of the Entry Facility is entirely occupied by structures, demonstrating that more recent construction has caused the entire footprint of the proposed Entry Facility to be disturbed.

The proposed Dey Street Passageway is located within Dey Street, an area that lacks any indication of historic period structures within the street bed and therefore lacks potential historic archaeological resources that could be expected from such development. Research has indicated, however, that potential archaeological resources could be present beneath the Dey Street sidewalks. The proposed RW - E October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-16 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation connection does travel through the foundations and backyards of structures fronting on both Dey and Fulton Streets. It was not until the late 19th Century, however, that Church Street was constructed through the blocks between Fulton, Dey and Cortlandt Streets. The construction of the RW line in the early 20th century would, nevertheless, have destroyed any potential archaeological resources within the proposed RW - E connection on the west side of Church Street. The northeast corner of the intersection of Dey and Church Streets possesses potential for 19th century archaeological resources derived from residential structures present here prior to the extension of Church Street through Dey Street in 1867. Lastly, the Dey Street Access Plaza at the south corner of Dey Street at Broadway is located within the limits of the existing structure.

Historic maps consulted from the late 19th and early 20th Centuries confirm the observations made from the Dripps map. The extension of Church Street through Cortlandt, Dey and Fulton Streets was the next significant change to the project area, occurring in 1867. When this occurred, a large swath of structures was destroyed along the path of the proposed RW - E connection.

The construction of the subway lines through the project area in the early 20th Century further disturbed the project area and destroyed any potential archaeological resources within several portions of the archaeological APE. Specifically, the construction of the RW line would have disturbed the portion of the archaeological APE along Church Street and the 45 line would have disturbed the location for the proposed Dey Street Access Plaza at the south corner of Dey Street at Broadway and the two (2) proposed staircases at the southwest and southeast corners of Broadway and Maiden Lane, as well as the location of other minor project elements throughout the APE (see Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Activities, for full description of project elements).

Further disturbances to the archaeological APE have occurred throughout the 20th Century with the installation of utilities within the street bed of Dey Street. Additionally, the archaeological potential of the proposed Dey Street Passageway is considered to be low as there were never any historic structures within the street bed of Dey Street that might have produced the residues conducive to creating significant historic archaeological resources, i.e., Dey Street was not located in the backyards of residential structures where privies or cisterns could have been filled in with historic period refuse. Therefore, the presence of utilities within Dey Street greatly diminishes its archaeological resource potential. Based on research conducted, potential for archaeological deposits or features is, however, considered possible within the study area, despite the extent of construction disturbance that has historically occurred in the area, both pre- and post-September 11 and disturbance from the New York City Transit subway facilities. Archaeological resources could potentially exist in several areas: at the northeast corner of the intersection of Dey and Church Streets, along the eastern sidewalk of Church Street, north and south of Dey Street; Dey Street, under the sidewalks; Cortland Street, west of Broadway; Maiden Lane, east of Broadway; Fulton Street, between Broadway and William Street; William Street, between Ann Street and John Street; and John Street, east of William Street. MTA NYCT is currently consulting with SHPO and New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission regarding appropriate measures to address archaeological resources that may be present. Further details of these measures are provided in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) (see the end of this Chapter).

11.5.4 HISTORIC RESOURCES

In late 2002, NYCT commissioned National Register of Historic Places evaluation reports for those buildings (numbering eight (8)) on or immediately adjacent to lots that might be acquired by NYCT for construction of the FSTC. These reports, prepared by consultant Mary Dierckx, were submitted to SHPO in October 2002.

NYCT also compiled information about historic architectural resources in the APE and the secondary study area that are on record at the SHPO and LPC. These included: resources listed in or formally determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; resources that have been designated City Landmarks or that are under consideration for this designation; and resources that have not yet been formally evaluated but have been identified by knowledgeable persons or groups (e.g., October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-17 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Lower Manhattan Cultural Council; Lower Manhattan Emergency Preservation Fund; Historic District Council) as being of potential architectural or historical importance.

NYCT employed the public notice and scoping activities of the NEPA process related to this FEIS to solicit views and comments from the community at large. Among these activities was a public scoping meeting held in New York City on April 29, 2003. FTA and NYCT also met with SHPO staff to discuss the FSTC and its potential effects on September 22 and October 9, 2003. By letter dated September 26, 2003, the SHPO provided its opinion that the Corbin Building and the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix H). The Corbin Building has since been listed on the National Register.

Table 11-2 catalogues National Historic Landmarks, State/National Register-listed historic districts and buildings, and State/National Register-eligible historic districts and buildings5. The following identified historic resources6 are located within the APE:

Corbin Building, 192 Broadway. National Register-listed. This eight (8)-story 1888 office building was designed by Francis H. Kimball at the behest of Long Island Railroad president Austin Corbin. The building features a brick, stone and terra cotta polychromy exterior and its interior vaulted ceilings employ a Guastavino tile system. The building is significant for its association with Kimball and Corbin and as a proto-skyscraper and a rare surviving example of its type.

Fulton Street IRT 45 Station, Fulton Street at Broadway. National Register-eligible and a New York City Landmark. The Fulton Street Station is part of the Lexington Avenue IRT line and was built under New York City’s second subway construction contract, which extended the line south from City Hall into Brooklyn. The station was designed by Heins and LaFarge and features faience reliefs of the Clermont, Robert Fulton’s steamboat. The Clermont was the first steamboat successfully put into use and its maiden voyage was between New York and Albany on the Hudson River. The walls adjacent to the platforms, encompassing the glazed and mosaic tile, faience and terra cotta plaques and moldings and marble wainscoting, are included in the designation.

Former AT&T Building, 195 Broadway. National Register-eligible. Also known as the Kalikow Building, the 25-story neoclassical office building was designed by William Welles Bosworth and constructed 1912-1913, with additional work between 1921 and 1924. Bronze panels by New York sculptor Paul Manship, best known for his classically and mythologically-inspired work, top the entrances fronting on Broadway. The building is clad in Vermont granite and features colonnades and a tower surmounted by a stepped crown patterned after that on the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus. The building was the first home of the AT&T Company.

Former East River Savings Bank Building, between Dey and Cortlandt Streets at Church Street. National Register-eligible. This monumentally-scaled bank building was constructed in 1933-34 from designs by the architectural firm of Walker & Gillette. Clad with Alabama limestone, the building features identical entrances on Dey and Cortlandt Streets. Each entrance consists of a rounded niche filled with a monumental architrave of grey Quincy granite capped by a round seal flanked by stylized eagles and incised with the name of the institution. The extremely large rectangular windows illuminate an imposing banking hall stretching the full length of the building that is finished with a variety of colored marbles and a mural of the former East River by artist Dale Stetson.

5 National Historic Landmarks are considered listed in the National and New York State Registers of Historic Places. Properties that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places are also considered listed on or eligible to be listed on the New York State Register of Historic Places. 6 This includes National Historic Landmarks and State/National Register-listed or -eligible resources. If a building is also a New York City Landmark, it is so noted.

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-18 Table 11-2 Designated Federal and State Historic Resources in the Secondary Study Area STREET SR/NR-LISTED SR/NR-ELIGIBLE NAME STREET/ LOCATION NHL (1) NUMBER (2) (3) Historic Districts Below Worth Street and bounded by 1 African Burial Grounds and the Commons Historic District XX Broadway, Duane Street, and Park Row Between Pearl, Water and Broad Streets 2 Fraunces Tavern Block Historic District X and Coenties Slip Roughly bounded by Fulton Street to the north, Liberty Street to the south, Broadway 3 John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District X to the west and Dutch and Nassau Streets to the east Bounded roughly by Fletcher, Front, Water, 4 South Street Seaport Historic District Pearl and South Streets and the East River X and the Brooklyn Bridge Bounded by Stone, Pearl, South and 5 Stone Street Historic District X William Streets and William Lane Warren Street, connecting with existing 6 Tribeca South Historic District Extension Tribeca South Historic District and X encompassing 41-56 Warren Street Buildings 1 St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church 22 Barclay Street X International Mercantile Marine Company Building/U.S. Lines 2 1 Broadway X (SR) (4) Building 3 Bowling Green Building 11 Broadway X 4 Cunard Building 25 Broadway X 5 Standard Oil Building 26 Broadway X 6 American Express Company 65 Broadway X 7 Empire Building 71 Broadway X 8 American Surety Building 100 Broadway X 9 Trinity Building 111 Broadway X (SR)(5) X 10 U.S. Realty Building 115 Broadway X 11 Equitable Building 120 Broadway X X 12 Corbin Building 192 Broadway (a.k.a. 11 John Street) X 13 AT&T Building 195 Broadway X 14 Woolworth Building 233 Broadway X 15 St. Paul's Chapel and Graveyard Broadway at Fulton Street X 16 U.S. Post Office & Federal Office Building/Church St Station 90 Church Street X 17 Hanover Bank/India House/NY Cotton Exchange 1 Hanover Square X 18 Liberty Tower 55 Liberty Street X 19 Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York 65 Liberty Street X X 20 First Precinct Police Station 100 Old Slip X 21 American Stock Exchange/New York Curb Exchange 78-86 Trinity Place X X 22 Castle Clinton Battery Park X 23 Delmonico's 56 Beaver Street X 24 United States Custom House Bowling Green X X 25 New York Stock Exchange 8-18 Broad Street (a.k.a. 11 Wall Street Court) X X 26 Broad Exchange Building 25 Broad Street X 27 American Bank Note Company 70 Broad Street X 28 Trinity Church and Graveyard Broadway at Wall Street X X 29 City Bank-Farmers Trust Company 20 Exchange Place X Hudson River at West Street and Battery 30 Pier A X Street 31 John Street Methodist Church 44 John Street X 32 Insurance Company of North America 99 John Street X 33 56-58 Pine Street Building 56-58 Pine Street X 34 The Downtown Association Building 60 Pine Street X 35 Battery Maritime Building (Whitehall Ferry Terminal) 11 South Street X 36 James Watson House 7 State Street X 37 New York County Lawyer's Association 14 Vesey Street X 38 New York Evening Post Building 20 Vesey Street X 39 J.P. Morgan & Co. 23 Wall Street X 40 Federal Hall National Memorial 28 Wall Street X 41 Manhattan Company Building 40 Wall Street X 42 Bank of New York and Trust Company 48 Wall Street X 43 The Little Woolworth Building 90 West Street X 44 Benett Building 139 Fulton Street X 45 St. Peter's School 16 Barclay Street X 46 23 Park Place 23 Park Place X 47 25 Park Place 25 Park Place X 48 Dodge Building 53 Park Place X 50 Keuffel & Esser Building (6) 127 Fulton Street 51 Royal Insurance Building (6) 150 William Street 52 City Hall City Hall Park X 53 Tweed Courthouse 52 Chambers Street X 54 Hickson W. Field Stores 170-176 John Street X 2-18 Fulton Street, 189-195 Front Street, 55 Schermerhorn Row Block X 159-171 John Street, 91-92 South Street 56 Hopkins Stores 75 Murray Street X 57 National City Bank 55 Wall Street X 59 Federal Reserve Bank of New York 33 Liberty Street X 60 Battery Park Control House State Street and Battery Pl X 61 21 West Street Building 21 West Street X 62 19 Rector Street 19 Rector Street X Other Resources 50 World Trade Center Site Church Street X 58 Bowling Green Fence and Park Broadway and Beaver Street X S/R = State Register of Historic Places N/R = National Register of Historic Places NHL = National Historic Landmark Notes: 1. NHLs are automatically considered listed in the National and New York State Registers of Historic Places. 2. Properties listed in the National Register are listed in the State Register automatically. 3. Properties determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register are considered eligible for inclusion in the State Register. 4. International Mercantile Marine Company Building (27) is listed in the State Register; no determination has been made on National Register eligibility. 5. Trinity Building (40) is listed in the State Register, and has been determined eligible for the National Register. 6. Eligible for NYC Landmark status; Poperties are treated as historic property for purposes of analysis MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Bennett Building, 139 Fulton Street. National Register-eligible and a New York City Landmark. Originally built in 1872-73, this building was enlarged to 10 stories between 1892 and 1894. With 10- story cast iron façades that face Fulton, Nassau, and Ann Streets, it is believed to be the tallest cast iron building ever erected. It was commissioned as a real estate investment by James Gordon Bennett, Jr., publisher of the New York Herald newspaper. When originally erected, it was a seven (7)-story French Second Empire structure, designed by Arthur D. Gilman. The original mansard roof was removed and four (4) stories were added in 1892-93 in a design by James M. Farnsworth that replicated the original castings. In 1894, Farnsworth designed a 25-foot-wide section on Ann Street.

John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District. National Register-eligible. Approximately bounded by John and Fulton Streets to the north, Liberty Street to the south, Broadway to the west and Dutch and Nassau Streets to the east (see Figure 11-3). SHPO (September 2003) confirmed that the boundary of this district includes the Corbin Building at 192 Broadway (National Register-eligible), and other non-designated historic buildings such as the Dennison Building at 15 John Street, and excludes the buildings fronting Broadway to the north, the Girard Building at 194 Broadway, and 198 Broadway. The district is significant as an area of late-19th and early-20th century skyscraper office buildings. Most of the buildings pre-date the 1916 Zoning Resolution that established setback requirements and represent experimental forms in early skyscraper design. The buildings were built speculatively based on their proximity to Wall Street, and many originally housed aspects of the jewelry industry.

St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard, Broadway at Fulton Street. A National Historic Landmark and a New York City Landmark. One of a handful of pre-Revolutionary War buildings still standing in Lower Manhattan, St. Paul’s Chapel was built 1764-1766 and designed by Thomas McBean. The building is constructed of rough-faced schist with a brownstone trim. A five (5)-story tower designed by James C. Lawrence was added in 1794. French architect Pierre L’Enfant, best known as the author of the city plan for Washington, D.C., designed much of the ornate, classical interior. A graveyard surrounds the chapel on three (3) sides. St. Paul’s was constructed as a chapel-of-ease for Trinity Church parishioners who lived too far away to attend services at the mother church and is New York City’s oldest public building in continuous use and only remaining colonial-era church.

WTC Site, bounded by West, Liberty, Church and Vesey Streets. National Register-eligible. This approximately 16-acre site is significant for its association with the events of September 11, which caused the death of what is currently estimated to have been nearly 2,800 people from the collapse of the two (2) 110-story towers of the WTC. The site as it exists today is the result of the massive search, rescue and recovery efforts that concluded with the New York City’s return of the site to PANYNJ control and the subsequent revival of public transit services on the 19 subway and PATH in temporary facilities on the site.

The Keuffel & Esser Building at 127 Fulton Street and the Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street. Recently determined by LPC to be eligible for NYC Landmark designation. The Keuffel Esser Building, seven (7) stories with a two (2)-story cast iron front, built in 1891-92 from designs by the firm of DeLemos & Cordes, was the head office for this firm of nationally significant manufacturers of drawing materials, surveying instruments and measuring tapes. The Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street was built in 1925-1927 with an addition in 1930-31. The 19 story, limestone-clad building terminates in a pedimented classical temple at the roof. Although the New York City Landmarks Law is not applicable to the Proposed Action, NYCT has included potential impacts to City landmarks in its analysis.

11.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 11.6.1 INTRODUCTION

The assessment of potential impacts assumes that the FSTC would comply with applicable Federal, State and other regulations concerning the protection of cultural resources.

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-20 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Potential effects on cultural resources can be either physical or contextual. Direct physical effects can occur as a result of removal, damage or alteration of an archaeological or historic resource. Contextual effects can arise when the setting of a resource is altered as a result of the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric effects which adversely affect the resource and its setting.

11.6.2 PRE-SEPTEMBER 11 REFERENCE CONDITION

For the purposes of the analysis, the existing conditions in 2003 in the project study area with respect to cultural resources were considered to be representative of conditions that existed prior to the events of September 11 (see Chapter 2: Analysis Framework). The events of September 11 were not considered to have significantly affected cultural resources in the study area as they relate to the environmental review of the FSTC, with the exception of the WTC site, which is now deemed eligible for the National Register. Therefore, for cultural resources, the future conditions with and without the FSTC were assessed against existing 2003 conditions, projected forward to each of the three (3) analysis years.

11.6.3 ANALYSIS YEAR 2005/2006 (CONSTRUCTION)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

As a result of modern urban construction activities or lack of historic period occupation, intact archaeological deposits or features are unlikely to be encountered in the majority of the areas of proposed construction and ground disturbance within the archaeological APE.

Excavation at potential locations of archeological sensitivity is proposed at the southern sidewalk of Dey Street and at the northeast corner of the intersection of Dey and Church Streets. Potential historic archaeological resources that could occur in these locations include foundations of 19th century residential buildings and infrastructure from that same era. Archaeological resources may also be present in streetbeds throughout the project area, as presented on Figure 11-1.

Under both Build Alternatives, the Dey Street Passageway would be located at Dey Street between Broadway and Church Streets, a passageway beneath the RW line would be located beneath Church Street connecting to the Dey Street Passageway, and a new stair access to the Dey Street Passageway would be located at the northeast corner of Dey and Church Streets. Improvements requiring excavation are proposed in other areas within the archeological APE as well that could contain archeological resources, as shown on Figure 11-1.

The potential archeological resources that may be encountered would likely be those from which information can be learned by data recovery, but which would have minimal value for preservation in place. MTA NYCT is currently consulting with SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) as to appropriate measures to address these resources, should they be present. To date, LPC has concurred with the findings of the revised Phase 1A. The determination as to whether these resources will be disturbed or need to remain in place will be finalized during construction, based on coordination with the SHPO under the Programmatic Agreement (PA).

All appropriate and practicable measures would be taken during construction to avoid impacts that could occur as a result of either Build Alternative, through a formal consultation process, the project CEPP and a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) (Appendix C). The PA, included at the end of this chapter, describes measures to identify, evaluate and, if necessary, mitigate any disturbance of archaeological resources present in the archaeological APE during construction. As described in more detail in the PA, for areas of archeological sensitivity, these measures include monitoring during construction for the presence of archeological resources, documentation protocols for archeological resources when found, and methods to dispose of archeological materials. For construction activities outside areas of archeological sensitivity, a Cultural Resource Management Team (CRM) will be on-call and available to inspect archaeological resources when encountered. The PA also identifies in an October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-21 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Archaeological Discovery Plan included with the PA specific detailed steps that will be followed for anticipated archeological discoveries, unanticipated archeological discoveries and in the event that any unanticipated human remains are encountered during construction of the Project. The PA also sets forth a process for determining if a discovered archaeological resource is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and includes provisions for the reporting and dissemination of results and curation of the collection.

HISTORIC RESOURCES

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative in 2005/2006, the character of historic resources in the historic resources APE would remain unchanged. As the FSTC would not be constructed, the Corbin Building would remain in private ownership.

Alternative 9

Corbin Building

Under Alternative 9, the Corbin Building would not be structurally and functionally associated with the Entry Facility except for possible retention of existing entranceways and easements that may be required during construction. Construction of the Entry Facility requires a slurry wall on the northern property line of the Corbin Building, which would not affect the structural integrity or historic features of the Corbin Building.

Depending on the findings of the geotechnical and structural investigations that would be carried out during Final Design, Alternative 9 may require underpinning of the Corbin Building. This will be determined based on whether or not there is a risk of excessive movement of the Corbin Building during the construction of the Entry Facility. Such a risk could have implications for the project cost and schedule and would necessitate the use of underpinning or a similar protective technique, such as compensation grouting. Based on information available to date, NYCT would proceed with underpinning of the Corbin Building in Alternative 9, to avoid risks related to public safety and damage to the historic resources associated with unknown construction conditions.

FTA thresholds for vibration impacts are 0.20 inch/sec. for fragile buildings and 0.12 for extremely fragile buildings. For the purposes of the analysis, the historic buildings in the study area are assumed to be fragile buildings. The FTA threshold for fragile buildings would potentially be exceeded for the Corbin Building. This could occur during the deconstruction of adjacent buildings, if improperly performed, during the installation of slurry walls or secant piles for the Dey Street Passageway and the Entry Facility. Such damage could constitute an adverse effect to this historic building due to loss or diminution of characteristics of design, materials, or workmanship that qualify the Corbin Building for inclusion in the National Register.

Construction of Alternative 9 could affect the Corbin Building as a result of the following:

• Construction activities associated with the Entry Facility immediately adjacent to the Corbin Building; • Temporary displacement of tenants in the basement of the Corbin Building; and, • Construction activities associated with the Dey Street Access Plaza, Dey Street Passageway and other project elements in the vicinity of the Corbin Building.

The foundations of the Corbin Building could also be affected by subsurface excavation and construction that could make adjacent soils or structures unstable, thereby constituting adverse effect on such historic properties.

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-22 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Implementation of Alternative 9 would not be anticipated to cause an adverse effect on the Corbin Building as during construction, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts on these buildings. Any alterations of the building will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3(b)), where practicable as agreed per consultation with SHPO. In the event that NYCT undertakes to underpin or compensation grout the foundations of the Corbin Building, NYCT will consult with SHPO prior to any work performed for SHPO’s approval. Design plans for any alteration or rehabilitation to the building will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, LPC and LMEPF and the building owner. They will be submitted to SHPO for approval and, as appropriate, made available for public review. These mitigation and avoidance strategies are identified in the PA and will be developed in the CEPP. They are described further at the end of this chapter and in Section 11.7, respectively.

Other Historic Resources in the APE

Under Alternative 9, adverse construction effects on other historic resources in the APE would be limited. This alternative would require extensive below-ground excavation and construction, including but not necessarily limited to excavations for the new Dey Street Passageway and widening of the AC mezzanine; and demolition, excavation and foundation work for the new Entry Facility building and the new Dey Street Access Plaza.

Building construction noise levels at 195 Broadway and in those areas of the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District adjacent to the project are anticipated to rise above FTA threshold criteria during construction. These elevated noise levels, however, would not alter or diminish any characteristics that qualify these resources for inclusion in the National Register.

Construction-induced ground vibration, if not managed appropriately, could potentially damage building foundations or structural systems, resulting in diminution of the buildings’ integrity with respect to materials and workmanship. FTA thresholds for vibration impacts are 0.20 inch/sec. for fragile buildings and 0.12 for extremely fragile buildings. For the purposes of the analysis, the historic buildings in the study area are assumed to be fragile buildings. The FTA threshold for fragile buildings would potentially be exceeded at the former East River Savings Bank Building, the Bennett Building at 139 Fulton Street and the AT&T Building at 195 Broadway. This could occur during the deconstruction of adjacent buildings, if improperly performed, during the installation of slurry walls or secant piles for the Dey Street Passageway and the Entry Facility. Damage associated with vibration impacts could constitute an adverse effect to these historic buildings and on the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District, of which they form part, due to loss or diminution of characteristics of design, materials, or workmanship that qualify the buildings for inclusion on the National Register.

The foundations of the Corbin Building, St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard, the Bennett Building, buildings in the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District located on Fulton Street west of Nassau Street, and the NYC Landmark-eligible Keuffel & Esser Building could also be affected by subsurface excavation and construction that could make adjacent soils or structures unstable, thereby constituting adverse effect on such historic properties. During construction, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts on these buildings. It is not anticipated that this would result in any adverse effects on these buildings, or on the characteristics that qualify them for inclusion on the National Register or as a NYC Landmark. The mitigation and avoidance strategies are identified in the PA and will be included in the CEPP. They are described further at the end of this chapter and in Section 11.7, respectively.

The construction of a new street-level subway entrance via the Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street will require the construction of a new switch back stair from the north mezzanine of the 23 Station to William Street. This may require modification of the external wall and archways of this building along the south side of William Street or may involve modification of the existing entrance and lobby of the building at 150 William Street. Pending the completion of the surveys for this part of the project a design will be developed in accordance with the provisions of the PA. The PA included with this FEIS establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by which the design of the FSTC October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-23 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation (including the new street entrance at 150 William Street) will be developed so as to avoid as practicable the introduction of elements that would diminish the integrity of the significant features of the Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street.

Fulton Street 45 Station:

As part of Alternative 9, the following modifications would be made to the Fulton Street 45 Station:

• Closure of the north underpass to the AC; • Relocation of the wall behind the control booth at the Dey Street entrance and the stairs at the south side of Dey Street to an access plaza; • Closure of the existing John Street entrance; • Creation of openings in the existing northbound platform wall at the north and south ends of the platform; and, • Creation of openings within the existing southbound platform wall between the Fulton and Dey Street entrances.

These improvements would affect the National Register-eligible Fulton Street 45 Station as a result of changes to the existing historic fabric of the station, in particular the tiled and marble wainscoted walls adjacent to the platforms. Creation of new wall openings would involve the removal of sections of existing plain tile and wainscoting; however, the associated marble column facings, frieze and terracotta elements at these locations would be retained in place. New walls adjacent to historic walls would have treatments in keeping with the surrounding historic decorative treatments. These actions would have adverse effects. These effects will be minimized and mitigated as described in the PA (see the end of this chapter) and the actions will be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. This would minimize and mitigate impacts on the characteristics of design, materials and ornamentation that qualify the station for inclusion on the National Register.

AT&T Building

Construction of a new set of escalators and stairs linking the new Entry Facility with the southbound 45 Fulton Street Station platform would require space within and access to portions of three (3) basement levels in the former AT&T Building at 195 Broadway. Construction would involve partial removal of floor framing in basements A and B and reinforcement of remaining floor framing in those basements; it would also require underpinning of one façade column and partial removal of steel grillages from two (2) adjacent columns.

These construction activities do not involve any purposeful alteration of any of the exterior architectural, design or structural characteristics that may qualify this building for inclusion in the National Register. However, if improperly performed, construction activities could potentially affect the portion of the façade associated with the column to be underpinned and/or the building’s structural stability and thus affect the building’s historic integrity, thereby resulting in adverse effects to the AT&T Building. During construction, all appropriate and practicable precautions would be taken to avoid impacts on this property. These are described in the PA and will be developed in the CEPP. They are described further at the end of this chapter and in Section 11.7, respectively.

WTC Site

Construction of the RW - E connector would require realignment or removal of a portion of a concrete foundation wall that separates the Church Street station from the WTC site. This wall is a remnant of the former H&M railroad facilities that ultimately became PATH in association with construction of the WTC. While realignment or removal of a portion of this wall would constitute a physical change in this

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-24 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation element of the historic site, it would not diminish the characteristics of location, setting, feeling, materials, and association that qualify the WTC Site for inclusion on the National Register.

Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative

Corbin Building

Under the Preferred Alternative, the Corbin Building would be acquired by MTA and would be structurally and functionally integrated into the FSTC Entry Facility. This integration would be achieved by the underpinning of the Corbin Building (see Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Activities for full description), construction of a temporary structural support for the façade of the Corbin Building and the eventual physical integration of the ground floor and second floor of the Corbin Building with the Entry Facility (see Chapter 3: Alternatives, for full description). It is intended that the Corbin Building would be integrated into the Entry Facility in a way that is both functionally and visually compatible with the historic character of the building itself and its role in the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District. The alterations of the Corbin Building will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3(b)), as practicable. Design plans will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, LPC and LMEPF. They will be submitted to SHPO for approval and, as appropriate, made available for public review. Additional details regarding these provisions are presented in the PA, included in Chapter 11.

At this point in the conceptual design, the methods by which the Corbin Building’s basement and ground floor areas would be integrated into the Entry Facility have not yet been fully determined. It is likely, however, that portions of some basement and upper story walls may need to be modified to incorporate new connecting access routes. As the FSTC basement is proposed to be located almost 20 feet deeper than the existing basement level of the Corbin Building, underpinning would be needed to provide temporary construction support and permanent foundations once the Building is integrated into the Entry Facility. This would require a 20-foot deep excavation beneath the Corbin Building.

The incorporation of the Corbin Building into the Entry Facility would require substantial alterations to the existing structure of the Corbin Building. These alterations would be large new openings in the north wall of the Corbin Building, which could cause structural members in the existing Corbin Building to be overstressed, triggering a seismic upgrade incompliance with relevant State and City codes. The upgrade will consist of strengthening the building lateral load system and floor diaphragms.

In certain locations, removal of portions of floors or of exterior walls may be beneficial to the new use to accommodate the movement of the public through the Entry Facility to the various levels of the new building. Rehabilitation and code compliance upgrading for other NYCT uses (e.g. office support) or other suitable business tenants may also require the alteration of existing historic features.

Construction of the FSTC would affect the Corbin Building as a result of the following:

• Adaptive reuse of the Corbin Building within the FSTC Entry Facility (see Chapter 3: Alternatives and Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Activities, for full description); • Location of the Entry Facility immediately adjacent to the Corbin Building; and, • Construction activities associated with the Dey Street Access Plaza, Dey Street Passageway and other project elements in the vicinity of the Corbin Building.

FTA thresholds for vibration impacts are 0.20 inch/sec. for fragile buildings and 0.12 for extremely fragile buildings. For the purposes of the analysis, the historic buildings in the study area are assumed to be fragile buildings. The FTA threshold for fragile buildings would potentially be exceeded for the Corbin Building. This would occur during the deconstruction of adjacent buildings, if improperly performed, during the installation of slurry walls or secant piles for the Dey Street Passageway and the Entry Facility. Such damage would constitute an adverse effect to this historic building due to loss or

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-25 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation diminution of characteristics of design, materials, or workmanship that qualify the Corbin Building for inclusion in the National Register.

The foundations of the Corbin Building would also be affected by subsurface excavation and construction that could make adjacent soils or structures unstable, thereby constituting adverse effects on such historic properties. During construction, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts on these buildings. These mitigation and avoidance strategies would be detailed in the PA and CEPP, and are described further at the end of this Chapter 11 and in Section 11.7, respectively.

Other Historic Resources in the APE

Under the Preferred Alternative, adverse construction effects on other historic resources in the APE would be limited. This alternative would require extensive below-ground excavation and construction, including but not necessarily limited to excavations for the new Dey Street Passageway and widening of the AC mezzanine; and demolition, excavation and foundation work for the new Entry Facility building and the new Dey Street Access Plaza.

Construction-induced ground vibration, if not managed appropriately, could potentially damage building foundations or structural systems, resulting in diminution of the buildings’ integrity with respect to materials and workmanship. FTA thresholds for vibration impacts are 0.20 inch/sec. for fragile buildings and 0.12 for extremely fragile buildings. For the purposes of the analysis, the historic buildings in the study area are assumed to be fragile buildings. The FTA threshold for fragile buildings would potentially be exceeded at the former East River Savings Bank Building, the Bennett Building and the AT&T Building. This could occur during the deconstruction of adjacent buildings, if improperly performed, during the installation of slurry walls or secant piles for the Dey Street Passageway and the Entry Facility. Such damage would constitute an adverse effect to these historic buildings and on the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District, of which they form part, due to loss or diminution of characteristics of design, materials, or workmanship that qualify the buildings for inclusion on the National Register.

The foundations of St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard, the Bennett Building, buildings in the John Street- Maiden Lane Historic District located on Fulton Street west of Nassau Street, and the NYC Landmark- eligible Keuffel & Esser Building could also be affected by subsurface excavation and construction that could make adjacent soils or structures unstable, thereby constituting adverse effects on such historic properties. During construction, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts on these buildings. It is not anticipated that this would result in any adverse effects on these buildings, or on the characteristics that qualify them for inclusion on the National Register or as a NYC Landmark. These mitigation and avoidance strategies are identified d in the PA and will be developed in the CEPP. They are described further at the end of this chapter and in Section 11.7, respectively.

The construction of a new street-level subway entrance via the Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street will require the construction of a new switch back stair from the north mezzanine of the 23 Station to William Street. This may require modification of the external wall and archways of this building along the south side of William Street or may involve modification of the existing entrance and lobby of the building at 150 William Street. Pending the completion of the surveys for this part of the project a design will be developed in accordance with the provisions of the PA. The PA included with this FEIS establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by which the design of the FSTC (including the new street entrance at 150 William Street) will be developed so as to avoid as practicable the introduction of elements that would diminish the integrity of the significant features of the Royal Insurance Building at 150 William Street.

Fulton Street 45 Station:

Under this alternative, the following modifications would be made to the Fulton Street Station:

• Closure of the north underpass to the AC; October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-26 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation • Relocation of the wall behind the control booth at the Dey Street entrance and the stairs at the south side of Dey Street to an access building; • Closure of the existing John Street entrance; • Creation of openings in the existing northbound platform wall at the north and south ends of the platform; and, • Creation of openings within the existing southbound platform wall between the Fulton Street and Dey Street entrances.

These improvements would affect the National Register-eligible Fulton Street 45 Station as a result of changes to the existing historic fabric of the station, in particular the tiled and marble wainscoted walls adjacent to the platforms. Creation of new wall openings would involve the removal of sections of existing plain tile and wainscoting; however, the associated marble column facings, frieze and terracotta elements at these locations would be retained in place. New walls adjacent to historic walls would have treatments in keeping with the surrounding historic decorative treatments. These actions would have adverse effects. A strategy to mitigate these effects is described in the PA (see the end of this chapter) and the actions will be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. This would minimize and mitigate impacts on the characteristics of design, materials and ornamentation that qualify the station for inclusion on the National Register.

AT&T Building

Construction of a new set of escalators and stairs linking the new Entry Facility with the southbound 45 Fulton Street Station platform would require space within and access to portions of three (3) basement levels in the AT&T Building at 195 Broadway. Construction would involve partial removal of floor framing in basements A and B and reinforcement of remaining floor framing in those basements; it would also require underpinning of one (1) façade column and partial removal of steel grillages from two (2) adjacent columns.

These construction activities do not involve any purposeful alteration of any of the exterior architectural, design or structural characteristics that may qualify this building for inclusion in the National Register. However, if improperly performed, construction activities could potentially affect the portion of the façade associated with the column to be underpinned and/or the building’s structural stability and thus affect the building’s historic integrity, thereby resulting in adverse effects to the AT&T Building. During construction, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts on this property. These would be detailed in the PA and CEPP, and are described further at the end of this chapter and in Section 11.7, respectively.

Building construction noise levels at the AT&T Building and in those areas of the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District adjacent to the project are anticipated to rise above FTA threshold criteria during construction. These elevated noise levels, however, will not alter or diminish any characteristics that qualify these resources for inclusion on the National Register.

Dennison Building

The Dennison Building at 15 John Street, although not eligible for the National Register as an individual resource, is a contributing element to the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District. Under the Preferred Alternative, this building may require underpinning as a protective measure. It is not anticipated that this would result in any adverse effects on this building, or on the characteristics that qualify it for inclusion as a contributing element in the historic district. It is also not anticipated that this would result in any adverse impacts on the historic district itself.

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-27 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation WTC Site

Construction of the RW - E connector would require realignment or removal of a portion of a concrete foundation wall that separates the Church Street station from the WTC site. This wall is a remnant of the former H&M railroad facilities that ultimately became PATH in association with construction of the WTC. While realignment or removal of a portion of this wall would constitute a physical change in this element of the historic site, it would not diminish the characteristics of location, setting, feeling, materials, and association with the events of September 11 that qualify the WTC site for inclusion on the National Register.

11.6.4 ANALYSIS YEAR 2008 (INITIAL OPERATION)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

As a result of modern urban construction activities or lack of historic period occupation, intact archaeological deposits or features are unlikely to be encountered in the areas of proposed construction and ground disturbance within the archaeological APE following the construction of the FSTC. This analysis, therefore, concludes that neither Alternative 9 nor the Preferred Alternative would affect any archaeological resources during operation of the FSTC.

HISTORIC RESOURCES

No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the FSTC would not be constructed or operational in 2008 and the character of historic resources in the APE would remain unchanged. As the FSTC would not be constructed, there would be no effect on the Corbin Building under this alternative.

Alternative 9

Under this alternative, the FSTC would be operational in 2008. The Corbin Building would not be acquired by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and would remain in private ownership. During operations, the FSTC would not have any adverse effects on historic resources in the APE. Underpinning or similar support at this time is assumed to be necessary by NYCT to manage the risks to public safety and the historic resource resulting from uncertain construction conditions associated with the Corbin Building. Underpinning piles remaining permanently in place beneath the Corbin Building would not be expected to have any adverse effects on the Corbin Building.

The Entry Facility would introduce new architectural elements into the existing setting of the John Street- Maiden Lane Historic District, in the vicinity of the Corbin Building, the AT&T Building, the Bennett Building and, potentially, St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard. The alteration to the existing setting of the historic district would involve the removal of several buildings that lack historic or architectural significance, lack integrity, or both. The new building's respective scale and massing would be consistent with those of the structures they replace and with the surrounding built environment, which includes: non- historic as well as historic buildings; stone and brick masonry facades as well as contemporary face brick, metal and glass facades and building heights from two (2) to 20 stories. The design approach for the new Entry Facility is, and would continue to be, receptive to and committed to achieving a design that respects the historic properties around it. The PA included with this FEIS establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by which the design of the FSTC (including the new Entry Facility) will be developed in accordance with the Standards of the Secretary of the Interior so as to avoid as practicable the introduction of visual elements that would diminish the integrity of the significant features of historic resources within the APE.

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-28 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative

Under this alternative, the FSTC would be operational in 2008. As a result of acquisition of the Corbin Building by MTA, its historic character would be protected by applicable regulations and standards. Any structural upgrades and other measures to maintain the building in code compliance would therefore have been implemented in accordance with applicable preservation requirements, which would reduce impacts on the building’s historic characteristics, including those associated with its location within the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District. In addition, measures undertaken during construction of the Entry Facility to preserve the Corbin Building’s historic character and integrate it with the Entry Facility would have provided the building with permanent safeguards for historic preservation, such as:

• Repointing of masonry; • Cleaning of the façade; • Replacement of worn/defective windows; and, • Installation of new appropriate and historically compliant storefronts.

As a result, the Corbin Building would have experienced an adaptive reuse enabling it to function as a publicly accessible building with improved opportunity by the public and the community to experience its historic character and new role in the transit system.

The Entry Facility would introduce new architectural elements into the existing setting of the John Street- Maiden Lane Historic District, in the vicinity of the Corbin Building, the AT&T Building, the Bennett Building and, potentially, St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard. The alteration to the existing setting of the historic district would involve the removal of several buildings that lack historic or architectural significance, lack integrity, or both. The new building's respective scale and massing would be consistent with those of the structures they replace and with the surrounding built environment, which includes: non- historic as well as historic buildings; stone and brick masonry facades as well as contemporary face brick, metal and glass facades and building heights from two (2) to 20 stories. The design approach for the new Entry Facility is, and would continue to be, receptive to and committed to achieving a design that respects the historic properties around it. The PA included with this FEIS establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by which the design of the FSTC (including the new Entry Facility) will be developed in accordance with the Standards of the Secretary of the Interior so as to avoid as practicable the introduction of visual elements that would diminish the integrity of the significant features of historic resources within the APE.

11.6.5 ANALYSIS YEAR 2025 (FULL OPERATION)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

As a result of modern urban construction activities or lack of historic period occupation, intact archaeological deposits or features are unlikely to be encountered in the areas within the archaeological APE during the operation of the FSTC. This analysis, therefore, concludes that neither Alternative 9 nor the Preferred Alternative would affect any archaeological resources during operation of the FSTC.

HISTORIC RESOURCES

No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the FSTC would not be constructed or operational in 2025. The character of historic resources in the APE would remain unchanged. As the FSTC would not be constructed, the Corbin Building would not be affected.

The extent of any future exterior and interior modification to the Corbin Building during this 20-year period cannot be predicted. Without major rehabilitation, by 2025, the exterior and interior public spaces features of the Corbin Building will have been subject to the incremental effects of wear and aging. It is October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-29 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation possible that modifications to office space, public signage and repairs to public lobbies and the elevators may take place, as such modifications have been undertaken in the past. Conversion of the Corbin Building to other use, such as residential, would require compliance with relevant City codes. Restrictions and requirements of LPC would apply only if the building were designated a New York City Landmark.

Alternative 9

Under this alternative, the FSTC would be fully operational in 2025. During operations, the FSTC would not have any adverse effects on historic resources in the APE. The Corbin Building would have been in, it is assumed, continued private ownership during the preceding twenty years. Its maintenance and continued use would be the responsibility of the private owner. The building would be subject to relevant City codes, but not to any particular preservation restrictions unless the LPC designated it a New York City Landmark.

The Entry Facility would introduce new architectural elements into the existing setting of the John Street- Maiden Lane Historic District, in the vicinity of the Corbin Building, the AT&T Building, the Bennett Building and, potentially, St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard. The alteration to the existing setting of the historic district would involve the removal of several buildings that lack historic or architectural significance, lack integrity, or both. The new building's respective scale and massing would be consistent with those of the structures they replace and with the surrounding built environment, which includes: non- historic as well as historic buildings; stone and brick masonry facades as well as contemporary face brick, metal and glass facades and building heights from two (2) to 20 stories. The design approach for the new Entry Facility is, and would continue to be, receptive to and committed to achieving a design that respects the historic properties around it. The PA included with this FEIS establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by which the design of the FSTC (including the new Entry Facility) will be developed in accordance with the Standards of the Secretary of the Interior so as to avoid as practicable the introduction of visual elements that would diminish the integrity of the significant features of historic resources within the APE.

Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative

As a result of acquisition of the Corbin Building by MTA, the property would have been in public ownership during the 20 years and its historic character, therefore, would have been protected by applicable regulations and standards. Any structural upgrades and other measures to maintain the building in code compliance would therefore have been implemented in accordance with applicable preservation requirements, which would reduce impacts on the building’s historic characteristics, including those associated with its location within the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District. In addition, measures undertaken during construction of the Entry Facility to preserve the Corbin Building’s historic character and integrate it with the Entry Facility would have provided the building with permanent safeguards for historic preservation, such as:

• Repointing of masonry; • Cleaning of the façade; • Replacement of worn/defective windows; and, • Installation of new appropriate and historically compliant storefronts.

As a result, the Corbin Building over the preceding 20 years would have functioned as a publicly accessible building with improved opportunity by the public and the community to experience its historic character and new role in the transit system.

The Entry Facility would introduce new architectural elements into the existing setting of the John Street- Maiden Lane Historic District, in the vicinity of the Corbin Building, the AT&T Building, the Bennett Building and, potentially, St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard. The alteration to the existing setting of the historic district would involve the removal of several buildings that lack historic or architectural October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-30 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation significance, lack integrity, or both. The new building's respective scale and massing would be consistent with those of the structures they replace and with the surrounding built environment, which includes: non- historic as well as historic buildings; stone and brick masonry facades as well as contemporary face brick, metal and glass facades and building heights from two (2) to 20 stories. The design approach for the new Entry Facility is, and would continue to be, receptive to and committed to achieving a design that respects the historic properties around it. The PA included with this FEIS establishes a consultation process and mitigation measures by which the design of the FSTC (including the new Entry Facility) will be developed in accordance with the Standards of the Secretary of the Interior so as to avoid as practicable the introduction of visual elements that would diminish the integrity of the significant features of historic resources within the APE.

11.7 SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

FTA and NYCT have determined that the construction of the FSTC will have adverse effects on historic properties under either Alternative 9 or the Preferred Alternative. The FTA and NYCT, therefore, propose to resolve adverse effects of the FSTC on historic properties through a PA (see the end of this chapter). In consultation with the SHPO and ACHP, FTA and NYCT have developed and will implement this PA which contains specific measures by which identified impacts would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. The PA also sets forth the process and procedures for consultation, determination of effect, and resolution of any as yet unidentified adverse effects that would govern the planning, design, and implementation of the project from the date of the PA’s execution.

Measures include, but may not be limited to, the following:

• Recordation of the Corbin Building and Fulton Street 45 station to Level II Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards prior to any alteration. • Photorecordation of existing exterior and interior conditions of the AT&T Building, Bennett Building, East River Savings Bank, Dennison Building, and Fulton Street portion of the John Street-Maiden Lane Historic District prior to any construction in their vicinity. • For the Preferred Alternative, display in-place of a historic section of the building foundation or structural members of the Corbin building for public viewing. An interpretive display at that location will include information about the role of the building in the development of New York City skyscrapers and the characteristics of the foundation or structure that were unique at the time of the building's construction and made skyscrapers possible. • Development and implementation of a milestone review process in coordination with SHPO and LPC, in which the ultimate treatment and use of the Corbin Building is determined through consideration of the property’s historic character and of the construction and operational feasibility of possible treatment and use alternatives; • Consultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties concerning proposed alterations to the historic 45 Fulton Street station; development of designs and specifications consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as practicable, including appropriate re- use of historic decorative elements such as wall finishes, railings and other features of the street level entrances; • Development and implementation of a CEPP to avoid construction impacts on potentially vulnerable historic buildings within 90 feet of the construction activities. Special provisions would be necessary for the Corbin Building and, possibly, the Dennison Building, because both buildings directly abut the area in which deconstruction and construction would occur and are physically attached to buildings that would be removed. The CEPP would include protective measures such as monitoring of historic buildings during construction to detect vibration or other physical impacts; and, • In anticipation of possible modifications to the designs for the FSTC, design and implementation of a CRMP, including an Emergency Action Program (EAP), to address any potential October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-31 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation archaeological impacts within the current archaeological APE and also those which may arise should the current APE be modified as a result of design changes. This would include the requirement for an archaeologist certified by the RPA to advise on any potential mitigation necessary. ‘

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources 11-32 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

SUB-CHAPTER 11A: PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT (PA)

October 2004 11.0 Cultural Resources

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINSTRATION THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT MTA CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THE NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGARDING THE FULTON STREET TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT IN NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

WHEREAS, the New York City Transit Authority, (NYCT) an affiliated agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York (“MTA”), and MTA Capital Construction Company (“CCC”), a subsidiary of MTA, are proposing to construct a new Fulton Street Transit Center (the “Project”) at Fulton Street and Broadway in Manhattan, that will improve transit services and include new connections between existing subway stations, a new pedestrian concourse under Dey Street, and more surface access points; and

WHEREAS, NYCT and CCC are proposing to use funding assistance from the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) to implement the Project, assistance that would render the Project a Federal undertaking subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“Section 106”), 16 USC § 470(f); and

WHEREAS, CCC, on behalf of NYCT, will be responsible for all construction activities related to the Project and NYCT will be responsible for Project operation and maintenance; and

WHEREAS, FTA as lead agency, in cooperation with MTA and NYCT, has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) to evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts and consider various project alternatives; and

WHEREAS, FTA and NYCT have consulted with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) about the Project in accordance with the Section 106 regulations (codified at 36 CFR Part 800); and

WHEREAS, FTA and NYCT have consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) about the Project in accordance with the Section 106 regulations (codified at 36 CFR Part 800); and

WHEREAS, FTA, NYCT, the SHPO, and the ACHP have agreed to develop this Programmatic Agreement (“Agreement”) in accordance to 36 CFR §800.14(b)(1)(ii), to evaluate effects to historic properties caused by the construction of the Project that cannot be fully assessed at this time and to develop a process for SHPO review; and

WHEREAS, on July 13, 2004, the FTA invited the National Park Service (NPS) to review the design plans that assess the effects of the project to St. Paul’s Chapel, a National Historic

- 1 - Landmark, within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). To date, NPS has not responded to the invitation; and

WHEREAS, the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), representing the City of New York, has participated as a consulting party in the Section 106 review process in accordance with 36 CFR §800.2(c)(3), and has agreed to review documentation regarding effects to historic and archaeological resources, but, has declined to be a concurring signatory to the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Lower Manhattan Emergency Preservation Fund, (LMEPF), representing a coalition of five preservation groups – Municipal Art Society, National Trust for Historic Preservation, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Preservation League of New York State, and the World Monuments Fund, has requested and will be a consulting party in the Section 106 review process in accordance with 36 CFR §800.2(c)(5). LMEPF has declined to be a concurring signatory to the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2004 and May 6, 2004 by copy of the draft EIS, the following Native American Tribes were notified through the NEPA process of the Section 106 review in accordance with 36 CFR §800.2(C) and were invited to comment: the Shinnecock Nation; the Cayuga Nation; the Tuscarora Nation; the Saint Regis Band of Mohawk Indians; the Delaware Nation; the Poospatuck Nation; the Onondaga Indian Nation; the Oneida Indian Nation; the Tonawanda Band of Seneca; and the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohicans. To date, FTA and NYCT have not received comment. If human remains are recovered as a result of Project related activities, the above tribes will be notified as per the protocol described in Appendix A.; and

WHEREAS, FTA and NYCT, in consultation with SHPO, have determined the APE of the Project (pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(a))(see Figure 1A and 1B), have identified and evaluated the properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (“Historic Properties”) within that APE (pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(b)-(d)), and have assessed the adverse effects of the Project on the identified Historic Properties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5; and

WHEREAS, FTA, in consultation with SHPO, has determined that there will be no adverse effect to the following historic resource within the APE:

A. The World Trade Center Site, bounded by West, Liberty, Church, and Vesey Streets. National Register eligible; and

WHEREAS, FTA, in consultation with SHPO, has determined that the Project will have adverse effects on the following Historic Properties within the APE:

A. Corbin Building, 192 Broadway, listed on the National Register of Historic Places;

B. Fulton Street IRT Station, Fulton Street at Broadway, National Register-eligible;

C. The Former AT&T Building, 195 Broadway, National Register-eligible;

D. Bennett Building, 139 Fulton Street, National Register-eligible as part of the John Street/Maiden Lane Historic District and New York City Landmark;

E. The former East River Savings Bank, 26 Cortlandt Street at Church Street, National Register- eligible;

- 2 - Legend Park Place Approximate Project Location Boundary

adway

APE for Historic Resources ro

B

Barclay Street

Row Vesey Street Park

Ann Street Street m

a

Willi Fulton WTC Street Site

Street

u

a John Street

Nass

Cortlandt A

9 Street Maiden

Street Lane

e t u o R

Church Liberty Street ,. Fulton Street Transit Center Cedar Street Area of Potential Effect (APE) Thames Street for Historic Resources 0 50 100 200 300 400 Feet Figure 1A Source: NYCE Map GIS y

a

w

d

a

o

r

B Ann S treet

Fulton S treet

Dey S treet

J o hn S treet

t

e KEY e r

t C C ortlandt S treet S

u Area of Potential for Archaeology Maiden L a a ne s

s

a

Structures in the APE N

Building vaults in the APE

t

e

e

r Subway facilities in the APE ,.t

S

m

Historic building footprints a i

l Fulton Streetl Transit Center i

Sewers in the APE W Archaeological Area of Archaeological APE Potential Effect (APE) including Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity 0 50 100 200 300 400 lA PE Source: NYCEMap GIS Feet F39 igure 1B Source: NYCE Map GIS

F. John Street/Maiden Lane Historic District, roughly bounded by John and Fulton Streets to the north, Liberty Street to the south, Broadway to the west and Dutch and Nassau Streets to the east, National Register-eligible; and

G. St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard, 162 Fulton Street, National Historic Landmark and New York City Landmark; and

H. The Keuffel Esser Building, 127 Fulton Street, eligible for NYC Landmark designation; and

I. Royal Insurance Building, 150 William Street, eligible for NYC Landmark designation; and

WHEREAS, FTA in consultation with SHPO have determined that the Project has the potential to have adverse effects to archaeological resources within areas identified in the final EIS as having archaeological potential (Figure 1B); and

WHEREAS, based upon the achievement of project purpose and need, as well as public support for the project, Alternative 10, which incorporates the Corbin Building in the design, was selected as the “Preferred Alternative”. However, the interior and subsurface conditions of the Corbin Building remain unknown. Therefore, until these factors are resolved through final engineering investigations, Alternative 9 and Alternative 10 remain under consideration and the project impacts of each alternative are discussed separately below; and

WHEREAS, this Agreement was developed with appropriate public involvement (pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d) and 800.6(a)) coordinated with the scoping, public review and comment, and public hearings conducted to comply with NEPA and its implementing regulations; and

WHEREAS, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), consisting of several federal, state and local governmental agencies, began meeting on April 14, 2003, and was established to keep agencies informed about the Project and to solicit input from those agencies as the environmental review and design of the Project progresses; and

WHEREAS, NYCT engaged in a community outreach and public participation program, which included the TAC and Community Board 1 and held five (5) meetings to solicit input on the Project and give the public the opportunity to review the Project plans as they progressed, including consideration of historic resources; and

WHEREAS, NYCT sought guidance and comment on the Project design with stakeholder organizations such as the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, American Planning Association, Alliance for Downtown New York and the Real Estate Board of New York; and

WHEREAS, the public was provided the opportunity to comment on the Project and the following Project documents, and the public will hereafter be provided with further opportunities to comment on the project pursuant to Section IX of this Agreement:

1. Scoping document for the preparation of an EIS for the Project pursuant to NEPA and its implementing regulations;

2. Draft EIS for the Project, dated May 2004, prepared pursuant to NEPA; and

- 3 - 3. Final EIS for the Project prepared pursuant to NEPA; and

WHEREAS, in addition to the above, the Project was the subject of public meetings and hearings on the draft scoping document, and the draft EIS prepared pursuant to NEPA; and

WHEREAS, NYCT will ensure that the Project will be planned, developed, constructed, implemented and executed in a manner consistent with the recommended approaches contained in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1992) where feasible. NYCT will ensure that all final archaeological reports are consistent with the New York Archaeological Council’s Standards (NYAC) for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York State and to the Department of the Interior’s Format Standards for Final Reports of Data Recovery Program (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Standards”); and

WHEREAS, the Lower Manhattan Construction Coordination Group, (LMCCG), consisting of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York State Department of Transportation, the MTA, and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, has met and will continue to meet to ensure that the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects minimize project impacts, coordinate the work of the participants, institute and implement construction coordination protocols and requirements, and mediate conflicts in schedules, including street and site access among the construction projects; and

WHEREAS, where construction activities of overlapping projects have the potential to affect historic resources, LMCCG will implement coordination measures, which will include meetings as well as coordinated construction schedules. Meetings on historic effects will be held prior to and during construction.

NOW, THEREFORE, FTA, SHPO, ACHP and NYCT agree that the implementation of the undertaking covered by this Agreement shall take into account effects on historic properties and shall be administered in accordance with the following stipulations to avoid, mitigate and minimize adverse effects to satisfy FTA and NYCT’s Section 106 responsibilities.

STIPULATIONS

FTA, as the Federal lead agency, remains responsible for the implementation of the terms of this Agreement and will require, as a condition of any approval of Federal funding for the Project, adherence to the stipulations set forth herein. NYCT, the project sponsor, will have the lead in the implementation of each stipulation unless otherwise noted in the stipulation.

I. CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT TEAM

A. QUALIFICATIONS

1. NYCT’s design team will include a qualified Cultural Resources Management Team (hereinafter cited as CRM) for the Project, which shall be comprised of a team of personnel, including a historic preservation architect and archaeologist meeting The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR 61 Appendix A) (hereinafter cited as “Qualifications”) with appropriate experience and background in Historic Properties (including both Built Properties and Archeological Resources).

- 4 - 2. CRM members must meet qualifications pertaining to Built Properties or Archaeological Resources depending on their assignment (e.g., a CRM member advising or consulting on archaeology must meet the qualifications pertaining to archaeological resources).

B. DUTIES

1. Prior to construction, NYCT will retain a CRM throughout the period of design and active construction that might impact historical or archeological resources or as otherwise agreed to by the NYCT and the SHPO.

2. The CRM will establish a single point of contact for Built Properties and Archaeological Resources.

3. The CRM will be required to assist in the resolution of disputes that may be brought by the public during the review of preliminary plans.

4. The CRM will be required to assist NYCT and the FTA in the preparation of status reports related to historic preservation issues.

5. The CRM will be on-site at all times when there is a potential for Historic Properties (including both Built Properties and Archeological Resources) to be affected by the construction and will undertake responsibility to monitor all construction activities that may affect historic resources.

6. For archaeological resources, the CRM will be on-site for all excavation activities throughout the areas of archaeological sensitivity, as identified within the Fulton Street Transit Center Phase 1A Archaeological Assessment.

7. The CRM will obtain, review, and hold on site, the Fulton Street Transit Center Phase 1A Archaeological Assessment and any documents for historic built properties that may be affected by the Project. The CRM will also have on file at the project site detailed maps that indicate areas of potential archaeological sensitivity.

8. The CRM will brief the on-site contractor of the stipulations outlined in this Agreement and any documents that pertain to the protection of historic resources. A requirement to cooperate with the CRM and inspector will be included in all design and construction contracts related to the Project.

9. The Contractor for the Project shall follow the protocol outlined in this Agreement to ensure that the necessary engineering and scientific methods, practices, procedures and resources essential to be employed throughout the design and construction will conform with the applicable requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, New York State Historic Preservation Office and New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

- 5 - II. CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN

A. Prior to construction, NYCT will develop and implement a Construction Environmental Protection Plan (“CEPP”) to avoid construction impacts on potentially vulnerable historic buildings within 90 feet of the construction activities.

B. The CEPP will provide provisions that the CRM will follow to evaluate potential adverse effects on historic properties.

C. The CEPP will require special provisions for the Corbin Building and Dennison Building, a contributing property within the John Street/Maiden Lane Historic District, because the buildings directly abut the area on which deconstruction and construction would occur and are physically attached to buildings that would be removed.

D. The CEPP would include protective measures such as monitoring of historic buildings during construction to detect vibration or other physical impact.

E. SHPO, LPC and LMEPF and building owners will be provided the preliminary CEPP for their review prior to any construction or deconstruction activities.

F. The public will be provided an opportunity to review the preliminary CEPP on the Project website.

G. SHPO, LPC and LMEPF will respond within 10 calendar days after receipt of the CEPP. Should SHPO fail to respond within the 10 calendar day period, the CEPP will be deemed approved.

H. Once the document is approved, the document will be made available to the public on the Project website.

III. RECORDATION

A. Prior to construction or any deconstruction activities, the Corbin Building, and the entire Fulton Street IRT Station will be recorded in accordance with HABS/HAER Level II guidelines prior to any alteration of the building or station and prior to the demolition of adjacent buildings.

B. SHPO shall approve the recorded documentation within 10 calendar days.

C. If NYCT receives no response within the 10 calendar day period, the documentation will be deemed approved.

D. Upon approval by the SHPO, NYCT will deposit the documentation of the building in the following repositories: (a) New York Historical Society; (b) New York City Public Library; and (c) two copies to SHPO for archival storage in the Field Service Bureau and the New York State Archives.

E. The SHPO and the repositories must accept the building documentation within 10 calendar days before any alteration of the building is made.

- 6 -

F. If NYCT receives no response within the 10 calendar day period, the documentation will be deemed accepted.

G. Because the nature of the construction impacts are anticipated to be less extensive, NYCT will record the exterior, and if the permission of the building owner, and tenant, if necessary, the interior condition of the former AT&T Building, the Bennett Building, St. Paul’s Chapel and Graveyard, the former East River Savings Bank, the Keuffel Esser and Royal Insurance Buildings, by taking a color photo record.

H. NYCT will maintain the record and will forward two copies to SHPO.

IV. REPAIRS

A. NYCT will conduct an assessment of historic buildings to determine the potential for excessive ground movement, which may require vibration monitoring.

B. A visual survey will be conducted prior to construction to establish baseline conditions.

C. Property owners will have a period of 12 months following the completion of construction to file a claim with NYCT for property damage as it affects the structure’s historic integrity allegedly caused by the Project.

D. Property Owners will be advised of their rights to make claims by written notice or on the Project website.

E. In the event of damage to a historic structure, claims will be directed to the CRM. NYCT will respond to the claim within 45 calendar days from the receipt of the complaint.

F. After an investigation, if NYCT determines that damage to the property was caused by NYCT construction activities, NYCT, after consultation with the SHPO, will repair damage to historic structures that is reasonably attributable to Project activities.

V. RESOLUTION OF EFFECTS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES: BUILT PROPERTIES

A. CORBIN BUILDING

Based on currently available engineering information, both Alternative 9 and Alternative 10, the Preferred Alternative, would be feasible, although Alternative 10 will require more extensive structural support. Two key issues require further evaluation prior to assessing the feasibility of Alternative 10: structural integrity and subsurface conditions. Final engineering investigations will be conducted prior to construction to determine the structural integrity and subsurface conditions of the building. If unanticipated engineering conditions are discovered, NYCT will assess the feasibility of constructing Alternative 10. Should the construction of Alternative 10 prove infeasible, Alternative 9 will be advanced.

- 7 -

Alternative 9

If this alternative were advanced, NYCT will undertake demolition and construction activities adjacent to the north wall of the Corbin Building. In order to avoid, minimize or mitigate extensive damage to the building:

1. Prior to deconstruction and construction activities, NYCT will construct a subsurface retaining or secant pile wall to protect the Corbin Building’s foundations.

2. In the event of any unanticipated ground movements during excavation, prior to construction, NYCT will perform an investigation to determine whether additional protective measures requiring building stabilization will be necessary to protect the building.

3. Any alterations of the building will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3(b)), where practicable as agreed per consultation with SHPO.

4. In the event that NYCT undertakes to underpin or compensation grout the foundations of the Corbin Building, NYCT will consult with SHPO prior to any work performed for SHPO’s approval.

5. Design plans for any alteration or rehabilitation to the building will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, LPC and LMEPF and, if applicable, the building owner, and submitted at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for comment and SHPO approval.

6. Relevant and appropriate design plans and specifications will be made available to the public at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for review via the Project website.

7. If SHPO, LPC or LMEPF make substantive comments during the pre-final design review, SHPO may request the opportunity to approve the final design.

8. SHPO will respond within 21 calendar days or earlier of the presentation of the design plans at each stage of completion.

9. Should SHPO fail to comment within 21 calendar days after receipt of plans and specifications, the submitted plans and specifications shall be deemed approved.

Preferred Alternative - Alternative 10

This alternative would structurally and operationally link the proposed Fulton Street Transit Center’s main entry facility with the Corbin Building, and will adversely affect the interior and exterior of the ground floor, upper levels and subsurface levels of the building. If this alternative were to be advanced, NYCT would take the following actions:

1. A historic section of the building foundation or structural members will be displayed in place for public viewing. An interpretive display at that location will include information about the role of the building in the development of New York City skyscrapers and the

- 8 - characteristics of the foundation or structure that were unique at the time of the building's construction and made skyscrapers possible. Design plans for this display will be presented to SHPO, LPC and LMEPF for comment and SHPO approval prior to any construction. SHPO, LPC and LMEPF will respond within 21 calendar days or earlier of presentation. If SHPO fails to respond within the 21 calendar day period, the design plans will be deemed approved.

2. The alterations of the building will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3(b)), where practicable as agreed per consultation with SHPO.

3. Design plans for each of the alterations to the building and rehabilitations of the building will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, LPC and LMEPF and submitted at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for comment and SHPO approval.

4. Relevant and appropriate design plans and specifications will be made available to the public at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completions stages for review via the Project website.

5. If SHPO, LPC or LMEPF make substantive comments during the pre-final design review, SHPO may request the opportunity to approve the final design.

6. SHPO will respond within 21 calendar days or earlier of the presentation of the design plans at each stage of completion.

7. Should SHPO fail to comment within 21 calendar days after receipt of plans and specifications, the submitted plans and specifications shall be deemed approved.

B. FULTON STREET IRT STATION

NYCT will relocate the wall behind the control booth at the Dey Street entrance and the subway entrance at the south side of Dey Street to an access plaza at the site formerly called 189 Broadway. The Project also will require new openings in the existing northbound platform wall at the north and south ends of the platform, within the existing southbound platform wall between the Fulton and Dey Street entrances, and at the south end of the southbound platform.

To take adverse effects into account, NYCT will take the following actions:

1. The alterations of the station will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3(b)), where practicable as agreed per consultation with SHPO. In particular, the historic wall and tile work will be preserved in place to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the Project plan.

2. Design plans for the alterations to the station will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, LPC, LMEPF and submitted at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for comment and SHPO approval.

- 9 - 3. Relevant and appropriate design plans and specifications will be made available at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for public review via the Project website.

4. If SHPO, LPC or LMEPF make substantive comments during the pre-final design review, SHPO may request the opportunity to approve the final design.

5. SHPO, LPC and LMEPF will respond within 21 calendar days or earlier of the presentation of the design plans at each stage of completion.

6. If SHPO fails to respond within the 21 calendar day period, the design plans shall be deemed approved.

7. The sections of historic tile work that must be removed will be removed in such a way that the tiles are not destroyed except at the edges of the removed wall section. The wall sections containing the tiles can be displayed in or incorporated into other new sections of the Project or into new subway stations (e.g., those on Second Avenue or at South Ferry) or other location approved by SHPO.

8. NYCT will store the tile wall sections until they can be so used. Plans for the re-use of the wall sections, to whatever extent reasonably practicable, including a schedule, will be presented to SHPO, LPC and LMEPF for comment and SHPO approval.

9. To the extent not practicable for re-use, tile wall sections will be made available to the New York City Transit Museum or salvaged to interested parties.

10. SHPO, LPC and LMEPF will respond within 21 calendar days or earlier of the presentation of a plan to display the tiles.

11. Should SHPO fail to comment within 21 calendar days after receipt of plans and specifications, the submitted plans and specifications shall be deemed approved.

12. NYCT will implement the approved plan in accordance with the Project's schedule.

C. THE FORMER AT&T BUILDING

The project will require the construction of a new set of escalators and stairs within the sub- grade levels of this building, which will link the Entry Facility with the southbound 4 and 5 Fulton Street Station platform. The project will require space within and access to portions of three basement levels in the former AT&T Building, a property eligible for listing on the National Register.

To take these effects into account, NYCT will take the following actions:

1. The alterations of the building will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3), where practicable as agreed per consultation with SHPO.

2. Design plans for each of the alterations to the building and rehabilitations of the building will be developed in consultation with SHPO and submitted to the SHPO, LPC, LMEPF

- 10 - and the building owner at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for comment and SHPO approval.

3. Relevant and appropriate design plans and specifications will be made available at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for public review via the Project website.

4. If SHPO, LPC, LMEPF or the building owner make substantive comments during the pre-final design review, SHPO may request the opportunity to approve final design.

5. SHPO, LPC, LMEPF and the building owner will respond within 21 calendar days or earlier of the presentation of the design plans at each stage of completion.

6. Should SHPO fail to comment within 21 calendar days after receipt of plans and specifications, the submitted plans and specifications shall be deemed approved.

D. BENNETT BUILDING, ST. PAUL’s CHAPEL and KEUFFEL ESSER BUILDING

Demolition and construction activities for the A/C mezzanine widening will occur adjacent to these buildings. A subsurface retaining or secant pile wall may be constructed to protect the building’s foundations. Additional protective measures requiring building stabilization may be necessary to protect the building in the event of any unplanned ground movement during excavation.

To take these effects in account, NYCT will take the following actions:

1. Any alterations of the buildings will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3(b)), where practicable as agreed per consultation with SHPO.

2. In the event that NYCT undertakes to underpin or compensation grout the foundations of the Bennett Building, St. Paul’s Chapel or Keuffel Esser Building, NYCT will consult with SHPO, LPC, LMEPF and the building owner prior to work performance.

3. Design plans for any alteration or rehabilitation to the building(s) will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, LPC, LMEPF, and the building owner and submitted at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for comment and SHPO approval.

4. In the event that a structural alteration or rehabilitation is required for St. Paul’s Chapel, the NPS will be provided design plans at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for comment and approval.

5. Relevant and appropriate design plans and specifications will be made available at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for public review via the Project website.

6. If SHPO, LPC, LMEPF, the building owner or NPS, in regard to St. Paul’s Chapel, make substantive comments during the pre-final design review, SHPO may request the opportunity to approve the final design.

- 11 - 7. SHPO, NPS, LPC, LMEPF and the building owner will respond within 21 calendar days or earlier of the presentation of the design plans at each stage of completion.

8. Should SHPO or NPS, in regard to St. Paul’s Chapel, fail to comment within 21 calendar days after receipt of plans and specifications, the submitted plans and specifications shall be deemed approved.

E. ROYAL INSURANCE BUILDING

The Project will require a new street entrance, which will require a new switch back stair from the north mezzanine of the 2/3 Station to William Street. It is anticipated that some of the historical features on the building will be affected.

To take these effects into account, NYCT will take the following actions:

1. The alterations of the building will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3(b)), where practicable as agreed per consultation with SHPO.

2. Design plans for each of the alterations to the building and rehabilitations of the building will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, LPC, LMEPF and the building owner and submitted at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for comment and SHPO approval.

3. Relevant and appropriate design plans and specifications will be made available at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for public review via the Project website.

4. If SHPO, LPC, LMEPF or the building owner make substantive comments during the pre-final design review, SHPO may request the opportunity to approve the final design.

5. SHPO, LPC, LMEPF and the building owner will respond within 21 calendar days or earlier of the presentation of the design plans at each stage of completion.

6. Should SHPO fail to comment within 21 calendar days after receipt of plans and specifications, the submitted plans and specifications shall be deemed approved.

F. FORMER EAST RIVER SAVINGS BANK, JOHN STREET/MAIDEN LANE HISTORIC DISTRICT (Construction Effects)

The project will require extensive belowground excavation and construction, including, but not limited to, excavations for the new Dey Street Passageway and the widening of the A/C mezzanine. The project will also require demolition, excavation and foundation work for the Entry Facility building and the new Dey Street Access Plaza. Construction and demolition activities resulting in ground vibration or changes to existing subsurface characteristics could adversely effect historic properties adjacent to the project.

To take these adverse effects into account, NYCT will take the following actions:

1. NYCT will record the exterior and, if the permission of the building owner, and, if necessary, the tenant is received, the interior condition of the building, by taking a color

- 12 - photo record. NYCT or its consultant will maintain this record and will forward two copies to SHPO within 10 calendar days of recordation. Any damage due to NYCT’s construction activities will be repaired as per the provisions stated in Stipulation IV.

G. JOHN STREET/MAIDEN LANE HISTORIC DISTRICT, CORBIN BUILDING, AT&T BUILDING, BENNETT BUILDING, ST. PAUL’S CHAPEL (Visual Effects)

The Project will require the construction of the Fulton Street Transit Center entry building on Broadway and Fulton Street. This structure will introduce new architectural elements into the existing setting of the proposed John Street – Maiden Lane Historic District, Corbin Building, AT&T Building, Bennett Building, and St. Paul’s Chapel. The Design approach for the new Entry Facility is, and would continue to be, receptive to and committed to achieving a design that respects the historic properties around it.

To avoid adverse affects, NYCT will take the following actions:

1. The Entry Facility will be developed in accordance with the Standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR 68.3(b)), where practicable as agreed per consultation with SHPO, so as to avoid the introduction of visual elements that would be incompatible with the significant features of the historic structures within APE.

2. Design plans for the Entry Facility will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, LPC, and LMEPF and submitted at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for comment and SHPO approval.

3. Relevant and appropriate design plans and specifications will be made available at the preliminary (35%) and pre-final (75%) completion stages for public review via the Project website.

4. If SHPO, LPC, LMEPF make substantive comments during the pre-final design review, SHPO may request the opportunity to approve final design.

5. SHPO, LPC, LMEPF will respond within 21 calendar days or earlier of the presentation of the design plans at each stage of completion.

6. Should SHPO fail to comment within 21 calendar days after receipt of plans and specifications, the submitted plans and specifications shall be deemed approved.

VI. RESOLUTION OF EFFECTS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The final EIS, prepared under NEPA, identified areas that may possess archaeological potential within the Project’s archaeological Area of Potential Effect (“APE”), annexed hereto as Figure 1B, “Archaeological Area of Potential Effect including Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity”. The following measures will be implemented for all areas that NYCT, the CRM or FTA, in consultation with SHPO, identify as possessing archaeological potential and where construction activities will occur.

- 13 - A. AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY

1. Monitoring

a) Archaeological monitoring of excavations within the areas of archaeological sensitivity will be followed for the Project.

b) Monitoring will be conducted by the CRM to ensure that all archaeological resources encountered are protected from impacts until they have been properly assessed and addressed including mitigation measures or avoidance as appropriate.

c) The CRM and a NYCT engineer will be present to monitor the excavation during all ground intrusive activities within the areas of archaeological sensitivity.

d) To ensure real-time communication among the contractor, NYCT Engineer and CRM, a NYCT Engineer will be assigned to inspect the same location concurrently with the CRM.

e) All monitoring conducted by the CRM and all hand excavation of archaeological deposits by the CRM will follow the standards established by LPC, the New York Archaeological Council (NYAC) and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716).

2. Documentation Protocol

If archaeological resources are exposed during monitoring, the following protocol, detailing how such resources will be documented during construction, will be followed:

a) The CRM will communicate to the NYCT Engineer that excavations must cease, without compromising worker safety.

b) The CRM will then inspect the archaeological resource by entering the excavation area, clearing away any loose soil (with hand tools) to fully expose the archaeological resource, clearing the profile closest to the archaeological resource and collecting any archaeological material in association with the archaeological resource.

c) The archaeological resource may also be drawn or photographed.

d) Inspection of the archaeological resource will require a minimum of 30 minutes.

e) If, at the end of the inspection of the archaeological resource, the CRM determines that additional time is required to evaluate the archaeological resource, the steps outlines in Appendix A – Archaeological Discovery Plan will be followed.

- 14 -

3. Disposition of Archaeological Material

a) Once the archaeological resource has been drawn and/or photographed, it may be removed from the excavation area.

b) If the archaeological resource is large (e.g., a large historic infrastructure line) and requires the use of heavy machinery to lift it out of the excavation area, the CRM will request (through the NYCT Engineer) the assistance of the contractor to remove the object.

c) The contractor will not excavate the archaeological resource except for providing assistance in lifting heavy items from the excavation area.

d) If remnants of log water mains from the Manhattan Company are exposed, the CRM will contact Deputy Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water and Sewers Operations to remove and store the log water mains specimen.

B. WORK OUTSIDE THE AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY

1. When work is conducted in areas outside the areas of archaeological sensitivity, archaeological monitoring will not be followed.

2. The CRM will not monitor work outside the areas of archaeological sensitivity, but rather, the CRM will be on-call and available to inspect any archaeological resources identified in areas outside the areas of archaeological sensitivity.

3. While the final EIS describes areas where construction will occur, it is possible that additional effects on archaeological resources than those described in the final EIS may occur. In addition, it is possible that a change in the Project may affect areas that have not previously been assessed for archaeological sensitivity. In these areas, NYCT will take the following actions:

a) For any change that would involve subsurface construction and whose effects have not been analyzed, and for any new information about archaeological effects that comes to light during construction, the effects on archaeologically sensitive areas within the APE will be assessed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800.4).

b) NYCT will consult with SHPO, LPC and LMEPF to identify areas of potential archaeological sensitivity and to assess project effects. This consultation will take place as soon as deposits are encountered within areas already identified for construction, or as soon as design modifications are proposed for areas that have not previously been considered.

c) SHPO, LPC and LMEPF will provide comments regarding such newly defined areas within 14 calendar days of receiving information to assess.

- 15 - d) If SHPO, LPC or LMEPF fail to respond within the 14 calendar day period, the newly defined area will be included in the Project’s APE for archaeological resources.

C. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY DURING CONSTRUCTION

An unanticipated discovery is one that occurs outside the “Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity Within the Project Area.” NYCT has developed steps that will be followed in the event that any unanticipated archaeological and/or human remains are encountered during construction of the Project. These steps are as set forth in Appendix A and are in accordance with the current Standards.

D. REPORTING/DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS AND CURATION OF COLLECTION

1. As outlined in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservations’ Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information from Archeological Sites, NYCT will disseminate the results of archaeological investigations to professional peers and to the local community and the public to mitigate adverse effects to archaeological properties.

2. NYCT will disseminate the results of archaeological discoveries as appropriate to the deposits identified.

3. Consultation with the SHPO, LPC and LMEPF will be used to establish the scope of appropriate dissemination efforts.

4. Curation of archaeological collections will be an important component of any work undertaken. Collection agreements will be made with appropriate institutions that insure the preservation of the collections and provide access to them in perpetuity. NYCT will make the appropriate arrangements with acceptable institutions in consultation with LPC, LMEPF and the SHPO.

VII. CHANGES IN PROJECT EFFECTS

A. NYCT’s Principal Architect will immediately notify SHPO if it appears that the Project will adversely affect previously unidentified Historic Properties or a known Historic Property in an unanticipated manner.

B. NYCT will stop construction in the vicinity of the affected historic resource and will take reasonable measures to avoid and minimize harm to the resource until SHPO and NYCT have jointly determined an appropriate treatment or mitigation plan. NYCT shall initiate implementation of such treatment or mitigation plans within 21 calendar days.

C. NYCT may perform additional measures to secure the jobsite if it determines that unfinished work in the vicinity of the affected resource will cause major safety or security concerns.

- 16 - D. Treatment Plans or Data Recovery Plans will be reviewed by SHPO within 14 calendar days of notification and comments returned to NYCT for revisions or action as appropriate.

E. If NYCT and SHPO cannot agree on an appropriate course of action, the dispute resolution process below will be followed.

VIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

A. In the event SHPO objects to any plan or report presented pursuant to this Agreement within 21 calendar days of its receipt or within such other time frame specified in this Agreement, FTA will consult further with SHPO to seek resolution. If FTA objects to any plans, specifications, or actions, FTA will consult further with the other parties to seek resolution. If FTA determines within 14 calendar days of receipt of an objection that the objection cannot be resolved, FTA will invite the ACHP to review all documentation relevant to the dispute, including FTA’s proposed resolution to an objection. ACHP will provide its comments to FTA within 45 calendar days. FTA will then take these comments into account in reaching a final decision concerning the dispute. If ACHP fails to respond within the 45 calendar day period, then FTA will assume that ACHP has no comment and proceed with its final decision.

B. Any recommendation or comment by the ACHP will pertain only to the subject of the dispute. The responsibility of the signatories to implement all actions pursuant to this Agreement that are not subject to the dispute will remain unchanged.

IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

A Public Involvement Plan will be developed immediately by NYCT after the issuance of the Record of Decision for the Project to educate the public about the Project; provide a forum for gathering information in order to avoid or reduce potential impacts; identify and resolve public issues and concerns as they arise, and provide the public the opportunity to share their perspectives in order to help shape the results of the design process. Methods for maintaining ongoing communications with the public used will include the MTA website; newsletters; fact sheets; reports on specific concerns; e-mail distribution; mailing lists; and publicly displayed information boards and media coverage. A summary overview of the project, by written notice, will be available in subway stations throughout the study area. This information will be periodically updated and made available to the public. In addition, interested parties, upon request will be provided access to pertinent reports and the opportunities to meet with MTA representatives to discuss the project. The anticipated target audiences in addition to interested citizens and transit users will include preservationists; elected officials; community boards; community-based organizations; local businesses and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs); residents of study area; private professional/technical/business associations/groups; and, urban planners, architects, transit planners, transit advocates and environmentalists.

- 17 -

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

If NYCT receives timely and substantive written public objections regarding the treatment of historic properties, or on the design of the new structure or, measures taken to implement the terms of this Agreement, NYCT will consult with the objector regarding such objections.

1. NYCT shall respond to the commenter within 30 calendar days to substantive written comments. If NYCT and the objector cannot resolve the matter, or the matter is such that NYCT believes SHPO involvement is appropriate, NYCT shall notify SHPO and provide copies of the objection, and SHPO, as appropriate, shall advise NYCT of measures, if any, that could resolve the matter.

2. If NYCT and SHPO cannot resolve the matter and SHPO determines that, in the absence of such resolution, there would be an adverse effect on the historic resource, SHPO shall consult with FTA and ACHP, as appropriate.

X. REPORTING/ MONITORING

NYCT, in consultation with the CRM, will submit semi-annual status reports to the SHPO, LPC and LMEPF summarizing how the stipulations of this Agreement are being met as well as any other significant issues of concern. This report will also be made available to the public on the Project website. SHPO, LPC, LMEPF may monitor activities carried out pursuant to this Agreement at their discretion. NYCT will cooperate with SHPO, LPC and LMEPF with respect to such monitoring activities.

XI. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT

This Agreement shall remain in force for five years after completion of construction (closeout of project) unless the NYCT, FTA, SHPO and ACHP agree otherwise, in accordance with Stipulation XII or XIII.

XII. AMENDMENT

Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, any signatory to this Agreement may request that it be amended, whereupon the signatories and the consulting parties will consult to consider such amendment. Any amendment must be in writing and signed by FTA, SHPO, ACHP and NYCT to be effective.

XIII. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

This Agreement may be terminated at the request of any of the signatories to this Agreement, within 30 calendar days of written notification to the other signatories. In the event the Agreement is terminated, FTA and NYCT, in consultation with SHPO and ACHP, shall comply with 36 CFR Part 800 on a case by case basis for each proposed project activity within the APE.

- 18 -

For purposes of notices and consulting pursuant to this Agreement, the following addresses and contact information should be used for the following agencies:

MTA New York City Transit Thomas Fackelman, R.A. Principal Architect NYCT Capital Program Management 2 Broadway, 6th floor New York, NY 10004 Tel.: 646-252-4268 Fax: 646-252-4612

Federal Transit Administration Bernard Cohen Director, Lower Manhattan Recovery Office Federal Transit Administration One Bowling Green, Rm. 436 New York, NY 10004-1415 Tel.: 212-668-1770 Fax: 212-668-2505

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (SHPO) Ruth Pierpont Director New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island P.O. Box 189 Waterford, NY 12188-0189 Tel.: 518-237-8643, ext. 3269 Fax: 518-233-9049

New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Amanda Sutphin Director of Archaeology New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission 1 Centre Street, 9N New York, NY 10007 Tel.: 212-669-7823 Fax: 212-669-7818

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation John Fowler Director 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809 Old Post Office Building Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 606-8503

- 23 - Programmatic Agreement Contact Information cont’d

Ken Lustbader Preservation Consultant Lower Manhattan Emergency Preservation C/o New York Landmarks Conservancy 141 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (917) 848 1776

- 24 - APPENDIX A – Archaeological Discovery Plan I. DETERMINE THE TYPE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE A. Archaeological resources discovered within the identified areas of archaeological sensitivity will be initially assessed for their depositional integrity (context) as outlined in section VI. A. of the PA. If more time is required for evaluating the resource, then the CRM will initiate the anticipated archaeological resource plan (see Section II below). B. Archaeological resources to be considered as an unanticipated archaeological resource discovery and that require reporting to the CRM include, but are not limited to: a) any human remains, b) any features (historic infrastructure, building vaults) outside the identified areas of archaeological sensitivity, c) any artifacts (individual objects, specimens or physical evidence of prehistoric or historic human activity) outside the identified areas of archaeological sensitivity, and d) archaeological sites, defined by concentrations of archaeological artifacts that delineate the location of an event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself maintains historical or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. If an unanticipated archaeological resource is identified, the steps outlined in Section III below will be followed. II. INITIATE ANTICIPATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE DISCOVERY PLAN A. At the completion of an initial assessment (minimum of 30 minutes) of an identified archaeological resource or isolated artifacts to determine if they are part of a larger site or resource and more time is required for evaluation, the CRM will communicate to the NYCT Engineer to direct the contractor to flag or fence off the archaeological discovery location and direct the contractor to continue work in another portion of the project area. The Contractor will not restart work in the area of the identified archaeological resource until the NYCT Engineer has granted clearance, after receiving word from the CRM that the archaeological resource has been fully evaluated.

i B. The CRM will continue with the archaeological evaluation of the identified archaeological resource by conducting a Phase II Site Evaluation, to determine if the archaeological resource possesses depositional integrity and may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Archaeological sites can be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, but individual artifacts may not. The CRM will expose the archaeological resource (using hand tools), draw a plan view of the resource, photograph it, collect any archaeological material in association with the archaeological resource, section the resource (if appropriate), remove any large elements of the feature and draw the nearest soil profile (information will include Munsell soil color, matrix and a brief description of any associated artifacts). The contractor will assist the CRM with the removal of any large elements of the archaeological feature by providing the lifting capabilities of heavy machinery only. All other archaeological investigations will be conducted using hand tools by the CRM. All hand-excavated soils associated with this phase of work will be screened for archaeological resources. It is anticipated that the continued evaluation of the archaeological resource would require up to 16 hours beyond the initial minimum 30 minutes to inspect the resource. C. At the conclusion of the evaluation of the archaeological resource (Phase II Site Evaluation), the CRM will make a recommendation of eligibility for listing on the NRHP and submit the recommendation to SHPO for review and concurrence. If the identified archaeological resource is determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, the CRM will develop a data recovery plan (Phase III Mitigation plans) to mitigate the adverse effects of the project as outlined below. This plan will be developed in consultation with SHPO, and LPC comments on the plan should be sought as well. If the identified archaeological resource is not eligible for listing on the NRHP, then excavation by heavy machinery may resume. D. If archaeological data recovery is necessary, then a data recovery plan will be developed that balances the project (engineering, environmental and economic) and historic preservation concerns, while addressing specific research questions. All data recovery plans and documentation will adhere to the standards established by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716). Data recovery of archaeological resources may take the form of full-scale excavations, when excavations cover a large portion of the identified archaeological site and are hand-excavated by archaeologists. Heavy machinery is sometimes employed to remove fill layers and burdensome elements associated with the archaeological site. Data recovery excavations are designed to address specific research questions that are relevant to the history and/or prehistory of the project area and the excavations are controlled and precise.

ii E. In the event that a data recovery plan is required, the CRM will: 1.) prepare a description of the archaeological resource determined eligible for listing on the NRHP by the Phase II Site Evaluation, including the resource’s composition (stone, wood, metal, etc.), location within the area of excavation and known extent (both vertical and horizontal); 2.) provide photographs and profile drawings of the archaeological resource; 3.) describe the research questions that mitigation of the identified archaeological resource can address. It is anticipated that the CRM will prepare the data recovery plan for the identified archaeological resource within 2 business days following the completion of the Phase II Site Evaluation for the specific archaeological resource. NYCT will consult with SHPO, and LPC to ensure the completed data recovery plan is adequately developed to mitigate the archaeological resource and provides sufficient documentation of the archaeological resource’s NRHP-eligibility determination. It is anticipated that SHPO will concur with the data recovery plan within 2 business days upon receipt of the data recovery plan. The CRM will contact the SHPO directly to ensure SHPO’s receipt of the data recovery plan and SHPO’s two-business day review and concurrence period will commence upon verbal confirmation of SHPO’s receipt of the submitted data recovery plan. LPC will also be afforded the opportunity to comment on the submitted data recovery plan during SHPO’s two-business day review period. If SHPO does not concur within two business days, the CRM will assume SHPO approves the data recovery plan and the CRM will implement the data recovery plan, taking into account any comments received from LPC within the two business day review. If SHPO should not concur with the data recovery plan, NYCT will follow the dispute resolution process outlined in Stipulation VIII of the P.A. If SHPO responds within two business days with comments that require revising the data recovery plan, the CRM will revise the data recovery plan to incorporate the received comments and resubmit the revised data recovery plan to SHPO and LPC for SHPO’s concurrence within two business days (commencing upon verbal confirmation of SHPO’s receipt of the data recovery plan), during which time, LPC will be afforded the opportunity to comment on the revised data recovery plan. F. Data recovery of the identified archaeological resource can commence once SHPO has concurred with the data recovery plan and LPC has been afforded the opportunity to comment on the data recovery plan during the two business day review period by SHPO. Data recovery of the identified archaeological resource may take up to a maximum of three business days unless additional time is requested in the data recovery plan and agreed to by SHPO and depending upon the horizontal and vertical extent of the NRHP-eligible archaeological resource. G. At the completion of data recovery fieldwork, the CRM will direct the NYCT Engineer that construction may continue at the location of the mitigated archaeological resource. III. INITIATE UNANTICPATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE DISCOVERY PLAN

iii A. The Contractor will immediately notify the NYCT Engineer of an unanticipated discovery.

B. The NYCT Engineer will direct the contractor to flag or fence off the archaeological discovery location and direct the contractor to take measures to ensure site security. Any discovery made on a weekend will be protected until all appropriate parties are notified of the discovery. The Contractor will not restart work in the area of the identified archaeological resource until the NYCT Engineer has granted clearance. The NYCT Engineer will notify the CRM, who will undertake a site visit or otherwise coordinate an on-site archaeological consultation. The CRM will indicate the location and date of the discovery on the project plans.

C. The NYCT Engineer will direct the CRM to begin a more detailed assessment of the identified archaeological resource’s significance and the potential project effects, as outlined in Section II a-c.

D. NYCT will immediately notify FTA, SHPO and LPC of the identified archaeological resource.

The SHPO notification will either explain why the CRM believes the identified archaeological resource not to be significant and request approval for construction to proceed, or describe a proposed scope of work for evaluating the significance of the identified archaeological resource and evaluating project effects, as outlined in Section II d and e. All work to evaluate significance of the identified archaeological resource would be confined to the project’s archaeological APE. Prior to the implementation of any scope of work, SHPO concurrence would be required.

E. If the identified archaeological resource is determined to be significant, and continuing construction may damage the identified archaeological resource, then NYCT will consult with SHPO, LPC, and other appropriate parties regarding the proper measures for site treatment. These measures may include: i. Formal archaeological evaluation of the site; ii. Visits to the site by SHPO, NYCT, LPC and other parties; iii. Preparation of a mitigation plan by the CRM to be submitted to SHPO for their concurrence, and in consultation with LPC, and others as appropriate, as outlined in Section II e; iv. Implementation of the mitigation plan; and v. Approval to resume construction following completion of the fieldwork component of the mitigation plan.

F. If the identified archaeological resource is determined to be isolated or completely disturbed by prior construction activities, then the CRM will advise the NYCT Engineer to resume construction activities..

G. The CRM will notify the NYCT Engineer who will grant clearance to the Contractor to resume work.

iv

IV. PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW IN THE EVENT OF AN UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS

A. According to the Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations, Human Remains (New York Archaeological Council 1994) and the Landmarks Preservation Commission Guidelines for Archaeological Work in New York City, Section 7.0, Burials and Human Remains, the discovery of historic period human remains and/or objects of cultural patrimony1 require special consideration and care. As such, in the event that human remains and/or items of cultural patrimony are discovered during construction, they must at all times be treated with dignity and respect. B. The procedures as set forth in paragraph III. A, B, C, D, E, F and G will be followed in addition to IV. C and D. C. In addition to notifying SHPO, FTA, LPC and other appropriate parties, the NYCT Engineer will immediately notify the New York City Police and the Medical Examiner’s Office of the find and cooperate with the coroner’s office to notify, as required, the appropriate city law enforcement agencies.

D. If it is determined that interments are present and may be disturbed by continuing construction, then the CRM will consult with the next of kin or likely descendent community2 (if known and following 43 CFR Subtitle A, 10.5 – Consultation, if appropriate), SHPO, LPC, and other appropriate parties regarding additional measures to avoid or mitigate further damage. These measures may include: i. Formal archaeological evaluation of the site;

1 According to the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013), objects of cultural patrimony are defined as having "...ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual Native American, and which, therefore, cannot be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by any individual...(Sec. 2(3)(D)). The key provision in this definition is whether the property was of such central importance to the Tribe or group that it was owned communally. 2 Any known lineal descendants of the individual whose remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony have been or are likely to be excavated intentionally or discovered inadvertently; the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations that are likely to be culturally affiliated with the human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony that have been or are likely to be excavated intentionally or discovered inadvertently; the Indian tribes which aboriginally occupied the area in which the human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony have been or are likely to be excavated intentionally or discovered inadvertently; and the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations that have a demonstrated cultural relationship with the human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony that have been or are likely to be excavated intentionally or discovered inadvertently.

v ii. Visits to the site by SHPO, LPC, and other parties; iii. Preparation of a mitigation plan by the CRM, including procedures for avoidance or disinterment and reinterment, to be developed in consultation with LPC and others as appropriate and submitted to SHPO for their concurrence, as outlined in Section II e; iv. Implementation of the mitigation plan; and v. The CRM will issue approval to resume construction to the NYCT Engineer upon completion of the fieldwork component of the mitigation plan, after consulting with SHPO and LPC to communicate the completion of mitigation and receiving SHPO concurrence that the archaeological resource has been appropriately mitigated.

vi