Final environmental impact statement and the New York Coastal Management Program

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

State Of New York
Coastal Management
Program and
Final Environmental
Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
' 1i

- . --4,

I"'- .:' .

,. It

VOLUME
3
APPENDIX G

NEW YORK STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM

NEW YORK CITY

WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

AUGUST 1982

Note tCo
Readers
This volume of the New York State Coastal Management Program
contains the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program for New
York City which is presently undergoing review pursuant to
Section 197-a of the City's Charter. This local program was
included in Part 11, Section 10 of Volume I in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the State's Coastal
Management
Program.
The City's Waterfront Revitalization Program, which is to be
included as a component of the federally approved New York
State
Coastal Management Program, must be formally adopted by New
York
City and approved by the Secretary of State. Based upon the
review conducted by the Department of State, the Secretary
has
made a preliminary determination that New York City's
Waterfront
Revitalization Program, as contained in this volume of the
Final
Environmental Impact Statement, is approvable pursuant to
the
provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law.
Therefore, if the City's Waterfront Revitalization Program
is
adopted by New York City an or before September 30, 1982, it
will be included as part of the State's Coastal Management
Program which is expected to receive formal approval from
the
U.S. Department of Commerce by that date. If the City's
waterfront program is formally adopted by New York City
after
September 30, 1982, it will be considered as an amendment to
the State'-s Coastal Management Program. The City's Program
will
not, however, be subject to additional review by the State
or
the U.S. Department of Commerce unless substantial changes
are
made, since all the required processes to consider this
local
program as an amendment have been met in the EIS process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 - BOUNDARIES
Introduction------------------------- 5
Boundary Delineation�--------------------6
Future Changes
Status of New York City Waterfront Area Determinants --- 7
CHAPTER 3 - ORGANIZATION & IMPLEMENTATION
Introduction ------------------------14
City Planning Commission as City Coastal Commission-----15
Related Local Program Requirements
Land Use Review ---------------------16
Zoning Regulations�--------------------18
Review of Variances - -------------------18
City Environmental Quality Review - ------------19
Capital Needs Statement------------------20
CHAPTER 4 - WATERFRONT POLICIES
Int1.roduction-------------------------22
Issues
Development------------------------23
Fish and Wildlife---------------------29
Flooding and Erd~sion -------------------33
Public Access-----------------------35
Recreation Resources�-------------------37
Scenic Quality ----------------------39
Energy Development --------------------42
Water Resources----------------------50
Solid Waste Disposal�------------------59
Air Quality�-----------------------65
Program Policies�----------------------69
CHAPTER 5 - SPECIAL REVITALIZATION AREAS
Introduction�------------------------130
Special Revitalization Areas
Erosion/Flood Hazard Special Management Areas ------131
Shorefront Access Areas -----------------l321-
Areas of Particular Waterfront Significance -------135
APPENDIX A - MAJOR STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
APPENDIX B - FUTURE
APPROACHES

CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
Throughout New York's history, its waterfront has been key to the
City's growth and prosperity. The City's extensive
shoreline,
including fourteen bays, five rivers, two straits, and its large
sound
make it by far one of the best natural deep-water harbors in
the
world, with the potential for limitless recreational opportunities
for
residents and visitors alike. At one time, the fate of New York
and
its waterfront Were inseparable: as the port grew, the City grew.
In
fact, by the middle of the 19th century, the port of New York was
the
nation's premier port; and by the end of the century, the City was
the
nation's leading city.
Over the past 50 years, however, a number of forces have
significantly
altered the relationship of City to shoreline. Yet, in
most
instances, the City's waterfront policies have failed to reflect
the
changed realities, despite, the fact that they are as dramatic as
the
following:
- The core of the City replaced the waterfront as the provider of new
jobs.
As the City's economy shifted from a manufacturing to a service
base,
the focus on economic growth and development shifted inland to
the
midtown area. Since 1948, 282 major office buildings have
been
constructed adding 144 million square feet of space. ,By 1970, the
number of jobs in midtown Manhattan had grown to 1.3 million.
- Changes in the cargo shipping industry resulted in a massive shift
of
maritime activities from traditional waterfront locations.
Of the 4.8 million waterfront "hirings"* in the Port of New York
in
1958, 73 percent took place on New York City piers. Manhattan
alone
accounted for 37 percent of all hirings. By 1978, New York City's
share had fallen to 50 percent of the Port's two million hirings
that
year, with New Jersey piers accounting for the other 50 percent.
The
impact of this shift is most visible on the west side of
Manhattan
where, of the 36 piers owned by the City, 18 lie unused -- many in
dilapidated or burnt-out condition -- and only one of the 18 still
occupied is used for maritime purposes.
- Construction of a modern highway system and bridge and tunnel
network
severely limited water access.

*Employment figures for dock workers are measured in hirings.
Each
hiring represents one 9-hour day, worked by one longshoreman.

At the turn of the century, the Brooklyn Bridge was the only major
bridge traversing a New York waterway. Today, 24 major bridges
span
the City's waterways, and four tunnels carry vehicular traffic
beneath the City's two major rivers. Their miles of access roads
and
the 67 miles of modern highways -- some elevated, some at grade,
some
depressed -- now line nearly 30 percent of the City's waterfront.
- Expansion of public waterfront parks and beaches outpaced the
City's
capacity and ability to maintain them.
In 1933, New York City had only one mile of public beach. Today,
there are over 14 miles of public beach and some 60 public
waterfront
parks. Together they cover a total of 84 miles of shoreline or 40
percent of the City's waterfront. Based on the acreage devoted
to
these uses, experts estimate that the City should be investing
about
$100 million annually to properly maintain its parkland and
recreational facilities. In fiscal year 1981, only $60 million
was
available for capital investment in parks.

- The least desirable activities were assigned to the waterfront.

In 1928, nearly 40 percent of the City's waterfront was
undeveloped.
Today, less than five percent remains undeveloped. Since 1928,
the
City's two major airports were constructed; together they cover 11
miles of waterfront. In addition, 11 steam turbine and nine
gas
turbine electric generating plants were built at
waterfront
locations; 12 water pollution .control plants (with two
under
construction), nine refuse landfills, ten marine transfer
stations,
and four incinerators were developed along the shoreline.
- The City abused nature's capacity to cleanse itself and did not
respect the function of land in its natural state.
Many irreplaceable natural resources abounded in New York City at
the
turn of the century. Many have been destroyed and others
damaged
irreversibly. Through design, accident, and ignorance our
waters
have been polluted and our landscape desecrated. A vastly
increased
per capita use of goods and services and mismanagement of the
waste
they leave has severely degraded the urban environment.
Despite these major changes, the City's waterfront policies remained
locked in the old realities. Costly mistakes were made.
In the
mid-sixties, when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was
adapting its facilities to containerization (the modern
shipping
technology of moving cargo in large containers), the City's
Department
of Ports and Terminals continued to invest in break-bulk piers (the
traditional shipping technology which required little back-up space
for
storing containers) along the Manhattan waterfront: $34 million
was
spent on the Chelsea piers, $11 million for Pier 76, and $7.3
million
for Pier 36. Since they were completed in 1968, the Chelsea piers
were
2

used for maritime purposes for only a short time and now stand
vacant
and vandalized. Pier 76 is a parking lot for cars impounded by
the
police, and Pier 36 stands vacant.
Major opportunities were lost. As maritime uses along the
waterfront
declined, there was great resistance to replacing them with
permanent,
new uses. The City pursued a policy that allowed only the
least
desirable, low-grade uses on the shoreline. Consequently,
abandoned
piers were converted to parking lots and storage facilities of
every
kind. Only in a few instances was the City's downgrading of pier
uses
halted, and then only with extraordinary effort. For example, it
took
the developer of the River Cafe -- a highly successful waterfront
restaurant located beneath the Brooklyn Bridge -- 13 years to get the
necessary permits and approvals from the City-Is bureaucracy, even
though the pier was not being used.

The City's waterfront was taken for granted. An unwillingness
to
challenge traditional ways of thinking pervaded key decisions.
The
waterfront suffered serious neglect, to the point where an observer
approaching many parts of it today would not think of it as the
nation's leading port.
A new set of circumstances exists today, however, that is forcing
the
City to reexamine its relationship to the waterfront. Two
positive
forces are the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program and the New
York
State Waterfront Revitalizaton Program, both programs designed to
improve management of the area immediately surrounding the
land/water
interface.
New York State has been involved in the program and has now
completed a
draft Coastal Management program. It is designed to achieve a
balance
betwe'en the need to protect the State's valuable coastal
management
resources and the necessity for continued development in the
coastal
area.
New York City has also seized the opportunity provided by the Act
to
reexamine its waterfront policy and developed a
Waterfront
Revitalization Program in support of the State program. It
is the
first program designed to address urban waterfront problems
providing
the framework for future policy direction for the City's
waterfront.
The results of the planning phase led to the Waterfront
Revitalization
Program as detailed in this report. The Program identifies the
critical problems of the New York City waterfront. The problems,
however, were well known; anyone with long and concerned interests
on
this subject would have no trouble identifying them. But to
propose
solutions which b'alance the use, conservation and preservation of
the
waterfront area in order to optimize man's use through the long-
term
future, became a formidable task. The program contained herein
lays
the foundation to arrest and roll back the mistakes that have been
made
3

in the past and provides the framework to manage waterfront resources
in the public interest.
This report sets forth -New York City's Waterfront Revitalization
Program in response to the New York State Waterfront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act. The report is organized to demonstrate Federal
and State approvability. Chapter I provides a background and
introduction to New York City's Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Chapter II contains a description of the waterfront area, Chapter III
contains the proposed organizational structure and means for
implementing the program. Chapter IV contains New York City Program
policies and techniques to further implementation of New
York State
policies, and Chapter V contains the proposed Special Revitalization
Areas. Two appendices are also included. Appendix A includes the
major statutory and regulatory provisons for program implementation.
Appendix B discusses revising the New York City Zoning Resolution and
Building Code to incorporate waterfront revitalization guidelines.

THE NEW YORK CITY LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
New York City has also seized the opportunity provided by the Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) Act to reexami.ne its waterfront policy. In June
1978, the New York City Department of City Planning published the New
York City Regional Element of the New York State Coastal Zone
Management Plan. For the purposes of program preparation, New York
State divided its waterfront into five regions: New
York City,
Nassau-Suffolk, the St. Lawrence River - Eastern Lake Ontario area, the
Hudson River Valley and the Great Lakes West region. Regional reports
were prepared by subcontractors and the State and were used in the
preparation of the New York State Coastal Management Program. Many of
the recommendations included in the regional elements on policies,
boundaries, and implementation techniques have been incorporated into
the State Program. Other data are advisory in nature but will be used
to guide the development of local programs. Subsequently, New York
State offered local governments the option of submitting a Waterfront
Revitalization Program for approval. The approval would be based upon
consistency with New York State's program and a showing of technical
capability to carry out the local program. Once a locality's program
is approved, it would be eligible for a share of the funds made
available, subject to Congressional Appropriations, to the State, to
administer the program and the Federal consistency provision of the CZM
Act applicable to Federal actions would be in effect. In addition,
activities of State agencies would have to be consistent with the
approved local program.
It should be noted, that implementation of many of the recommendations
included herein are dependent upon receipt of adequate funds as is the
case with any new program. Since it is impossible to predict levels of
future authorizations and in the interest of presenting a comprehensive
picture of management needs, the assumption was made that adequate
funds would be forthcoming.
4

CHAPTER 1I:
BOUNDARIES
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose in defining a waterfront area boundary is to
assist
waterfront residents and property owners, resource users
and
governmental. entities in understanding the geographic scope of the
revitalization program and to assist them in determining whether,
where
and how they are affected by the program.
Application of Federal regulations offered as broad guidelines for
areas with diverse environmental, social and economic
characteristics
proved extremely complicated.
Planning and management of the often wasted waterfront resources
within
New York City required a special sensitivity to a range of
community
issues.-
Typical delineation criteria emanated from concern over
preservation of
rural areas and intrinsic natural areas. The criteria were modified
to
include the area where jurisdictional overlaps and existing zoning
ordinances are in conflict with sound environmental
management
practices. Modifications will be required as a consequence of
program
approval.
In other words, the New York City boundary is defined by
manageable
natural features, the specific person-water interface along
the
waterfront and the existing governmental jurisdiction which includes
the waterfront. Recognition has also been given to the content
and
interplay of physical, biological, social, psychological, and
economic
values concerning use of the waterfront area and that they are not
static.
The boundary defining the waterfront area in New York City extends
seaward to the pierhead line or property line, whichever extends
furthest seaward, and landward to the upland limit of remaining
natural
resources and selected Special Revitalization Areas.
The New York City Waterfront Area boundaries are coterminous with
the
State boundaries. A map of these boundaries is on file with
the
Secretary of State. This chapter of the New
York City Waterfront
Revitalization Program (WRP) reviews the status of Waterfront Area
Boundary determinants, provides a description of the area, and
discusses the relationship between the New York City and New York
State
Boundaries.
5

BOUNDARY
DELINEATION
The New York City Waterfront Area extends landward from the pierhead
line or property line, whichever extends furthest seaward, to the
upland limit of the following natural features, vital man-made
features, or selected Special Revitalization Areas:
- Flood Plains
- Steep Slopes
- High Water Table/Shallow Soils
- Significant Flora and Fauna
- Scenic Vistas
- Historic and Archeological Sites
- Parks and Beaches
- Tidal Wetlands
- Freshwater Wetlands
- Unique Flora and Fauna
- Special Revitalization Areas
� Areas of Particular Waterfront Significance
� Erosion/Floor Hazard Areas
� Shorefront Access Areas
* Special Zoning Districts
or:
- 300' landward of the Mean High Tide Line i n areas devoid
of those natural or vital features or Special
Revitalization Areas listed above and 'characterized as
developed.
- Landward to the first major man-made physical barrier in
areas devoid of those natural or vital features or Special
Revitalization Areas-listed above and characterized as
undeveloped.
After following the above guidelines, the area was adjusted landward
to the nearest legally mapped street as set forth in the Sectional
Maps of N ew York City, City of New York, New York City Planning
Commission, January 1975.

Exceptions
The Rockaway Peninsula, west from the Queens/Nassau borderline, Broad
Channel and City Island are included in their entirety in this zone
since only a narrow area running through their central spine would be
excluded if the rules above were strictly followed.
NOTE: Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands, historic structures and sites on
the National Register of Historic Places, State parks and existing and
potential power plant sites have been designated Statewide Generic
Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. Therefore, the New York City
Waterfront Area Boundary was adjusted to insure their inclusion.
6

FUTURE
CHANGES
The boundary determinants for the Waterfront Revitalization Act
have
been established. Changes in the delineations may occur in the
future
based on variations to specific delineation criteria as described
below. It is our opinion that few boundary changes will occur
since
the preliminary data were conservatively interpreted. However,
the
boundary is not intended or expected to remain static during the
implementation phase of the program. Changes can be effected at
any
time by the New York State Secretary of State, as prescribed by
rule
or regulation.

Status of New York City Waterfront Area Boundary Determinants

Flood Plains:

Flood plains information has been mapped by the Federal Insurance
Administration of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
to
aid localities in implementing the Federal Fl ood Insurance
Program.
These data, the 100-year floor level datum, as revised through
negotiations with New York City, were adopted for the purposes of
the
Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP). These maps are being
refined
which may necessitate boundary adjustments.

Steep Slopes:
New York City Department of City Planning has mapped steep slopes,
slopes with a gradient greater than 15%, from the most accurate
available topographic data for New York City. Information was
gleaned
from 1965-66 U.S. Geologic Survey Q~uadrangle topographic
separations.
There is a serious dearth of current, accurate data defining
existing
topography. As part of the refinement of the Flood Hazard Area
maps,
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and
the
Federal Flood Insurance Administration will produce topographic
maps
at two-foot contours, but only within the area covered by the
Federal
Flood Insurance Program. These and other data will be. used to
verify
the steep slope maps in the future.

It has become apparent that the type of soils data necessary to
establish accepted erosion and sedimentation control techniques
and to
establish standards for temporary erosion control
devices in
construction areas was not available for New York City.

Gathering of baseline data necessary to develop these controls is
a
major function of soil scientists in the Soil Conservation
Service,
7

U.S. Department of Agriculture. These data include soil wetness,
overflow hazards, hardpans, tight layers, erodibility, clay layers
that crack when dry and swell when wet, the hazard of slippage on
slopes and the classification of soils according to a natidnal
classification system.
The first step in becoming eligible for this service is to be
designated a Soil and Water Conservation District. New York City is
the only major urban area in the country without such a district. To
be designated a district involves a minor modification of the State
enabling legislation to specify who in New York City shall act as the
county legislative body in designating the district.
It is highly recommended that New York City be designated a Soil
Conservation District to immediately take advantage of the assistance
available from the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

High Water Table/Shallow Soils:
An extensive investigation of available data necessary to map areas of
high water table/shallow soils and to develop management strategies
was undertaken by Department of City Planning. Data exists within the
New York City Department of General Services, Division of Public
Structures in the form of boring logs de 'eloped for individual public
housing, sewer, highway, and other projects. The conversion of these
data to overlays of high water table/shallow soils consistent with the
WRP mapping system is possible, but was not within funding or manpower
capabilities available during the development phase of the New York
Waterfront Revitalization Program.

Significant Flora and Fauna:
Maps outlining various wildlife habitats throughout New York City have
been developed by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. These maps identify the location of the different
wildlife habitats indigenous to these areas.
The maps are preliminary and will require verification through field
checking.

Scenic Vistas:
The Department of City Planning conducted an aesthetic survey of the
waterfront area of New York City which yielded a list and evaluation
of viewsheds of significance. During this process, a methodology was
selected to further refine these results. This effort will continue
during future program years.
8

Historic and Archeological
Sites:
All sites and districts designated or being considered for de-
signation
by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, including
landmarks, interior landmarks, scenic landmarks, historic districts
and linear features (bridges, parkways), were mapped. After
mapping,
the boundaries of the waterfront area were adjusted to include
those
areas specifically related to the waterfront.
Sites included on the National Historic Register, designated as
generic New York State Special Management Areas, were included in a
similar fashion.
Extensive research was done to gather information on sites of
archeological 'significance. However, specific site boundaries
were
unavailable.

Parks and Beaches:
Parks and beach maps have been completed, showing both existing and
proposed sites.

Tidal Wetlands:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has
mapped
tidal wetlands pursuant to the Tidal Wetlands Act, New
York
Environmental Conservation Law, Article 25 (1973).
These data 'were adopted for the purposes of the
Waterfront
Revitalization Program.

Freshwater Wetlands:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has
developed preliminary maps of freshwater wetlands and is in the
process of field checking these results pursuant to the Freshwater
Wetlands Act, New York Environmental Conservation Law, Article 24
(1975).
These data, when finalized, will be adopted for the purposes of the
Waterfront Revitalization Program.

Unique Flora and Fauna:
The Department of City Planning has undertaken an extensive effort
to
develop an identification system for flora and fauna which relates
the
9

concepts, nomenclature and the accepted practices of the biological
disciplines to those of planners, designers and engineers who help
determine land uses, and to the routine activities and capabilities
of
the operating agencies responsible for planning and management.
Respecting these requirements, the unique flora identification
system
developed for the Waterfront Revitalization Program has three
stages:

Stage 1: Collection, assessment and integration of
existing
reports on flora for New York City.
Stage 2: Development of criteria for identification of flora
unique to an urban environment.
Stage 3: Development of techniques and guidelines for
integrating
flora into planning land uses and their management.
A consistent, comprehensive inventory of flora and fauna in New
York
City does not exist. Therefore, a list of species found in the City
was developed from many reports written over many years by different
authors. Although the data sources are not consistent, the
material
appears valid.
To correlate field reports, the Department of City Planning
developed
an integration system which facilitates use of flora in land use
planning management. This entails mapping of locations of
various
species after an updated ground verification and matching of field
reports against lists of species presented in l.aws and regulations
and
criteria of uniqueness.
The updated species mapping will be used to verify the preliminary
Significant Flora and Fauna (Fish and Wildlife Habitat) maps
produced
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
while
the location of species protected by various laws and/or meeting
uniqueness criteria of Stage 2 will be mapped as locations of unique
flora and fauna.

Special Revitalization Areas:
- Areas of Particular Waterfront Significance
Twelve areas were given preliminary designations during
the
planning phase of the Waterfront Revitalization Program.
After
intra-city and State review, this list was reduced to the
following:
Bronx - Bronx River Valley
8 rooklyn -Spring Creek
*Manhattan -Southwest Waterfront
*Queens - Eastern North Shore
- South Shore
- Northwest Waterfront
10

*Staten Island - South Richmond Natural Drainage Basins Area
- Fresh kills/Richmond Creek Drainage Basin
- Raritan Say
*City-wide - East River/Upper Bay
Revitalization plans for six of these areas have been
preliminarily
drafted. The remaining designated areas will be addressed in the
near future.

-Critical Erosion Areas
Department of City Planning has identified critically
eroding
areas within selected study areas of the New York City
waterfront area, both natural and physical.
Recommendations
are made regarding mitigation proposals and for future
planning
efforts (see Chapter V - Special Revitalization Areas -
Critical Erosion Areas). This work will be integrated with
the
proposed Statewide erosion hazard area planning process.

- Shorefront Access Areas
Department of City Planning has identified shorefront access
problem areas in the New York waterfront area.
Prototypical
study areas were chosen and studied in-depth.'
Recormmendations
are offered for resolution of existing problems~ and future
planning requirements are discussed (see Chapter V - Special
Revitalization Areas.
This work will be integrated with the proposed Waterfront
Revitalization Shorefront Access Planning Process.

-Special Zoning Districts
Because of their proximity to the waterfront or the direct
or
indirect impact of their special provisions on the New York
City waterfront land/water interface, the following Special
Zoning Districts were identified as waterfront area boundary
determinants:
� The Special Battery Park City District
� The Special Scenic View District
� The Riverdale Special Natural Area District
* The Special Staten Island Natural Area District
� The Special South Richmond Development District
* The Special Sheepshead Say District
� The Special South Street Seaport District
I
1
I

Figure 6

NEW YORK CITY ~ ~ 7
WNATERFRONT REVITALIZATION - '-~

UCRAF-r SOUNCARY ___ t /

~~~~~ - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

40~ ~~~~~~- e4

zw~~

Figtire 7

Uiiigcliiserl Ocean
Ui S PiertJaai Lisie Anyv PFemale owsiarisliaji
3 Miles 0Ow
12 Miles Dill
2Uit NI,:ir lso(aatl
. ......

,
- - - - - -
2 I
.' rzlzzzllzll, ............
BULKHEADED

I _11

-j

/ a
-
i

rzzzz/ezz/z -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~i
lIclec is 14ribe:
JUPISDICTION
IN V Geiacial I � 20410
Cot Zui...iy Juigidictun I

I I
1; N.Y.C. Chart-er �704 (c); D4lt.Wil P & T. Rule)I icil
I -City W-ittrleoot Jurisdiction (N.YV. General City L. j 20 181;313 N.Y.S. 2a 60)
.n.. Icru.,avrwer .iurisdic
jail tUbS. Constitutiont Aenviadment Xi
I I II
. I II
Guideline to,i Evieii ul piers (33
;CFO 1 328
--Aein trJcIiia u
(33 CF A1� 328)
Federli NaviqatiunJulisdiciion illS. Conci. Art)$n '3U& I0 g, 0-Ir CPCC.n. � g
I .- ... . - - - I ...~. Gnl ra .tC i jt- g gusgt. seq.. t3t%J.33C.tt 3291
Federal Interstate Commu Lere Jurisdicuion IU.S. Connil Anm I. C 8
I I - --- - . 5-
State NAanejaton Jurisdiction 133 U.SC. j 1312; N.Y. Stake L. 4 7-a'itt 11,11
I
-I- Federal Contliguous 20.10 Jurisidiction - Federal Resource Ju,ijediction
I� I 3novCovni,.c..ion:33u.Sie CSCr.mn.. -

St,t. Owimeiship 133i1

OWNERHPO
- .-- ~ MM oie
(Convention On Rho Cant. Shall, 33 US.C. �1
102)
- City Own.;
Lbongali Cli
rst.p -
0teri
UBMERGED LANDS
I S C. � 13)1 1 N.Y. Stale L. � I a 121)
I I . -- -I

iiil (Colonial Laudl G..... a
Finn
4
i I 6nfl-me

-I -. 11. ..' ;
N Y Pub. 1. �15 171

I
DErINITIONS
ITeiriori'l Sea, M.irginal Sea (33 U.S C � 1362 181; N.Y. State L. 1 -a II) (b)i
- I
- III

I
hAdiA 504 126 F. Cos. 4b; 150 U.S. 2491
Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mc e 2 . Cs 8 S ..2
Hinh Sea$ 126 F. Cas. 60; 160 U.S. 2491
I
-:1. : I I "'W' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--isSeal2O ri. ,4s DU; IUn.b. 249) 1
I
R11313.91A
Naviabl Waers f te US.; argnalSea 33 SC.130t(all
I- - . . - - - . ...J
I .u. JUvlgsnh Co
I I I I I ' I
I

Coastal Zorne W33J.S.C. 6 31114 IIl)

CunAverition of the Tarr. Sea & Thu Cant. Zone, Aft. 24)
-~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ I a ..C -
I
I I I I I -I -
I
I
II

Ouiei Continental Shelf 433 U.S.C. j 1331 (a))

CHAPER II: ORGANIZATION &
IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER III:
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the proposed means for long-term management
and
maintenance of waterfront development and activities, pursuant to
the
New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program. Management will
be
the responsibility of the City Planning Commission, as the City
Coastal Commission, and the Department of City Planning.
This
commitment is solidified through the process of the City Charter,
Section 197-a, which is the approval process for the WRP in New
York
City. Upon approval of the 197-a plan, the WRP -- its
policies,
special areas, etc. -- will become a part of the City's
"comprehensive
plan" for zoning and land use purposes.
The relationship of New York City's Waterfront Revitalization
Program
(WRP) to waterfront planning and decision making is a product of
two
factors that had to be taken into account in order for the program
to
be effective and acceptable on the Federal, State and local level.
The first factor is that management of the city's waterfront area
is
spread out over all three levels of government (see Waterfront
Jurisdiction chart).
Federal controls have their basis in Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution of the United States, which gives Congress the power
to
regulate foreign and interstate commerce. A large number of
Federal
statutes and regulations have been promulgated governing the
navigable
waters of the U.S.; these authorities play a key role in
waterfront
revitalization.
New York State derives its power to enact controls over the
coastal
area from the police power reserved to the States, the power to
enact
controls for the good of the State, and its power to regulate
intrastate commerce. Most of the State controls which
affect the
coastal area are codified in the New York State Environmental
Conservation, Transportation, Navigation, Public Service, and
Energy
Laws and the new Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources
Act.
The City of New York is empowered to adopt land use regulations
pursuant to the New York State General City law. Many of the
City's
controls are contained in its Zoning Resolution, administered by
the
Department of City Planning, the Board of Standards and Appeals
and
the Board of Estimate. Other land use regulations are assigned
to
other city agencies. A total of eight Boards and Commissions,
four
elective bodies and twelve Mayoral line agencies, most
significantly
the Departments of Ports and Terminals, Sanitation and
Environmental
1
4

Protection, possess authority to control or influence land use in
the
waterfront area. Thus, not only is power dispersed among the
three
levels of government, but also distributed within each level.
The second factor in shaping the program for New York City's
waterfront area was the City's financial condition. New York
City
was, and is, in no position to add additional delay or expense to
much
needed economic development. Indeed, a priority of the City is
to
simplify and speed economic development, provided that development
is
environmentally sound. Thus, a new permit or other form of
new
administrative approval was not desirable as a means of
implementing
the WRP.
The response of City waterfront planners to these factors was to
design a program which relied to the maximum extent possible on
existing land and water use controls to achieve improved and
coordinated waterfront area management. The program policies are
described in Chapter IV. The basic strategy of the City is to
insure
that waterfront concerns and policies are incorporated in existing
public decision-making pr'ocesses. These waterfront concerns
and
policies will be addressed in two approaches: (1) through
advocacy,
,incentive, and encouragement; and (2) through
coordination,
protection, and consistency. These approaches are further
described
through specific management techniques in the Related Local Program
Requirements section below.
The major legal authorities cited below are contained in Appendix
A.

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AS CITY COASTAL COMMISSION
To insure a viable framework for the implementation and
administration
of the WRP more than twelve alternative organizational structures
were
developed.
Five of these proposals were retained for further analysis:
* the existing organizational structure;
the City Planning Commission as a City Coastal Commission;
* the Waterfront Management Advisory Board as a
coordinating
council;
* a new City Coastal Commission; and
* a new Department of Land and Water use.
These alternatives, discussed fully in the Draft New York City
Regional Element published in June, 1978 were analyzed in terms of
Federal, State, and local program requirements as well as
additional
evaluation criteria, including legislative feasiblity,
political
acceptability and program effectiveness. After careful
consideration
and review of numerous comments, the alternative of the City
Planning
Commission, as a City Coastal Commission, was chosen as the best
means
1
5

of satisfying the above discussed
concerns.
The City Planning Commission consists of a Chairman and six members.
Each member is appointed by the Mayor for a term of eight years. The
Chairman serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. The
major
responsibilities of the agency include the review of applications
respecting the use, d evelopment or improvement of real
property
subject to City regulations (ULURP); the promulgation of zoning
regulations; the review of applications for variances to the Zoning
Resolution filed with the Board of Standards and Appeals; and the
issuance of an annual Capital Needs Statement.
The Chairman of the City Planning Commission serves as the Director of
the Department of City Planning. The Department serves as staff to
the Commission in all matters under the Commission's jurisdiction;
advises and assists the Mayor and other City agencies in regard to
physical planning and public improvement aspects of all matters
related to the development of the City; provides professional and
technical assistance to community planning boards; and conducts
studies and collects data on an ongoing basis to serve as the basis
for planning recommendations. The Department is also a co-lead agency
for City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
The WRP will be implemented upon the approval of the 197-a plan
through the exercise of the above listed powers and responsibilities
as more fully described below.

RELATED LOCAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Land Use Review
Since 1976, applications for major land use actions, identified below,
by individuals, groups, businesses and governmental agencies have
been
subject to the formal review process known as the Uniform Land Use
Review Procedure (ULURP), pursuant to Section 197-c of the City
Charter.

Specific actions subject to ULURP include the following:
ZONING MAP. Amendment to the Zoning Map, pursuant to
Charter
Sections 200 and 201;
CITY MAP. Changes in the City Map pursuant to Charter Section 199;
SPECIAL PERMITS. Approval of special permits by the City Planning
Commission pursuant to the Zoning Resolution, pursuant to Charter
Section 200 and 201;
1
6

SITES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. Selection of sites for
capital
projects, pursuant to Charter Section 227;
FRANCHISES AND REVOCABLE CONSENTS. Granting of franchises
and
revocable consents involving residential, industrial,
commercial,
transportation or community facility projects, pursuant to
Charter
Chapter 14;
HOUSING AND URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS. Approval of housing or
urban
renewal plans and projects, pursuant to State, City or Federal
law.
LANDFILLS. Approvals of sanitory or waterfront
landfills,
pursuant to applicable Charter provisions or other provisions
of
law; and
SALE OF CITY PROPERTY. Approval of the sale, lease, other
than
the lease of office space, exchange, or other disposition of
real
property to the City and of the real property of the city, and
the
proposed acquisition, sale or lease of land under water
pursuant
to Section 67, Section 1603, Chapter 15, and other applicable
provisions of law.
Applications for items covered by ULURP are first submitted to the
Department of City Planning. Prior to the submission of an
application, the Department- of City Planning often assumes an
advocate's role by assisting applicants in the preparation of
proposals to be submitted under ULURP. This stage is called ULURP
precertification. The staff will, if available, use
Coastal Zone
Management 306 funding, and any other appropriate funding, for
technical assistance to encourage appropriate waterfront
development.
Once the application is ready for the approval process, the
Department
notifies the affected Community Board(s) of receipt of
an
application. The City Planning Commission as the City
Coastal
Commission certifies that an application is complete and ready to
be
forwarded to Community Boards when it finds that all information
necessary for adequate evaluation of the proposal has been
furnished
by the applicant and concerned City agencies. Within 60 days after
it
has received the certified application, the Community Board must
hold
a public hearing and adopt a recommendation, which it forwards to
the
City Planning Commission. The City Planning Commission, as the
City
Coastal Commission, must hold a public hearing and approve, approve
with modifications, or disapprove the application and forward a
recommendation to the Board of Estimate. The
Commission's~
recommendation is contained in a report which describes the
proposal,
any comments received on the proposal, and the factors considered
in
reaching a decision. In reviewing each application, the
Commission
tonsiders all relevant planning and legal criteria. The
Board of
Estimate has 60 days from receipt of the Commission's report to
hold a
public hearing and act on tChe proposal. The Board of Estirmate
may
1
7

approve, disapprove, or modify the proposal, but may not go beyond
the
scope of the certification. Once the Board of Estimate's decision
is
made, other permitting agencies are bound to act in accordance with
that approval . If substantial modifications are necessary after
the
Board of Estimate's aproval, those modifications must go through
the
ULURP process again.
Implementation of the WRP in the ULURP process will take place
through
City Planning Commission, as the City Coastal
Commission,
determination of the consistency of a proposal with the WRP. Where
waterfront issues are raised, the Commission will address these
issues
in its report. Implementation of the WRP will insure
that the
policies and concerns of the WRP become one of the criteria upon
which
the Commission reviews an application. For example, zoning must be
in
accordance with a "well-consider'ed plan" (New York General City
Law,
Section 20 (25)). The WRP will become one part of the City's
overall
plan to be considered in zoning matters. The Department of
City
Planni,ng will advise the Commission and the Community Boards on
WRP
matters and, during the pre-certification process, insure that
applicants are aware of the WRP.

Zoning Regulations
While the designation of zoning districts (zoning map changes) is
subject to ULURP, the adoption of zoning regulations (text) is
subject
to a slightly different procedure. In this instance, the
City
Planning Commission has an even stronger role.
Upon its own initiative, or upon application, the Commission may
adopt
a resolution approving new or amended zoning regulations.
Following
notice and public hearing, the resolution is forwarded to the Board
of
Estimate. The Board must act on the resolution within 60 days of
its
receipt or the proposed zoning regulations become effective. As
in
ULURP, the Board of Estimate may approve, disapprove or modify the
proposal, but may not go beyond the scope of what the Commission
approved.
Most proposed zoning text is initiated by the City
Planning
Commission. The adoption of new zoning to achieve
waterfront
objectives of encouraging appropriate waterfront proposals
and
protecting valuable coastal resources is an important means to
augment
existing enforcement measures of the WRP. As stated above, all
zoning
must be in accordance with a "well-considered plan." The WRP
will
constitute a part of that plan as a result of 197-a.

Review of Variances
The Board of Standards and Appeals(BSA), pursuant to Chapter 27 of
the
Charter and other provisions of law, may grant variances to the
Zoning
18

Resolution. The City Planning Commission is a party in interest
to
BSA actions and is permitted to argue cases before the Board "if,
in
the judgement of the City Planning Commission, the granting of
relief
requested in such application would violate the requirements of the
Zoning Resolution relating to the granting of variances."
There are five basic findings the BSA must make pursuant to Zoning
Resolution Section 72-21 in order to grant a variance. One of
these
findings is that the variance will not alter the "essential
character"
of the neighborhood. Upon implementation, the WRP provisions
relating
to an area will become a determinant in neighborhood character.
The
City Planning Commission, acting as the City Coastal Commission, in
appearing before the BSA, will oppose variances which are not
consistent with the WRP as a result of the approval of the 197-a
plan. The Department of City Planning screens BSA applications and
recommends opposition to the Commission, which may appeal adverse
BSA
decisions to the Board of Estimate. The Department will also
provide
technical assistance to the Board on waterfront issues.

City Environmental Quality Review
Pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and
Mayoral Executive Order No. 91 (City Environmental Quality Review
or
"CEQR"), discretionary actions of City agencies are reviewed for
significant impacts on the environment before a final decision to
approve the action is made. The co-lead agencies for this review
are
the Department of City Planning and the Department of Environmental
Protection. City Planning reviews for possible social, economic
and
land use impacts and Environmental Protection reviews for possible
air, noise and water impacts.
The City Planning Commission, as the City Coastal Commission, will
not
act on an application under ULURP nor promulgate a zoning
regulation
until CEQR review is compeleted. Similarly, the Board of
Standards
and Appeals will not render a decisison on an application for a
variance until CEQR procedures have been complied with.
If the proposed action or development is found likely not to result
in
any significant impacts by the co-lead agencies, a
"negative
declaration" is issued and the review and approval of the action
may
proceed. If significant impacts are likely, but may be
mitigated
through conditions, a "conditional negative declaration", in which
tUhe
applicant agrees to perform certain conditions, is issued and
review
and approval of the action may proceed. If significant impacts
are
likely, and conditional negative declaration is not appropriate, an
environmental impact statement must be prepared. This statement
must
disclose the possible adverse impacts, discuss mitigating measures
and
describe alternatives to the proposed action. The statement
becomes
part of the record which must be considered by the administrative
1
9

agency in reaching its decision on an action and the agency must
find
that reasonable mitigating measures are being taken and that the
proposed action is preferable to other alternatives.
Upon implementation of the WRP, the provisions of the WRP will
become
relevant to the criteria for significant impacts on the
environment
used by the Department of City Planning in performing its role as
CEQR
co-lead agency. For example, some of the significant effect
criteria
used for review includes: the creation of a material conflict
with a
community's existing plans or goals as officially approved or
adopted; the impairment of the character or quality of
important
historical, archeological, architectural or aesthetic resources,
or of
existing community or neighborhood character; and a
substantial
change in the use of intensity or use of land or other natural
resources or in their capacity to support existing
uses.
Inconsistency with the WRP, as factored into these criteria, may
result in conditions being attached to proposed actions or in the
preparation of environmental impact statements addressing
waterfront
issues.

Capital Needs Statement
The City Planning Commission is mandated by Section 214 of the City
Charter to issue an annual statement on the capital needs and
priorities of the City of New York. Recent statements have
stressed
the need to rebuild the City's infrastructure and to reorient
capital
spending priorities from expansion of the captial plant to
maintenance
of existing facilities. Demographic, economic, environmental
and
social factors are considered, and the 1981 Statement contained a
section on waterfront redevelopment. Issues identified for the
decade
of the 1980's include "meeting the waterfront goals of the Coastal
Zone Management Plan."
Implementation of the WRP in the City will serve as a focus for
capital needs waterfront planning efforts during the next
decade.
Through the Capital Needs Statement, the City Coastal Commission
takes
an advocate role in the priorities of capital spending. Support
to
Congressional Appropriations, Coastal Zone Management 306 funding,
and
any other appropriate funding, will be used to promote the goals
and
policies of the Waterfront Revitalization Program.

The Department of City Planning has been responsible for the
initiation of the local program throughout the program development
process. Under contract with the New York State Department of
State,
2
0

the Department of City Planning has received section 305
development
grants and section 308 Coastal Energy Impact Program grants.
Comprehensive planning is one of the primary tools in achieving
waterfront management program objectives. These objectives
include
both the use of waterfront resources and the protection of valuable
waterfront resources. The local program is the result, in part,
of
planning for the resolution of identified issues. Implementation
of
the program continues by the Department of City Planning acting as
staff for the City Coastal Commission. The WRP is implemented by
the
Commission and the Commission's staff as they develop and review
land
use or development within the waterfront area for consistency with
the
WRP.
With this procedure for guiding waterfront development in place and
coordinated with existing review procedures, the text of the City
Zoning Resolution and Building Code will be revised as necessary to
further reflect waterfront revitalization policies, guidelines and
standards (see Appendix B). These changes would become an
amendment
to New York City's Waterfront Revitalization Program, pursuant to
NYCRR Title 19, Part 601.
It should be noted that the NYC WRP will not apply to those actions
for which a final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared
and
filed or for which a determination has been made, with conditions
or
otherwise, that the action will not have a significant effect on
the
environment pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review
(CEQR)
requirements and NYCRR Title 6, Part 617 (SEQR) prior to the
effective
date of the program. In New York City this mqeans public
improvements
to be contructed pursuant to the official map, an official drainage
plan, a site selection, an urban renewal plan, or a large-scale
development plan adopted prior to the effective date of the WRP and
any action which has been certified under the New York City
Uniform
Land Use Review Procedures prior to the effective date of the NYC
WRP. Any major modifications that occur to the above type of
actions
which occur after the effective date of the program will, however,
be
subject to review under the City's WRP.
In addition, implementation of New York City's WRP is dependent
upon
receipt of adequate funding, as determined by the City Coastal
Commission.
21-

CHAPTER IV: WATERFRONT
POLICIES
INTRODUCTION
Every State Coastal Management Program must include policies upon
which decisions pursuant to the program will be based. They must
be
articulated clearly to provide an understanding of the program to
those who will be affected. The policies must provide a clear
sense
of direction for decision-makers and they must be of an
enforceable
nature to insure implementation of and adherence to the management
program.
In addition, a local Waterfront Revitalization Program
adds
specificity to the applicable New York State Coastal Management
Program policies. It can apply to the entire coastal area of
the
local government and must contain adequate authority for
implementing,
administering, and enforcing the program. This chapter
demonstrates
how the program fulfills these requirements.
The New York State Department of State, in developing the New York
State Coastal Management Program identified coastal-related issues
crucial to the revitalization, preservation and enhancement of the
State's diverse shoreline. The issues, which included
promoting
waterfront revitalization; promoting water dependent uses;
protecting
fish and wildlife habitats; protecting and enhancing scenic areas;
protecting and enhancing historic areas; protecting
farmlands;
protecting and enhancing small harbors; enhancing and protecting
public access; providing solid and useful data and information on
coastal resources and activities to decision makers; and coping
with
erosion and flooding hazards were examined in relationship to the
coast's assets, problems and needs. Statewide program policies
were
then developed on the basis of the examination.
New York City performed a similar analysis. To adequately address
a
number of issues, additional policies'for New York City were
developed.
Discussion of protecting farmlands is not applicable to the New
York
City waterfront area and is, therefore, not included in this
report.
A solid waste issue is added because of the immediate necessity to
solve problems associated with the disposal of solid wastes within
the
waterfront area and its associated potential impacts to the City's
economic and environmental base.
New York City Program policies were developed during initial
phases of
the Waterfront Revitalization Program. As information
was
interchanged with New York State and revisions made as suggested
by
Federal, State and City agencies and the public, certain City
policies
developed to detail State policies. Many State policies evolved to
be
22

sufficient for New York City's use. The State has
grouped these
policies into three categories: policies designed to promote the
use
of coastal resources, policies dealing with resources identified as
being in need of protection, and policies which address major
activities with affects on coastal resources. This explanation can
be
found in Part II, Section 6 of this document.
An ISSUE DISCUSSION section presents a synopsis of current
conditions
within the New York City waterfront area and an identification of
problems the revitalizaton program is designed to resolve.
A PROGRAM POLICIES section explains each policy and the means of
implementation. The State policies are listed 1-44, and the New
York
City Policies which lend specificity to those numbered State
policies
are listed A-L. The Federal Consistency Provision of the Coastal
Zone
Management Act and/or the State Consistency Provision of the
Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act apply to all policies.
However, where recommendations are- set forth, consistency would
only
apply if those recommendations were adopted by the Federal or State
agency indicated.

ISSUES
The issue discussion below summarizes the analysis of
current
conditions in the waterfront area and identifies the problems which
this program is designed to resolve. The issues have been broken
down
under the following headings: Development, Fish and Wildlife,
Flooding
and Erosion, Public Access, Recreation Resources, Scenic Quality,
Energy Development, Water Resources, Air Quality, and Solid Waste
Disposal.

DEVELOPMENT

Underutilization and Water Dependent Uses

Much of New York City's waterfront has been developed. A wide
spectrum
of land uses or activities such as housing, transportation,
commerce,
recreational boating, beaches, parks, maritime shipping,
shipbuilding
and manufacturing are accommodated along the shoreline. Demand
f or
waterfront sites for various uses has fluctuated with changing
economic
and social conditions and has spurred renewal and redevelopment
activities. In recent years, for example, demand for
housing,
particularly in and near Manhattan has resulted in the development
of
Waterside and Battery Park City, and a primarily housing proposal
for
Manhattan's East River waterfront south of Waterside.
2
3

As with other economic sectors, waterfront activities have felt the
negative impact of recent regional economic trends. Shifts
of
population and industry to other regions of the country have
affected
all the northeast ports. New York City was hard hit by the
recession
of the early 1970's. Private sector employment fell 16 percent
between
1969 and 1977, and the unemployment rate rose over 6 points between
1970 and 1977. In addition, city government has been cut back
because
of the municipal fiscal crisis. With the general decline in
business
activity, shifting of a significant portion of general cargo to
containerports concentrated in the New Jersey part of the Port
District, reduction of bulk cargo shipments, and decline in
activity of
industrial firms which receive or ship material and products by
water,
a significant amount of waterfront land and facilities have fallen
into
disuse or have been converted to accommodate uses not dependent on
direct waterfront access. Local economic stagnation has
limited
private and public ability to develop and implement plans for
reusing
abandoned areas of the waterfront.
Suitable waterfront area must be maintained to accommodate
potential
expansion of maritime and related industrial activities.
Underutilized
and vacant areas of the developed waterfront which have
traditionally
housed maritime and related activities could provide opportunities
and
distinct advantages for expansion, inf ill development and
redevelopment
for maritime and water-dependent industrial uses.
The existence of Federal channels and anchorages, deep natural
water
depths and waterfront infrastructure enhance the potential for inf
ill
development and expansion as well as. redevelopment at minimum
expense
to the developer and the public. Greater utilization of
existing
publicly funded. infrastructure and public land avoids the cost of
new
infrastructure and channels and reduced groundbreaking to operation
time of development.
A realistic assessment of future siting requirements for uses
dependent
on a waterfront location for their existence must be made.
Emphasis
must be placed on recycling areas with existing infrastructure.
Well over seven thousand vessels call at the Port of New York every
year. Most are container, bulk cargo or tanker vessels. Of 11
leading
ports in the nation, the Port of New York continues to have the
largest
volume of vessel traffic, but total number of vessel calls and the
Port
District's share of cargo volume handled are slowly declining.
In 1976, over 179 million short tons of commodities were shipped
to,
from, or within the Port District, nearly three-quarters of which
were
crude or refined petroleum products. Petroleum products are
shipped to
the port in large oceangoing tankers and transferred to barges for
delivery or movement within the Port. Other bulk cargo passing
through
the port includes: sand, gravel, and crushed rock,
metallic ores,
nonmetallic minerals and some food grai-ns. Sand, gravel, and
crushed
24

rock quarried and used locally by the construction industry are
transported primnarily by barges which can use relativelY shallow
channels. -Waste and scrap transport includes barging solid wastes from
marine transfer terminals and incinerators to landfill sites. The
other two major categories of commodities are general cargo and
miscellaneous freight, including bulk items and raw materials. General
cargo includes commodities such as domestic and foreign food and
manufactured goods, etc., which are transported in break bulk vessels
or containerships.
While Port district tonnage has increased decade by decade, the Port's
competitive position has declined.

Consolidated Statement of Waterborne Commerce
of the Port of New York*
(Short Tons)

Year Total Traffic
1930 120,395,645
1940 129,712,186
1950 144,943,558
1960 153,198,620
1970 174,008,108

*Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year
1975. Part 1, Waterways and Harbors, Atlantic Coast, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1976.

Although the Part no longer handles the largest volume of cargo in the
nation, its cargo dollar value is still the highest. It is difficult
to project future cargo flows at the Port District although past trends
suggest volume will continue to increase in the foreseeable future.
Changes in bulk cargo and other categories will depend on many
variables, including: possible construction of a deepwater port,
extraction of offshore oil deposits, and further technological advances
in containerized cargo handling.
Containerized cargo is the most rapidly growing sector of the general
cargo shipping market. In 1970, 39 percent of Port District foreign
and domestic general cargo was containerized. The percentage increased
to about 51 percent by 1974. By 1976, approximately 13,328,000 tons of
2
5

general cargo in foreign trade, 78 percent of total cargo in this
category, was containerized. The containerized portion of
general
cargo handled at the Port District will probably continue to grow as
worldwide containerport development continues.
Terminal operations to support containerizaton requires large back
up
areas for storing and marshalling containers. Immediate and
direct
access to both highways and rail facilities is virtually a
necessity.
As the older, intensely developed port areas in the City at best
were
difficult to convert to meet containerization requirements,
new
container terminals were built in Staten Island and New Jersey.
This
has resulted in a reduction or termination of shipping activities at
much of the City's break bulk terminals.
Among the vessels calling at the Port District in 1977, 249 were
passenger ships. Passenger traffic, ranging from oceangoing cruises
to
lunch hour sightseeing excursions, is another economic activity on
the
waterfront. The hub of trans-oceanic and cruise passenger traffic
is
the Consolidated Passenger Lines Terminal on Manhattan's West Side,
a
nine-berth facility completed in 1974. Because of the long-
term
decline in oceanborne passenger traffic attributable to passenger
preference for air transport, existing facilities are underutilized
and
would be able to accommodate any increased traffic resulting from
current promotional efforts.
Recreational boating in the City has also declined in recent years,
as
has the number of marinas. Some older operations closed because
of
inadequate rates of return. Land and capital-intensive marinas
are
high risk businesses in light of the regional recession's impact on
recreational boating in recent years and the population decline
experienced here. At City Island in the Bronx, sport and
pleasure
craft are built and required in waterfront locations.
Backup and
support industries such as sailmaking are also found adjacent to
the
City Island boat yards.
Commercial fishing, once a major economic activity, has been banned
in
the Hudson River for certain species which contain unsafe levels of
toxic materials. Commercial and charter boats continue to operate
out
of Sheepshead Bay, Coney Island and City Island. Because
of
anticipated increases in the ocean-fishing harvest off the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS), certain related commercial activiti.es,
such as
fish processing, may expand in the City.
Shipbuilding, ship and boat repair yards and marine service firms
utilize land along deepwater channels of the Brooklyn waterfront.
With
worldwide demand for most types of ocean-going vessels at low
levels,
shipbuilding activities are anticipated to continue at modest
levels at
best.
26

Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Piers,
Docks, Wharves and Bulkheads
Upgrading or removal of the City's aging piers, docks, wharves and
bulkheads is necessary to respond to changing technologies
of
waterborne transport and initiation of redevelopment projects.
The New York Harbor Collection and Removal of Drift Project, a
cooperative Federal-local waterfront cleanup program, is a major
commitment to the cleanup and rehabilitation of the waterfront.
The
project envisions the repair or removal of deteriorated waterfront
structures and the removal of rotting vessel hulks that
generate
floating debris. In addition to abating drift damage to
recreational,
harbor and other small craft, the project offers the prospect of
land
reuse, as well as aesthetic and environmental enhancement.
Unlike the Corps' Federal channel maintenance program, which is
funded
from the annual operating budget, the New York Harbor Collection and
Removal of Drift Project requires specific congressional
authorization
and appropriations. Under the program's current authorization,
the
cost share for structural removal is two-thirds Federal and one-
third
local. Local costs are shared equally by state and local
interests.
The cost of repair of useable and productive structures is totally
the
responsibility of local interests.

Taking into considerat ion the severe fiscal restraints facing the
City,
the local cost sharing provisions for structure removal is
particularly
burdensome. The State of New ~Jersey has recognized the impo'rtance
of
this effort by financing the entire local share with State bond
monies.
In light of the importance of New York Harbor as a National, State
and
regional resource, the City recommends that the Federal or State
government assume the non-federal costs of the project. (Refer to
the
Flooding and Erosion issue section of this Chapter for a program
policy
addressing this subject.)

Channel ization
Vessels, tankers and general cargo ships entering the Port are
b*ecoming
larger. Existing channel limitations can impede the safe
and
expeditious movement of these vessels and pose the threat of vessel
groundings. In addition, increased costs are incurred from
large
vessels laying at anchor for berthing or high tide. Inadequate
channels result in more frequent lighterage activity, and as
transfer
operations increase, so does the risk of oil and other pollutant
spillage. These problems point up the need for timely initiation of
new projects and modification to existing channels where needed.
27

Federal involvement in channel development is derived from the
Constitution and responsibility for navigation improvements has been
specifically delegated to the Army Corps of Engineers. Today
virtually
all of the channels circumscribing the City's waterfront
are
established and maintained by the Corps of Engineers as an arm of
the
Federal government. The Corps of Engineers' role as
prescribed by
Federal rules and regulations is one of response to need for action
initiated by local interested parties. The Corps' response to
requests
for a new project or project modification is involved and quite
lengthy. The time between local request and final action is
frequently
five years or longer.

Permit Procedures
Obtaining government approval to develop in the New York coastal
region
can sometimes be a difficult task. Applicants may face a long list
of
government approvals (e.g., permits, certifications, licenses,
special
permits, revocable consents, reviews, etc.). In addition,
these
applications must receive approval from several levels of
government,
including State, substate and local administrations. While such
permnit
requirements may prove burdensome to large developers, they may be
an
almost insurmountable obstacle to the small developer who has
limited
financial and legal resources.
As a result of this vast permit system, it is- altogether possible
that
necessary and appropriate development in the New York coastal region
simply does not occur. In addition, the public sector also
suffers
from the time and money expended on governmental reviews for propo-
sals
that do not meet or are unable to complete the review procedures.
Permit procedures must be responsive to the need for expeditiously
reviewing development proposals.

Rail Freight Facilities
The Port of New York and New Jersey must compete with greater
intensity
for its trade. Full rail freight service is a necessary component
of
this effort, fostering healthy competition between rail and truck
transport and broadening the transshipment alternatives and
services
available to shippers.
Over the past two decades rail freight service has deteriorated
appreciably in the City. To revitalize the rail system, the New
York
State Department of Transportation has formulated and is
implementing a
full freight access program, financed primarily by State Rail Bond
funds. As a result of this program, there is now overland rail
access
to the Brooklyn waterfront, clearance restrictions on the Hudson
Division into the Bronx have been removed, and plans have been
dev;eloped for a modern intermodal terminal and a new rail link in
the
South Bronx.
2
8

On the local level, the City of New York has created an Office of
Rail
Freight Development within the Office of the Mayor to formulate
overall
City policy and to coordinate the implementation of
capital
improvements with respect to rail freight. Through this Office,
the
City has acquired the former 65th Street Yard in Brooklyn and is
developing a modern classification and intermodal yard to serve the
waterfront. All of these activities will help foster
healthy
competition between rail and truck transportation modes and will
bolster the City's economic development efforts.

,FISH AND WILDLIFE

The abundant fish and wildlife found in New York's coastal areas,
particularly its estuaries, have long been recognized as important
food
resources and for their recreational and commercial value.
As an
indicator of their direct value to the State, the economic benefits
derived in 1976 from commerical and sport utilization of New York's
marine fisheries were estimated to be $87.8 million and $222.5
million.
Fish and wildlife resources also provide a less direct but equally
important social benefit in that they function as indicators of the
quality of man's environment. The decline of certain species
(often
the rarer species) is frequently an early symptom of environmental
stress and degradation.
Finally, living coastal resources are important in terms of their
own
intrinsic ecological value. Diversity of flora and fauna
provides
stability to an ecosystem. In addition, these living
resources
contribute to the productivity of coastal environments through their
conversion of energy and recycling of materials.
Hence, the basic goal of fish and wildlife management programs is to
protect, manage, and develop these resources so that they sustain
their
capacity to continue providing these economic, social, and
ecological
benefits.
In New York, a category of habitats which have suffered the greatest
losses are freshwater and tidal wetlands. Until 1973, draining
and
filling of wetlands for development purposes was largely
unregulated.
Wetlands also provided convenient, inexpensive sites for disposal of
dredge spoils. Such practices resulted in the loss of
breeding,
nesting and feeding grounds for reptiles, amphibians,
mnammalIs ,
shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as the loss of spawning and
nursery
areas for fish, shellfish and crustaceans. Many of the wetland
areas
around the highly developed waterfront sections have been drained
and
filled.
29

Rel-atively few areas in New York City have natural systems which
are
not impacted by human activity. Therefore, there are few areas
where
the management of flora and fauna can begin with the wholesale
exclusion of such activities. These areas, namely, tidal
and
freshwater wetlands, have been identified (freshwater
wetland
inventories are underway) as part of a Statewide effort to preserve
specific ecosystems of prime value. Federal and
State laws also
protect specific endangered species. However, no further effort
has
been expended to develop a management system for flora and fauna in
an
urban environ such as New York City.
The New York City coastal zone has undeveloped areas which will
remain
so, partially developed areas which will continue to
develop,
previously developed areas in various states of decay and
abandonment,
which are likely to be redeveloped and fully developed areas which
are
not likely to change. The flora and fauna present in these
various
areas, rather than being mature associations of plants and animals,
tend to be at various stages of ecosystem succession and remnants
of
horticultural plantings. These associations are predictable,
natural
to the conditions in which they are found, inter-related in their
dynamics and able to successfully continue their life cycles.
In many cases, conditions created by prior development can be made
to
relate more closely to the natural coastal environment. The
conditions
created as a result of new development do not have to be
detrimental to
a natural system. A major goal of the New York City
Waterfront
Revitalization Program is recovering and strengthening of the
natural
systems which are present or should be present.
With New York being a coastal estuarine city, the management of
estuarine systems near navigation channels and tidal wetlands is a
major challenge for a an urban coastal zone program. The
activities of
humans - dredging, dumping, release of treated waters, harvest of
particular organisms, etc. - should be treated as being integral with
the natural system and guided so it is not damaging, but a positive
stimulant to the estuarine ecosystem.
At the individual species level, the problem is one of developing
an
adequate data base and monitoring system. Although laws have
been
passed by New York State calling for lists of endangered species of
flora and fauna, no identification (mapping) of existing valuable
and
endangered species has been attempted for New York City until very
recently under the auspices of the Coastal Management
Program. As
described in greater detail in Chapter 2, much will be required to
verify these preliminary maps and apply criteria specific to the
New
York City region.
Individual species in New York City cannot be maintained by
prohibiting
human activity. There will always be a need to integrate
adjacent
activities into the dynamics of the natural system. In other
words,
3
0

the management and maintenance of particular species involves the
establishment or conservation of environments for those species.
Environments must allow for the successful completion of a
particular
life cycle which will normally involve a variety of other plants and
animals.

Habitat Protection
Valuable fish and wildlife species cannot be pro tected and
maintained
without preserving their habitats. A habitat is an area where there
exists a unique combination of resources (food, shelter, living
space,
etc.) and environmental conditions (temperature, climate, salinity,
etc.) which animals need for their survival. When man destroys a
vital
resource or alters an environmental condition beyond an organism's
range of tolerance, he destroys the habitat.
Certain habitats, such as breeding grounds, nursery areas, and
migratory routes, are special areas where fish and
wildlife
populations tend to congregate during various stages of their life
cycle. Such areas must be identified and afforded special
protection,
since their loss would create a greater threat to the survival of a
population than would the loss of areas where the organisms were
less
densely distributed.

Toxic Substances and Other Pollutants
In New York, a critical problem is the contamination of fish,
wildlife
and their habitats with toxic substances, in particular
Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), mirex, dioxin and heavy metals (mercury and
cadmium). These compounds enter the environment from industrial
and
municipal discharges, atmospheric fallout and leachate from
landfills.

The more conventional pollution problems created by combined
overflows,
failing septic systems, urban stormwater runoff, oil spills,
discharge
of vessel wastes and solid wastes, which have adverse effects on
fish,
shellfish, wildlife and their habitats, are common in
major
metropolitan areas like New York City.

Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Throughout most of New York's coastal area, inadequate public access
constraints present hunting and fishing activities. Highways
and
railroads located along the coastline severely limit physical access
to
the marshes and estuaries which support valuable fish and game
populations. Substantial efforts have been made to improve access
to
these resources through acquisition programs, and construction of
boat
3
1

ramps, and dock facilities. However, increasing cost of land
and
construction material and decreasing amounts of available public
funding will limit future efforts to meet increasing demands for
public
access.

Commercial Fisheries Development
For years, New York's commercial fishing industry has been in a
state
of decline. New York City, once a prominent fishing port, is
used
today as a home port by only one commercial fishing vessel.
However, a
tremendous opportunity for expanding the State's commercial fishing
industry was created with the passage of the Federal
Fishery
Conservation Management Act of 1976.

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Pub. L 94-265;
16
U.S.C. 1801 et. eq. created fishery management zones within the 200
mile limit. eTderi control is exercised through a permit and
quota
system. As a result of the act, fishing operations of foreign
fleets
have declined in U.S. coastal waters, and domestic quota allocations
have increased for certain species. The U.S. State Department with
the
advisement of the Department of Commerce administers and regulates
the
quota system. The National Marine Fisheries and the U.S. Coast
Guard
are the enforcement agencies.
This law provides U.S. fisherman priority rights to harvest the
millions of tons of fish previously being caught by foreign fishing
fleets. To realize this development potential, New York must
make
adjustments in the harvesting, processing and marketing sectors of
its
fishing industry. Inadequate channel access, and the
limited
availability of docking, unloading and processing facilities
presently
impede the growth of offshore deepwater fisheries. An
insufficient
number of boat ramps, inadequate catch transfer sites, and lack of
shellfish processing and gear storage facilities lirmit development
of
the near-shore fisheries.
New York City has the opportunity to attract and develop a new
fishery
industry because of the extension of U.S. jurisdiction over fishery
management to the 200 mile limit, and because of a growing world
market
for fish and fish products. The development of a new
offshore
fisheries industry is being supported by the Federal government.
The
industry will require deep-draft ports for the larger vessels being
constructed. New York Harbor is the only location in New York
State
with deepwater access. New seafood processing plants will be
required
to convert the fish formerly exploited by foreign fleets into foods
for
domestic and export markets. The 1980 waterfront study,
"Fisheries
Development Opportunities for New York," funded by CZM recommends
that
the City encourage The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to
develop E'rie Basin in Brooklyn as a major seafood complex.
3
2

Ship repair and chandlering facilities will be required to serve the
flIeet. Some shipbuilding or conversion of existing vessels may also
occur; Federal government subsidy prograibs will affect the level of
shipbuilding conversion activity.
The potential economic benefits to the City from the capture of the
new
offshore fisheries industry are substantial. In the past,
coastal
fishery landings in New York State (estimated at 34 million
pounds)
were only 4% of the total catch in coastal waters of New York
(within a
200-mile limit). The remaining 96% of the catch was taken by
foreign
fishing fleets. A large part of this catch is now potentially
available to domestic fishermen. The 4% of total catch (34 million
pounds) sold for an estimated $32.1 million at dockside (or $67.4
million at wholesale and $87.6 million at retail). These figures
only
give an order-of-magnitude to potential sales.

FLOODING AND EROSION

The New York City shoreline is a valuable natural resource exploited
for economic, recreational and environmental purposes. The
continued
productive use of the coastline is endangered because of gaps in the
planning and management of coastal areas subject to destructive
natural
forces.
Most of the City shoreline has been altered by dredging, filling,
bulkheading and other construction activities. Unwise
develdpment
practices caused removal of vegetative cover, destruction of dunes,
obliteration of wetlands, and, frequently, dense development of
low-lying areas. As a result, many shorefront areas devoid of
natural
buffers are subject to the adverse effects of coastal hazards.
Storm induced winds, waves and tidal surges subject unprotected
shores
to severe shorefront erosion and upland flooding along the Atlantic
and
Long Island Sound coasts. In addition, beachfront along these
coastal
reaches shows net loss due to the gradual erosion of beach materials
by
longshore currents. Natural sources of these materials are
often
inadequate to ensure stable shorelines.

Public and private property in low-lying coastal areas is threatened
by
erosion and flood hazards. Coastal communities often
experience
substantial property damage and sometimes even loss of life.
Public
beaches and navigable inlets supporting boating, swimming and other
activities are adversely impacted by the loss of shorefront
recreation
space and the sedimentation of navigation channels.
Erosion also takes place along reaches which have been bulkheaded,
riprapped or otherwise developed to support maritime activities.
The
Waterfront Revitalization Program defines this type of erosion as
3
3

structural erosion which is the deterioration of physically
developed
shorelines as opposed to shorelines in a natural state.
Wave-wash from passing ships, tides, currents, as well as more
severe
storm-induced forces contribute to the deterioration of waterfront
structures along the various waterways comprising New York Harbor.
As
they erode, the structures become sources of drift, make navigation
hazardous, and degrade water quality and aesthetic values.
The
presence of dilapidated structures inhibits waterfront
redevelopment
efforts.
The magnitude and scope of beach erosion, structural erosion and
coastal flood hazards have necessitated joint action
involving
Federal/State assistance. Federal/State sponsored
beachi
erosion/hurricane protection programs offer substantial financial
and
technical assistance that would otherwise be far beyond the means
of
local government. Therefore, to achieve effective
management,
Federal/State programs must be responsive to local needs and
concerns.
Problems associated with Federal/State sponsored projects include:
- Massive structural flood protection plans often
have
irreversible effects on the environment and other coastal
values, such as: coastal aesthetics, scenic views,
and
shorefront access. Mitigation techniques require the
commitment
of large sums of public funds. Guidelines for
the
implementation and design of structural projects should
reflect
the need to manage fragile coastal resources for the public
good. Non-structural responses need to be examined in
providing
flood protection before costly structural devices are
considered.
- Erosion control projects have not addressed problems
along
privately-owned shores where there is a public interest.
Federal/State projects have been aimed primarily at
mitigating
erosion along public beachfront. The limited scope of
these
projects deprives eligible privately-owned shores- of
adequate
protection and the public of their enjoyment. Consideration
of
*these interests should be given in the development of
erosion
control plans.
- The loss of valuable public beachfront along much of the south
shore of Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens and eastern Staten
Island
is a chronic problem. Beach restoration projects must
ensure
the long term beneficial use of these shores for public
recreation, but only after public benefits have been weighed
against long term financial and environmental considerations.
- Federal programs do little to assist in the mitigation
of
erosion along privately owned shores where there is no public
interest. Technical assistance to individuals, in
general, is
limited to available data. As a result, no effort has been
made
3
4

to coordinate private erosion control efforts.
Piecemeal
erosion control planning simply leads to transferring the
problem from one section of the shoreline to the next.
- Federal planning and assistance in the mitigation of structural
erosion is limited to the removal of deteriorated waterfront
structures. The congressionally authorized Drift
Removal
Project for New York Harbor offers financial assistance to
demolish structures. Repair, maintenance and development
of
alternate use plans remains the responsibility of
local
interests. Repair costs, however, are often greater than
removal costs for individual structures.

Given the fiscal condition of local governments, the financial
burden
of tackling these problems inhibits the productive use
and
redevelopment of the urban waterfront for traditional and
alternative
uses.
Because of the enormous cost of erosion control projects, Federal
and
State participation are virtually mandatory. However, initiation
of
Corps of Engineers' involvement is a complicated procedure.
Local interests must petition their representatives in Congress
either
directly or through local governments. The Senator or Congressman
then
requests the appropriate Congressional Committee to direct the Corps
of
Engineers to investigate. -During the investigation, which includes
comprehensive surveys and feasibility studies, public hearings are
held.
The Corps' findings and recommendations are transmitted to the
Secretary of the Army, who eventually turns them over to Congress.
The
final decision lies with the Congressional or Senatorial Committee
on
Public Works. Following Congressional approval, Congress
must
appropriate the necessary funds.

PUBLIC ACCESS
The enjoyment and general benefit of the waterfront is considered to
be
a public right to be shared by all of the City residents.
The
availability of physical and visual access to the shore is a crucial
determinant affecting the beneficial use of coastal
resources.
However, past ownership and development patterns,
conflicting
waterfront activities, transportation deficiencies, and inadequate
or
undeveloped recreational facilities limit shorefront access in New
York
City.

Public Areas
Publicly owned shorefront open space is the most
significant
3
5

recreational resource in the City. Public beaches at Coney Island,
the
Rockaways, eastern Staten Island (including Gateway properties) and
Orchard Beach in the Bronx, satisfy the recreational needs of
millions
of New Yorkers each year. Natural areas such as fish and
wildlife
habitats and tidal wetlands along relatively undisturbed shores in
Jamaica Say, Raritan Bay, and Little Neck Bay provide a special
opportunity to enjoy unique natural settings.
Existing waterfront
parks as well as other publicly owned -underused or
undeveloped
shorefront provide an opportunity for shorefront access to
communities
otherwise deprived of waterfront views and recreation.
Many potential recreation areas are undeveloped, poorly maintained
or
otherwise unfit for public use. Landfill sites, other
undeveloped
mapped public parks, underused waterfront structures such as piers,
unimproved mapped streets, public places, and other vacant
waterfront
sites are untapped recreational resources. The
development,
rehabilitation and maintenance of these facilities would
significantly
contribute to the City's ability to fulfill the recreational needs
of
its residents. Access to such sites will be a critical
element
determining their use and defining their role in the overall
regional
recreational picture. Inadequate transportation to existing
recreation
areas limits the users of many public facilities. Many of the
most
valuable recreational resources are far from population centers.
Beaches especially, tend to be located in areas that are relatively
lightly developed. In general, autos are the major mode of transport
to these coastal areas. Mass transit is usually oriented
toward
central business districts. The result has been the underutilization
of public facilities where-.adequate public transportation has not
been
provided, and the denial of recreational opportunity to City
residents
who rely on public transit.

Private Areas
Private residential and commercial/industrial waterfront
uses
frequently isolate inland areas from the shore. Such development
forms
an edge or barrier limiting both physical and visual access. The
scale
and orientation of structures can effectively eliminate view
corridors
and prevent pedestrian passage, benefiting only adjacent waterfront
users.
Improved shorefront access frequently conflicts with existing uses,
activities and natural functions occuring at the shore.
Along
industrially developed waterfront, increased pedestrian use
of
available open space conflicts with traffic patterns and other
aspects
associated with incompatible adjacent uses. Such conditions
endanger
pedestrian safety, interfere with truck traffic circulation and
hamper
recreational facilities, could disrupt adjacent residential uses by
causing traffic congestion and associated noise and air impacts and
degrade recreational quality by the overuse of facilities.
3
6

Shorefront Access Areas (305 planning
phase)
During the planning phase of Waterfront Revitalization Program, the
Department of City Planning investigated sites needing access
improvements. The planning process included a methodology
for
identifying shorefront areas appropriate for improved access and a
tabulation of the nature of access issues for 33 areas (see Chapter
V:
Special Revitalization Areas).

RECREATION RESOURCES
The park system of New York City is composed of 24,610 acres which
include 1400 parcels of land, from vest pocket parks and park strips
linking highways to massive citywide parks, like Central Park in
Manhattan. Park facilities include 225 neighborhood parks (from 0
to 3
acres)*, scattered throughout the five boroughs, 154 community
district
parks (from 3 to 10 acres), 45 multi-community parks (from 10 to 20
acres) and 26 citywide parks (20 acres and over). Outdoor recreation
space covers 12% of the total City land area. By borough,
Staten
Island has 22%, Queens 27%, Manhattan 11%, Brooklyn 16%, and the
Bronx
24% of the total citywide park acreage.
Many of these recreation areas are located within the waterfront
area
.or take their character from a waterfront location.
Shorefront
parkland totals approximately 10,275 acres, 41% of all park
acreage,
well distributed thro'ughout the five boroughs. There are
approximately
3500 acres along the Bronx Coast, 2000 acres along Brooklyn, 1330
acres
along Manhattan (including the 396 acre Randall's Island), 2145
acres
along Queens and 1300 acres along Staten Island.
Public waterfront areas range from small esplanades and playgrounds
of
less than one acre to the 2,117 acre Pelham Say Park along
Eastchester
and Pelham Bays on the northeastern shore of the Bronx, which is a
major regional facility. The ten largest shorefront parks
comprise
approximately 5,965 acres or more than half of shorefront public
space. They provide City residents with the opportunity for diverse
active and passive recreational activities, including picnicking,
baseball, basketball, bocci, bicycling, swimming, promenading,
fishing
and viewing the impressive City shoreline.
To improve recreation opportunities for City residents, beach
frontage
can be expanded with shorefront promenades and sitting, fishing,
boating and picnic areas that are easily accessible to the public.
Future plans include developing access to the waterfront along the
North Shore of Queens (at Powell's Cove, Little Bay and at Udall's
Cove
on the Queens-Nassau border). Implementation of these plans will
* Parks are classified by
size.
3
7

require some acquisition of private property. Access improvements
are
also planned for the Bronx River.
Despite the extensive park system, many problems exist and many
future
opportunities may be lost unless swift management action is
undertaken
accompanied by fiscal relief. The greatest challenges are
preservation
of parkland from further physical deterioration; provision
of
additional access to underutilized areas especially for the
elderly,
handicapped and immobile inner-city poor; development of mapped
parkland now vacant, littered and unusable (without any added City
maintenance burden); and, in some cases, limiting access to prevent
environmental degradation.

Preservation
Physical deterioration of City waterfront parks has impacted use
and
enjoyment of recreational facilities. Over the past ten
years,
operation and maintenance funds have declined and demand for open
space
and recreation has grown. Age, overuse, vandalism and outdated
facility designs have contributed to the
deterioration. Adequate,
ongoing maintenance programs are necessary to meet community needs.
Both capital and expense budget funds allocated to the park system
are
inadequate, reflecting higher priorities for economic
recovery,
transportation , health, welfare and other public needs. Citywide
budget cuts have restricted acquisition and expansion as well as
rehabilitation of parks. The resulting impact on park maintenance
is
more severe when inflation and increased energy and labor costs are
considered.
Budgetary gaps are not met by State and Federal recreation
programs.
Many of America's urban recreation areas have become maintenance
problems. Such facilities are an essential part of urban life
and
financing is crucial if they are not to be abandoned to vandals or
made
useless by overuse. The development of a program to provide funds
and
technical assistance to local park systems for maintenance and
operating functions is strongly encouraged by New York City.

Access
Inadequate access opportunities to existing facilities due to
physical
obstructions, poor roadway design and limited mobility of user
groups
prevent the full use of City parks and open spaces.
Mass transit coverage and scheduling to coastal recreational areas
provides only limited relief. Mass transit focuses on workday
service
to downtown business districts, rather than weekend access to the
marine perphery. Where intermodal transfers are available,
increased
3
8

transit fare has made recreational travel for low income families,
famiilies without automobiles, the elderly, the young and the
handicapped almost prohibitively expensive. The few beach areas with
relatively good mass transit access such as Coney Island, are seriously
overcrowded during summer months. Partial solutions to these problems
have been proposed in the past. For example, the Special South
Richmond Development District has extensive pedestrian and bicycle
rights-of-way separated from vehicular routes, but this and other open
space network plans lack implementation funds.
The Special Revitalization Areas section of this report discusses the
identification of waterfront areas with access problems and the
approach to their resolution. Please refer to that section.

Development
Maintenance, preservation and access problems should be resolved before
additional park areas are acquired. However, some communities,
especially high density areas, are inadequately served, lack open
space, recreational facilities and special programs for the elderly,
handicapped and young. In many cases, potential for waterfront open
space development exists near these neighborhoods. For example,
Soundview Penninsula in the Bronx along the East River waterfront, has
great potential for multiple recreational activities and facilities.
Development plans, based on community need, include the designation of
natural areas in the northern section of this peninsula with provi5ion
for passive recreation; playing fields, bicycle paths and fishing dock's
are planned for the southern section.
The New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program will support the
development of areas such as this which exhibit unbalanced
supply/demand ratios in conjunction with available unused open space.
Two other issues are closely associated with recreational resources -
overuse and water quality. Issues/policies and implementation
techniques designed to resolve problems associated with those issues
are included in the Public Access and Water Quality sections of this
chapter.

SCENIC QUALITY
The New York City coastline offers numerous and diverse visual
experiences along both man-made and natural shores. The Manhattan
skyline, the entrance to New York Harbor and the Narrows are a few of
the sweeping views created or completed by man's activity. Smaller
scale urban settings having cultural/historical significance are also
of scenic value. The Special South Street Seaport District and the
39

Fulton Ferry Historic District preserve linkages to New York's
maritime
heritage by maintaining and stimulating re-creation of their
historic
character. Containerports and other maritime facilities
provide an
added dimension to the urban shorescape with their complexity and
dynamic forms.
More natural coastal settings are also abundant in the City.
Many
miles of natural and artificial beaches offer traditional
coastal
views. Public bathing beaches at Coney Island and
Rockaway have
artificially expanded foreshores which give large numbers of
seasonal
visitors access to views of the Atlantic Ocean.
Waterfront views can enhance neighborhood quality,
shorefront
recreation facilities, and other waterfront activities compatable
with
pedestrian access.
Other coastal areas such as Gateway National Recreation properties
in
Rockaway, Jamaica Bay and on Staten Island (as well as city-owned
and
private shorefront) exhibit natural coastal formats and vegetation.
In
many cases, artificially placed features such as the backshore dunes
north of Great Kills on Staten Island are 'of high visual
quality.
Among the rarest of all coastal resources in New York City are
undisturbed tidal' wetlands and wildlife habitats. These areas
have
been altered by man's activity but have adapted and remain viable
areas
of natural activity with unique scenic value.
Enhanced scenic quality in the coastal zone can have a beneficial
effect on coastal recreation, shorefront commercial activity, and
adjacent neighborhood quality. Recreational activities at beaches
and
waterfront parks can be made more attractive and enjoyable.
Commercial
activities at amusement areas, beach concessions and marinas will
increase in value if their facilities are cleaner, safer, more
accessible facilities. Residential communities along densely
developed
urban shores and more lightly developed reaches, such as the
Rockaways,
will benefit psychologically from a more aesthetically pleasing
environment.

Deterioration Of Scenic Quality

Coastal visual quality, in New York City, however, is
often
deteriorated, inaccessible, obstructed, threatened by the lack of
consideration for scenic values in planning waterfront development,
or
otherwise blighted by out of scale or disharmonious development.
Deteriorated waterfront property and degraded water quality detract
from the scenic quality of waterfront recreational, residential
pedestrian and commercial activities in the following ways:
- water pollution, including floating debris, makes fishing,
swimming, boating, as well as commercial shipping,
unattractive,
unsafe and unhealthy;
40

- poorly maintained and abandoned waterfront structures contribute
to floating debris and the blighted appearance of the urban
shorescape, resulting in lost opportunity for public access
and
waterfront redevelopment;
- beach erosion results in the loss of valuable scenic and
recreational open space, as well as the endangerment of
upland
development and natural areas;
- poorly maintained public parks discourage public use of
available shorefront open space which represents the primary
resource for public shorefront visual access;
- overcrowded public parks detract from the enjoymnent
of
shorefront recreational facilities and endanger and degrade
the
available natural and scenic resources;
- undeveloped coastal landfill sites are eyesores that sometimes
block coastal views since they are usually extended to great
heights. The noise, odor and appearance of active sites have
negative impacts on any adjacent use; and
- poorly managed wetlands often become unauthorized dumping
grounds filled with vermin and pests, obnoxious odors and
sights.
Consequently, the opportunity for the enjoyment of coastal scenic
resources is lost or significantly limited.
The coastline in general, is often inaccessible to inland
populations
effectively isolating them from coastal views. Public spaces are
not
readily available along large reaches of privately owned or
developed
waterfront. Water-dependent activities such as shipping,
energy
production and storage facilities, as well as other industrial uses
that require waterfront sites, further prohibit access to scenic
views.
Maritime uses .such as passenger terminals, containerports
and
commercial fishing can attract the interest of the public, provide
passive recreational opportunity and enhance the scenic quality.
Vacant and underused public waterfront structures are ignored
as
resources for physical or visual access. Abandoned piers,
marginal
streets and other city-owned property can provide the
public with
adequate space to experience and enjoy waterfront views.
Waterfront views are often degraded or obstructed by
haphazard
development. Residential development, transportation
facilities
(highways, bridges, etc.), energy production and storage
facilities,
etc. frequently are not in harmony with coastal environs.
4
1

Management of Scenic
Resources
Many of the City's outstanding scenic views and other scenic
resources
are adequately protected. Existing regulatory mechanisms for
the
protection of scenic quality are in the City's Building Code and
Zoning
Resolution which regulate permissible uses and the designation of
special districts. These mechanisms include provisions for
performance
standards, height and bulk regulations and the transfer of
development
rights. While these protective measures are substantial, they have
not
been applied to all of the City's scenic resources.

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Energy facilities have located in the New York City waterfront area
because of their large scale water requirements for cooling and
proximity to fuel supply and proximity to market areas. These
combined
factors create a relative "waterfront dependence" that
varies
significantly by type of facility. Power plants, for example,
which
receive fuel by barge or tanker and which use large quantities of
water
for cooling are dependent upon a waterfront location.
Petroleum
storage tank farms derive an economic advantage by being sited close
to
power plants.

The dependence on and attraction of energy facilties to the coast is
evident in New York City, where the majority of power plants,
petroleum
terminals, tank farms, and gas storage and processing facilities
locate. The waterfront area of New York City has 10
electrical
generating plants, at least 53 bulk oil storage terminals with over
500
petroleum tanks as well as liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanks and
facilities. This siting arrangement plays a vital role in the
supply,
distribution and production of energy within New York.

Impacts
Energy facilities may adversely impact the waterfront in several
important ways:
- Electrical generating facilities discharge thermal and chemical
pollutants into adjacent waterways. The power plants
located
along New York's waterfront all use once-through cooling
systems which raise temperatures of the immediate receiving
waters from 16OF to 20OF resulting in reduced levels of
dissolved oxygen and decreased marine organisms and species
diversity.
4
2

- Petroleum terminals, tank farms, and pipelines exhibit chronic
seepage and spillage. Petroleum delivered to utilities
to
generate electricity, provide heating oil and meet
transportation needs, comes into the City mostly by tanker
and/or barge. Because of the limited depths of channels in
New
York Harbor (up to 45 feet), only small tankers, up to
40,000-50,000 deadweight tons (DWT) can proceed to piers to
unload. Larger oil tankers in the 70,000 DWT size
(small
compared to the more economic Very Large Crude Carriers
(VLCC)
of 100,000-500,000 DWT) have to "lighter" their loads
outside
the harbor. In reducing their load by transfer to barges
they
often spill oil which pollutes the waters.

Energy wastes are another potential polluter of the waters.
For
example, if coal burning is approved as an alternative and/or
supplement to oil burning in the future, byproducts of coal and
refuse-burning will have to be disposed of at sea or on land.
- Power plants, whether fueled by oil or coal or refuse-derived
fuel, also affect air quality by emission of gases such as
sulfur and nitrogen dioxides. Tanks storing lighter oils
such
as gasoline and aviation fuels emit hydrocarbons in the
process
of "breathing"1.
- Power plants and LNG facilities have large land requirements
for buffering and safety reasons. Such land
preempts
waterfrontage and reduces public access. Energy facilties may
also present adverse aesthetic impacts if plants are not
properly sited, clustered, buffered and/or maintained.

These combined impacts can significantly alter the air, water and
aesthetic quality of adjacent coastal uses and also impair upland
locations.
The degree to which these impacts affect the waterfront is
amplified
by the energy supply and demand patterns of New York City, which
imports all of its primary energy resources and generates an
enormous
demand for electric power. Compared to the country as a whole,
New
Yorkers are quite energy conservative. In 1979 they used 180
million
British thermal units of energy per capita versus 346 million
nationwide (one gallon of heating oil generates 138,000 BTUs).
While
well below the national average in per capita consumption, there is
a
concentrated demand for over 7,500 MW of power within a 317 square
mile area which severely impacts the supply environment, in this
case,
the waterfront.
Following are issues related to facility types common to the City's
waterfront:
4
3

Electric GeneratLing
Facilities
All electric generating stations in New York City are located
within
or adjacent to the waterfront (see Con Edison Power Plants map).
Consolidated Edison (Con Edison) owns and operates ten power plants
in
the city having a capacity of 5300 megawatts. The steam
turbine
generating plants are "once-through" cooled with attendant large
water
requirements. Con Edison transports some oil within the boroughs
by
pipeline. It also receives some oil at its Arthur Kill plant by a
pipeline from New Jersey. These pipelines lend reliability
to
operations against the event of strikes or inclement weather which
might otherwise threaten deliveries by tanker or barge. Con
Edison
has proposed switching from the burning of oil to coal at its
Arthur
Kill and Ravenswood plants.
The use of refuse-derived fuel has been proposed by the Department
of
Sanitation, which has to dispose of 20,000 to 22,000 tons of refuse
daily and is running out of space. The Department has proposed the
building of ten plants handling about 3,000 tons per day over a ten
year period. It is reviewing proposals for the first such plant to
be
constructed at the former Brooklyn Navy Yard. Power derived from
the
plant in the form of steam would be fed into a nearby Con Edison
plant. Both the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the
Power Authority of New York have expressed interest in building
similar plants in the Bronx and elsewhere. Like conventional oil
and
coal facilities, resource recovery plants will have air impacts
which
fall under the jurisdiction of. the Clean Air Act. The adverse
impacts
from existing generating plants have been significantly reduced and
controlled by Federal, State and local environmental programs in
recent years.

Air Quality
All Consolidated Edison plants must be in compliance with
applicable
Federal, State and local air pollution control regulations. They
must
also meet New York City's stricter air pollution control code. (As
a
preliminary to switching to coal, the utility obtained a variance
to
test-burn oil having a sulfur content the equivalent of coal.
The
impacts of burning the higher sulfur fuel during 1980 and 1981
proved
inconclusive. The utility has received permission from the
City's
Department of Environmental Protection and the State Department of
Environmental Conservation to continue with the test burn under a
variance of the air code which has to be renewed at six monthly
intervals.

Water Quality
Energy facilities which take in or discharge water for cooling and
44

Figure 8-
CONSOLIDATED EDISON POWER PLANTS
IN NEW YORK CITY
Hudson
Ave.
Gowanu
s
LILCO
Far
Roc
kawa
Arthur
Kill
*Linked to Hudson plant by
pineline,
it has no storage tanks.
Scale 1": 19800'
45

processing require State Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(PUES) (402) permits. These set limits on the amount of emissions
permitted to be discharged and are issued by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.

Petroleum Terminals and Storage Facilities:

Oil arrives in New York City by pipelines carrying the fuel from
the
Gulf Coast (see Oil Company Pipeline Routes map). The heavier more
viscous grades arrive exclusively by tanker. Fuel delivered by
tanker
is delivered to some 44 storage terminals from where it is taken
to
market by trucks. The City has 16.2 million barrels of
storage
capacity along the waterfront (see Bulk Oil Storage Facilities map
and
legend). This represents about 18 percent of the capacity
in the
harbor which New York shares with New Jersey. A study funded by
the
Coastal Energy Impact Program and released in November 1981
indicated
that petroleum handling impacts the City's waterways in several
ways.
Oil spills are generated, for example, during the transfer of oil
from
tanker or barge to dockside and again when oil is transferred from
tank to truck at the loading racks. Oil spills also threaten
aged
storage tanks which may spring a leak at the weak point of a tank
wall
or bottom. The study found, however, that waste oil -- that which is
spilled during transfer operations -- poses the greatest threat. The
amount spilled is out of proportion to the amount of overall
petroleum
handled.
The study recommended regular monitoring of oil facilities and
decommissioning of old tanks to mitigate some of these impacts.
Spills are, however, a potential threat as long as oil is handled.
Their severity will depend on the location and the type of oil
spilled. Disposal of collected spilled oil in landfills may also
pose
impacts over time.

Air Quality - Hydrocarbon Emmnissions
The air pollution eff ects of petroleum terminals and
storage
facilities result from hydrocarbon emmissions when light fuels such
as
gasoline and jet fuel are exposed to air during transfer or
spillage.
Vapor recovery controls and floating roofs for storage tanks are
some
of the ways in which emissions can be reduced.

Visual Blight
Storage facilities, when located adjacent to inland residential and
recreational uses obstruct waterfront views.
46

Figure
9
OIL COMPANY PIPELINE ROUTES
inde
n
.4 .
Rahway 6
N,..
*
KEY
suckeye--'ipeline
Other Pioelines:
1. Exxon
2. Colonial (Linden to Bayonne)
3. Getty
4. Coionial (Linden =tzG ':e
ort)
5. Texaco
6. Colonial (Linden to Por-
oabil)
Scale ": 19800'
47

Figure 10
BULK OIL STORAGE FACILITIES
in New York City
'43
Key on next naae
48.

Figure 11
EAST RIVER (Brooklyn)
63. Paragon (2277; 2887; 2590)
38. NEPCO (2361:1)
39. Con Edison-Kent Avenue (2023:10)
40. Con Edison-Hudson Avenue (6:1)
41. Patchogue (623:62 & 624:1)

GOWANUS CANAL
42. Bayside Fuel (431:17)
43. Cibro (480:1 & 483:11)

EAST RIVER
44. Con Edison, Gowanus (653:3)
45. Con Edison. Narrows (803:150)

GRAVESEND SAY
46. Paragon Oil (6491:293)

MILL BASIN
47. Metropolitan (8470:143 & 1064)
48. Sunmark Industries (8470:130)
49. A.R. Fuel (847)
50. Mobil (6491:293)

JAMAICA SAY
51. Starrett City (4452:85)
52. Jamaica Bay Fuel (14260)
53. Port Authority-J.F. Kennedy Airport (1426)
54. Tepco
55. Long Island Lighting Company (15,670:125)

ARTHUR KILL
56. Fort Mobil (7247:1)
57. Gulfport (1717; 1760; 1835)
58. Proctor and Gamble (1338:1)

KILL VAN KULL
59. Slpco (1107:31)
60. Riche Fuael (185:187)
61. Quinlan (254 & 256)
62. Taverna

OTHER FACILITIES:
a. 8uckeye Pipeline (surge tanks) (294:312)
b. Barrow Oil Terminal-pending application (312)
c Brooklyn Union Gas Facilities

Facilities are located on same block and lot
B* andolene took over from Premium, November 1980
HARLEM RIVER
1. Belcher (2197:47)

EAST RIVER (8Bronx)
2. Metropolitan (2597:225)
3. Cibro (2575:39)
4. Texaco (2771)

WESTCHESTER CREEK
5. Schildwachter (3939:250)
6. Hess (3838:250)
7. Cibro (3837:1 &3836:1)

HUTCHINSON RIVER
8. Co-op City (5141:440)
9. Mt Vernon Energy Terminal (4974:1)

EAST RIVER
10. Con Edison Astoria (850:1)*
11. Power Authority of State of New York
(850:1 )
12. Greater New York Terminal (814:27)

FLUSHING BAY
13. Port Authority-La Guardia (926)

FLUSHING CREEK
14. Skaggs Walsh. formerly Sunrise Oil (4222:1 & 4223:10)
15. Bandolene (4398:26, 4399 & 4400)*
16. Metropolitan (4693)

HUDSON RIVER
17. Con Edison (1106:1)

EAST RIVER (Manhattan & Queens)
18. Con Edison, 73rd St. (1486:1 & 1487:15)
19. Con Edison. Waterside (945:33)
20. Con Edison. 14th St. (988:1)
21. Con Edison, Ravenswood (357:17)
22. Royal Petroleum (477:24)

NEWTOWN CREEK (Queens Side)
23. Ditmas (38:1 & 16)
24. Prolerized Sciabau Neu (294:360)
25. Getry Oil (294)
26. Quanta Resources Corp. formerly Hudson Oil (312:69)
27. Phelps Dodge (25201)
28. Exxon (2611:35)

NEWTOWN CREEK (Brooklyn Side)
29. Shell (2491:1)
30. Exxon (2491; 2515
31. Metropolitan (2517:14)
32. Mobil (2515.13; 2612:1)
33. Amoco (2612:15)
34. Gulf Oil (2927:123; 2928:1)
35. Calleia (29273
36. Cibro (2942:48 & 49)
37. Sandolene (2942:101)
49

Liquid Natural Gas
(LNG)
LNG is natural gas that has been liquefied by supercooling to a
temperature of -2590 and is stored in cryogenic refrigerated tanks.
New York City has two such plants: one operated by Brooklyn Union
Gas
is in Greenpoint, Brooklyn fronting Newtown Creek and the other
operated by Consolidated Edison is adjacent to its Astoria
generating
station in Queens. They serve as peak shaving plants,
supplementing
the demand for energy during extreme climatic conditions when for
example, air conditioners are turned up during a heat wave or
thermostats raised during a cold spell. A third LNG plant
in
Rossville Staten Island was completed in 1973 but never operated
due
to permit approval problems. The facility is owned by the
Energy
Terminal Services Corporation, (ETSC) a subsidiary of the New
Jersey
Public Service Gas and Electric Company. ETSC is still
trying to
bring the plant into operation.
The concern regarding LNG facilities in Rossville relates to public
safety. ETSC's application has been modified in the years since
it
submitted its original application, which was based on imported LNG
being tankered into Rossville. The new project would bring in gas
by
pipeline and function as a peak shaving facility.

WATER RESOURCES

General Harbor Conditions
Efforts to clean up the harbor and its tributary streams deal with
many pollution sources, domestic sewage being the largest single
factor. Industrial discharges, regulated by national and state
permit
systems, is next in significance. Overflows from combined sewers
are
an unusually large problem exacerbated by continuous discharge of
raw
sewage at poorly maintained regulator sites. Street runoff,
material
deposited in sewer lines between storms, and industrial wastes are
significant sources. Other major sources include oil spilled
from
ships and at oil storage areas, benthic deposits and dredged
materials, non-profit sources such as landfill leachates, thermal
discharges, floatable materials and pollutants such as
PCBs
transported by river currents from outside the City boundaries.
As a result of these discharges, water quality in some parts of New
York Harbor and adjadent waterways fails to meet New York State
standards. Often, bathing water standards are not met in the
areas
where swimming is desired. High total coliform levels have caused
the
closing of Coney Island, Staten Island, Bronx and Jamaica Say
beaches
in the past. Floatables and drift materials are nuisances
which
directly affect boating and shoreline aesthetics, causing
considerable
damage to pleasure craft.
50

Improving the quality of discharges to area waterways would raise
dissolved oxygen concentrations and lower coliform bacterial
levels.
While shellfish and finfish populations would benefit, the value of
resident species would continue to be limited by the presence of
toxic
chemicals and metals. Bottom sediments will continue to leach
these
materials into the harbor waters for some time, posing a long-term
problem for fishermen of the region. The proposed
industrial
pretreatment program will take many years to be effective, and will
only succeed with the cooperation of upstream and adjacent
communities
in New York and New Jersey.
There is ample data on summertime values of conventional New York
Harbor water quality parameters such as biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), suspended solids, and dissolved oxygen from surveys by the
New
York City Department of Environmental Protection, the Interstate
Sanitation Commission and others. As a
result, the local water
quality plan has emphasized solutions to these problems. There
i s
little data on parameters such as heavy metals, toxics, chlorine
residuals, and algae concentration during rainfall periods or other
seasons of the year. Future studies will be directed
toward
understanding and solving these potential problems.
The cost of achieving water quality goals will require extensive
funding support at all levels of government during the next two
decades. New York City has arranged financing for a
significant
portion of wastewater treatment facility expansions, construction
and
other capital needs. With the construction grant program underway
and
industrial regulatory controls initiated, it is expected that
most
municipal treatment plants will be providing secondary
treatment
within 5 to 10 years and the major sources of industrial pollution
will be abated.
The burden of operation and maintenance costs will remain a primary
responsibility for City financing. Annual costs as well as
financing
of the City share of capital construction are projected to be
within
the capabilities of City revenues.

Municipal Discharges
Effluents from municipal wastewater treatment plants and
raw
discharges due to bypassing at incomplete facilities have been
major
sources of pollution in New York. In areas of the harbor where
these
discharges are large and hydrologic conditions prevent efficient
dispersion, swimming and shellfishing are periodically or
permanently
prohibited for health reasons. Sedimentation and depressed
dissolved
oxygen levels also result. In New York City, most of the
municipal
sewage flows will be treated in secondary sewage treatment plants
constructed with funds available under the Federal Water Pollution
control Act and state bond acts approved in 1965 and 1972. The New
5
1

York City share, 12.5% for new construction and upgrading, is
available in part as a result of credits for construction programs
undertaken without Federal and State aid.
After World War II, the City inaugurated a program of plant
improvements, including repairs, rehabilitation, upgrading, and in
some cases expansion. Complete upgrading to step aeration, a form
of
secondary treatment, is expected within the next few years at nine
of
the City's fourteen treatment plants. As a result of a consent
decree
between New York City and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), the Red Hook and North River, the two plants now under
construction, will be completed by 1986.
The following table shows the amount of BOO and suspended solids
in
the treated discharges of the New York City region in 1975 and
those
projected for the year 2000. It is assumed that all plants will
be
upgraded to provide 85% BOO and suspended solids removal as
required
by USEPA. The relatively high figures for 1975 reflect the fact
that
there is no treatment for Red Hook and North River service areas.

NEW YORK CITY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT DISCHARGES
Flows BOO Suspended
Solids
Year -MGD 1,000 #/Day 1,000 #/Oay
1975 1,536 925 998
2000 1,674 252 251
Combined Sewer Overflows and Urban Runoff
Correcting problems related to combined sewer overflows (CSOs) is
of
major importance in the effort to upgrade water quality in New York
City. CSOs are a bypass system for combined sewer pipes. When
it
rains heavily, a part of the greatly increased volume is
automatically
discharged to waterways without any treatment. Although
somewhat
diluted, this raw sewage is an obvious polluter.
In densely urbanized areas, storm runoff picks up contaminants
from
industrial sites, streets (settled air pollutants, litter, etc.)
and
other areas where debris accumulates or erosion occurs. Street
runoff
can, in some instances, be a more noxious pollutant than a raw
sewage
because of the wide variety of contaminants it contains.
5
2

A complete solution to the problem of combined sewer overflows is
extremely expensive since it involves major alteration of the sewer
system or treatment plants capable of handling large volumes of
water
on an intermittent basis. In addition, urban runoff in a
highly
developed area such as New York City is not easily modified through
land management approaches without significant impact on the
existing
economic base. Solutions to CSO and storm water problems are
more
applicable for small areas or drainage basins where adjacent
waterways
are easily influenced. Concentrated efforts should be on abating
or
treating discharges in waterways which need good water quality for
particular uses such as bathing.

Indus-trial Discharges
Industrial contaminants enter the habor as point discharges,
indirect
discharges into the municipal system, and non-point runoff
and
spills. Some water quality problems only occur periodically such
as
the occasional spills of oil and other hazardous substances during
transport or transfer operations. Problems resulting from
cooling
operations in various manufacturing and power generating processes
cause secondary impacts by lowering dissolved oxygen and disrupting
the natural environment through biological effects on certain
aquatic
species.
Water quality sampling has shown that th~ere is a pervasive toxics
problem in New York Harbor. Findings include the following
results-
(See Table, TOXIC PROBLEM AREAS.)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been found to occur in
significant quantities in harbor sediments. The
tissues of
non-resident finfish also contain PCBs indicating bioconcentration
of
PCBs in regions outside New York City. With the exception of
recently
discovered polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) in the Arthur Kill area,
the few organic compounds for which data exist appear to be
concentrated in harbor sediments from which there is constant
leaching
or resuspension, rather than new sources.
Mercury, lead, copper and zinc accumulate in potentially
toxic
concentrations throughout the harbor and affect the productivity of
local finfish and shellfish populations. In addition,
nickel
concentrations are high in the Hudson, East and Harlem Rivers and
in
the Lower, Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays. Bioconcentration of
arsenic
and mercury in the tissue of commercially important finfish of the
Lower Bay is also a potential public health hazard and reflects
recent
discoveries of high levels of mercury leaching from the Meadowlands
in
New Jersey.
Oil occurs in high concentrations in the sediments of the Arthur
Kill
and the East River. Four of the ten tributary streams sampled
during
53

the New York City 208 Study (Coney Island Creek, Gowanus Canal,
Bergen
Basin and Mill Creek) also contain high oil concentrations in their
sediments.
During the summer, chlorine exceeds safe levels for shellfish
throughout the harbor and may be toxic to finfish in Jamaica Say,
the
Arthur Kill and Newark Bay.
Development and implementation of strategies to control problem
heavy
metals is dependent on the ability of New York City to carry out a
comprehensive industrial waste survey. The extent of pretreatment
for
heavy metals will depend on the quantity and concentration of
effluent
discharged by an industry and the economic applicability of process
modification or treatment. Even with pretreatment
strategies,
existing heavy metal concentrations in the harbor can only decrease
gradually as they slowly leach from bottom sediments.
Problems
associated with PCB's, metals and oil in sediments are expected to
continue unless significant progress is made in reducing industrial
effluents and accidental spillage.

Residual Wastes And Debris
Some environmental protection activities on the waterfront may,
ironically, have negative impacts on water quality as a result of
disposal practices of dredge residual wastes, solid waste
collection
and municipal waste treatment.
Treatment of raw sewage produces sludge, some of which contains
toxic
substances and other pollutants. Approximately 500 of 700 dry tons
of
sewage sludge produced daily in the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan
area are dumped at sea. Nearly 40% of the quantity is produced at
New
York City municipal treatment plants and barged to the New York
Bight
-Apex for disposal. With the upgrading of City treatment plants
to
secondary treatment levels, it is estimated that daily sludge
production will increase to more than 770 dry tons. Currently
the
City disposes of sewage sludge at a dump site 12 miles offshore.
EPA
is reviewing whether the City should be required to relocate the
dump
site to a site 106 miles out and beyond the continental shelf.
The
results of this question should help to provide information on the
long-term effects of ocean dumping on ocean water quality.
Refuse consisting of household, commercial, institutional
and
industrial wastes, street sweepings, and construction and
demolition
wastes are deposited at landfill sites. About 76% of the
refuse
material used for landfill is biodegradable, but during the process
of
decomposition, toxics leach into and pollute adjacent surface and
ground waters. Over 17,000 tons of solid waste are deposited
daily
within the coastal area. Total City refuse is expected to increase
at
a rate of about 1.5% per year and present landfill areas will reach
their capacities within the next decade. (See Solid Waste Issues
in
this chapter.)
5
4

Table 3
TOXIC PROBLEMS AREAS
(Summers, June through September 1974 to
1976)
Arthur Kill,
Hudson Long Island East and Kill Van Kull, Lower Raritan Jamaica
Parameters River Sound Harlem Rivers Upper Bay Newark Bay Sandy Hook Bays Bay
Heavy Levels considered hazardous to the marine environment exceeded in 90% of the time for
Metals* copper and mercury and 60% of the time for lead and zinc.
30% of 50% of nickel 36% of nickel
nickel values exceed values exceed
values hazardous hazardous levels
exceed levels
hazar-
dous
levels

Toxics* High Oils in water Oils in Chlorine levels Chlorine levels Chlorine
(Oil, PCB occasionally water oc- toxic to shell- toxic to shell- levels toxic
chlorine, levels at toxic casionaly fish and fin- fish are occa- to shellfish
PCBs) in levels for at toxic fish; oils in sionally exeeded fish and
spawning estaurine levels for water occasion- finfish;
areas fish and estaurine ally at toxic water oils
for shellfish; fish and levels for occasionally
anadro- fish re- shellfish estaurine fish at toxic
mous sources and shellfish; levels for
fish banned for also high PCB estaurine
human con- levels fish and
sumption be- finfish
cause of
PCBs

Dredge spoil is another type of residual waste which presents
disposal
problems. Dredging is undertaken to maintain and cut new shipping
channels, and to provide sand for beach nourishment. The
activity
enhances waterfront uses by facilitating navigation and providing
beachfill. It also improves water quality by promoting tidal
flushing
in certain inlets. Negative impacts associated with dredging
include
disruption of benthic organisms and temporary turbidity at the
dredge
sites and contamination of disposal sites by dredge spoil.
The bottom sediment which is dredged often contains heavy metals
(zinc, mercury, and lead), petroleum residues, and carbonaceous
materials. This material has been dumped at a site within the New
York Sight, approximately seven miles off the Sandy Hook
Lighthouse.
Negative environmental impacts and possible lack of additional
capacity at the current "Mud Dump" make alternate methods of
disposal
a serious issue. Although dredging is presently controlled by a
State
permit program, a careful selection of possible disposal sites and
criteria to reduce adverse impacts of contaminated harbor sediments
has not been fully developed. Formulating an immediate solution
to
this problem is imperative because of the probable adverse economic
impacts to the City's economic base.

Classifications and Standards
New York State, New ~Jersey and the Interstate Sanitation
Commission
have classified waters of the New York region according to "best
usage." The three sets of classifications and standards differ in
detail. All are directed toward the exclusion or reduction
of
pollutants harmful to public health and welfare, marine life and
aesthetics.
Present New York State classifications for waters of the New York
City
region and surrounding waters are shown in Table, NEW YORK STATE
STANDARD. They include four "best usages": Shellfishing,
Bathing,
Fishing and Fish Survival (better defined as "fish transit").
The New York City 208 Plan recommends that present State standards
and
classifications be reviewed and that after wastewater treatment
plant
improvements are completed, the upgrading of Fish Survival waters
to
Fishing waters be considered.
The 208 project also suggests that the fecal coliform limitations
accompanying the total coliform limitations in the present New York
State standard be revised to bring them into better correlation
with
total coliform standards.
56

NEW YORK STATE
STANDARDS
0O Total
Classification Minimum Coliform
Shellfishing (SA) 5.0 70
Bathing (SB) 5.0 2,400
Fishing (I) 4.0*
Fish Survival (SD) 3.0*
*No col iformn standard.

Equally important from the standpoint of shellfishing, finfishing,
and
marine life are standards limiting toxic substances and heavy
metals
such as arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc and PCBs.
The
USEPA has established guidelines for all direct discharges to the
waterways and is formulating pretreatment standards for industries
and
discharges to the municipal sewer system which are expected to be
more
stringent than present New York City standards. New York
State
standards for other parameters such as pH, temperature, dissolved
solids, turbidity, color, taste, odor and suspended solids,
although
not frequently monitored, are generally met throughout the harbor
and
contiguous waters. Discharges of oil and floating
substances,
although illegal, are frequent sources of complaint. A
more
comprehensive program of compliance monitoring could alleviate many
of
these problems.

Implementation
New York City water quality concerns are listed under appropriate
New
York State policies in the following section. This format was
chosen
to reflect the fact that all recommendations are results of the New
York City 208 Areawide Wast-e Treatment Management Planning
Program,
which remains to be negotiated between the City and State and
approved
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Once this cycle is complete, New York City and State
recommendations
will be compatible and implementable as specified in the plan
itself.
57

Management and implementation recommendations
include:
- Designate the New York City Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) as the 208 management agency, responsible
for
implementation of the Plan in the City.
- Evaluate the needs of the City Environmental Quality Review
(CEQR) process Citywide to ensure adequate City staff and
administration.
- Continue coordination between the DEP and other
City
departments, especially the Department of Sanitation.
- Retain all wastewater management responsibilities for the City
sewerage system within the DEP.
- Review the user charge system for water and sewer services.
- Determine the annual costs of the wastewater treatment
system
to facilitate a review of user charges.
-Examine and prescribe alternative accounting methods for
the
revenues from the City sewerage system, as mandated by the
City
Charter.
-Broaden the role of the Interstate Sanitation Commission
in
regional water quality management, contingent upon including
local representation (USEPA, Tri-State Regional
Pla6ning
Commission, designated 208 Agencies, and Citizens) on the
Commission.

Changes in the draft 208 Plan, either in technical information or
policy realms, may necessitate changes in this report in order to
meet
the requirements of Subsection 307(f) of the Coastal Zone
Management
Act which states that the requirements established pursuant to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended must be
incorporated into the State's Coastal Management Program.
Upon approval of the 208 Program, the City Coastal commission will
be
responsible. for regulating the location, modification, or
construction
of wastewater facilities on the basis of their potential water
quality
impact through review of the Department of Environmental Protection
plans. The WRP Plan is not expected to have a substantial
direct
effect on over-all water quality, although the increased protection
of
natural resources and greater shorefront accessibility resulting
from
the program may help to offset the costs of improving area water
quality.
5
8

In addition, Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (306) funds and
other
appropriate funding may be used to assist with recommended
technical
feasibility studies and implementation strategies, where
appropriate.
Please refer to the next section for specified water quality
recommendations keyed to State policies.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
This issue does not appear as a separate issue in the New York
State
Coastal Management Program. It is discussed separately in this
report
because of its associated adverse impacts on the coastal area and
economy of New York City. All program policies are designed to add
specificity to New York State Policy 39.
The disposal of various types of solid wastes generated in New York
City continues to be a critical issue, both city-wide and
particularly
in the coastal area. About 22,000 tons/day of refuse, comprised of
household, commercial, nonhazardous manufacturing, and
institutional
wastes and street sweepings; approximately 2,000
tons/day of
construction and demolition waste; about 200 dry tons/day of sludge
(digested solids from sewage treatment plants); and, an unknown
amount
of hazardous wastes require disposal.
The primary means of disposal are landfilling, incineration and
ocean
dispoisal. Landfilling and ocean disposal cause particular problems
within the New York coastal area and are, therefore, addressed
below.

Landfill ing
Of all disposal methods, landfilling has been used most extensively
because of its low cost, the lack of economical alternatives and
the
lack of information about its short and long term negative impacts.
A
significant portion of the City's coastal shoreline and wetlands
have
been permanently altered by this disposal practice. Since the
early
1930's, over 38 landfill sites having a combined area of about
5,500
acres have been completed. The composition of materials disposed
of
at these~ sites were not well monitored but generally included the
entire spectrum of solid wastes.
Presently, the City operates five landfills having a total area of
about 3,500 acres, all of which are located in the coastal area.
There are no operating landfills in the Bronx or Manhattan. Two in
Brooklyn (Pennsylvania Avenue and Fountain
Avenue), one in Queens
(Edgemere) and one in Staten Island (Muldoon Avenue) are truck-
fed.
Fresh Kills in Staten Island is barge fed from 9 marine
transfer
stations located in the other four boroughs.
5
9

Edgemere and Fresh Kills are the CitY's Oldest landfills.
Operations
started in the late 1930's and late 1940's respectively and are
expected to continue through the 1980's.
Pennsylvania Avenue and Fountain Avenue landfills are within
Gateway
National Recreation Area boundaries. According to a memorandum of
understanding signed by the National Park Service
of the U.S.
Department of Interior and the City of New York, all landfilling
must
be terminated at Pennsylvania Avenue and at Fountain Avenue by
1985.
The sites would then be turned over to Gateway for development as
part
of the entire recreation area.
60

Table
4
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES (Landfills)
Areas Expected
in Amount Received* Completion
Name Location Acres Tons/Day Type of Waste Date Comments
Fountain Ave. Brooklyn 297 9,000 Refuse Incin- 1985 Completion date is
set
erator residues, by M.O.U. between U.S.
Constr./Demol., &

Pennsylvania Ave. Brooklyn 110 Inactive Constr./Demol: 1985 Same as
above.
Waste

Edgemere Queens 173 600 Refuse, Constr./ - Completion is
not
Demol. yet fixed.

Mouldon Ave. Staten Island 60 1,200 Refuse, Constr./ Same as above.
Demol.

Fresh Kills Staten Island 2,900 10,200 Refuse, Incin- Completion date is not
erator Residues. yet fixed but, it may
have to be extended
well beyond 1985.

Total 15,768
*Amounts received based upon average daily tonnage in January
1979.
4

Two sets of regulations have recently been promulgated covering the
operation of solid waste management facilities: New York
State
Department of Environmental Conservation Part 360 regulations
pursuant
to Article 27, Title 5 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Conservation
Law;
and U.S. Environmental Protection Administration Solid
Waste
Management Criteria required by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery
Act of 1976.
Part 360 is designed to regulate the design, construction and
operation of all solid waste management facilities and requires
filing
of a yearly permit application. In the case of landfills,
detailed
engineering information is required including topography, refuse
and
sub-soil compositions, leachate, hydrology, and conformance with
other
environmental laws. In addition, a determination of the future
use
these extensive areas should have is required.
The Waterfront Revitalization Program recognizes the importance of
implementing a well thought out end-use site plan and development
program for each landfill. The prototype for such a plan
was
developed for the Pennsylvania Avenue landfill in Brooklyn (see
From
Landfill to Park: An Experiment In Construction Waste Manaqement
At
The Pennsylvania Avenue Landfill Site. New York Department of
City
Planning, 1974/NYC DCP 21-74). A site plan was developed which
integrates maximum future recreational options with
landfilling
operations. The result has been a much better site design
at very
little cost.
The New York City Resource Recovery Task Force has completed a
comprehensive solid waste management plan which assumed that
existing
landfills are nearly at their end and focused almost exclusively
on
finding the best available disposal technologies that recover
energy
and marketable materials from the solid waste stream. It
recommended
11 new resource recovery plants throughout the City to handle
all
refuse generated here. If implemented as planned, this strategy
would
greatly reduce the future need for extensive landfill operations,
but
not eliminate the need entirely since residue/fly ash by-products
and
construction demolition wastes will still need to be landfilled.
62

The Resource Recovery Plan is now being updated. The Department of
Sanitation has launched a program to bring modern reliable resource
recovery plants on line as quickly as possible. The first two
resource recovery plants that are in final stages of planning' are
expected to provide workable solutions to the City's waste disposal
problem as well as provide a partial solution to the City's energy
problem.
The first is a 3,000 ton per day Resource Recovery Facility in the
former Brooklyn Navy Yard (Brooklyn). The Department 'of Sanitation
has selected a resource recovery firm who will design, construct and
operate the facility. It is schedueled to be completed and operative
by 1987 at an estimated capital cost of $226.0 million. The steam
produced by this facility will be sold to Con Edison.
The second resource recovery project is being negotiated with the
Power Authority. of the State of New York (PASNY) for Hunts Point in
the Bronx. PASNY will design, build and operate a 1,700 ton per day
facility to generate electricity from refuse. The Department of
Sanitation expects to finalize negotiations with the Power Authority
in 1982.
A third resource recovery project involves exploring the utilization
of methane gas from existing landfills. For example, at Fresh Kills
(Staten Island) a private firm - Getty Synthetic Fuel Corporation is
constructing a methane gas recovery plant. It is expected to open by
the middle of 1982. The Department of Sanitation has also concluded
negotiations for building a methane recovery plant at Pelham Say
Landfill in the Bronx.
In the interim, New York City is developing an operational plan for
Fresh Kill Landfill, which will include a strategy to accommodate
waste disposal need of New York City until Resource Recovery
facilities are an line. This operation plan will also upgrade the
Fresh Kill site to meet all applicable environmental requirements.
The final plan is expected to be completed by early 1983.
A number of f actors will contribute to an increase in the amount of
refuse and construction/demolition wastes to be disposed within City
limits by landfill:
- strict enforcement of Federal air quality standards and New
York City Local Law #14 will add an estimated 1,505 tons per
day of refuse from the closing of on-site building
incinerators;
- the State of New Jersey is expected to prohibit New York and
other out-of-State private carters 'from using its landfills.
This will increase daily tonnage from 22,000 tons per day to
25,000 tons per day by 1985; and
63

- the implementation of major City projects, such as Westway,
the Convention Center and the Third City Water Tunnel may
increase the construction/demolition wasteload.
The discussion above illustrates the fact that New York City has a
critical need to determine optimum capacities for existing landfill
sites; there may very well be a need to locate new sites; and,_ even
given immediate implementation of a resource recovery scheme, landfill
space will always be needed, if not for the large quantities of
generated refuse, then most definitely for the other valueless
components (for example, residue from resource recovery facilities) of
the solid waste stream.
In addition, to ensure compliance with Waterfront Revitalization goals
and objectives and ameliorate existing problems associated with solid
waste disposal, the problem of illegal dumping must be resolved.
An estimated 270 tons per day of construction/demolition waste, about
1% of the total solid waste generated in New York City, collected by
private cartmen is sold as "clean fill" or illegally dumped in vacant
lots, marginal streets or unprotected parks and open spaces. Many
private citizens, unaware of the damage caused by this practice also
discard refuse illegally.
The New York City Council has recently amended the City Administrative
Code (section 755(2)-7.2) increasing the .civil penalties (fines,
empoundment of vehicles, etc.) and offering an award to anyone
providing information that leads to an illegal dumping conviction.
The effectiveness of the stricter penalties is not yet known but other
preventive measures must be introduced to be effective over the long
term, particularily those that attack the problem on a wider front
than regulation and enforcement.

Ocean Disposal: Sludge
About 200 dry tons/day of sludge is generated in New York City. When
existing wastewater treatment plants are upgraded and construction
completed on two new plants (Red Hook and North River), the rate of
sludge production is expected to increase to 500-600 dry tons/day.

Ocean Disposal: Dredge Spoils
Historically, New York Harbor has served as a thoroughfare for a
significant portion of the nation's waterborne commerce (approximately
12%, over 200 million tons). The harbor is not a naturally deep
port. Natural depth averages approximately IS ft., while channels
have approved project depths of 45 feet. Consequently, a network of
navigation channels must be continually dredged (from 8 to 10 million
cubic yards per year) to accomodate increasingly larger and deeper
draft vessels.
6
4

Of the eight to ten million cubic yards of material dredged from
New
York Harbor channels each year, approximately 90 percent has been
disposed of at the ocean site commonly known as the "mud dump". An
additional two to four million cubic yards per year from private
sources have also been disposed of at this site under U.S. Corps of
Engineers permits.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental
Protection
Agency have issued regulations governing disposal of dredged
materials
pursuant -to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as
amended, the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
and the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899.
The adverse environmental consequences of disposing dredged
material
are being cited by a number of environmental organizations as
compelling reasons for a ban on ocean disposal. A number of suits
have been filed against the Corps,. charging laxity in its
procedure
for issuing dredging permits.
In addition, as discussed under landfilling above, land disposal
within New York City is a limited option when discussing a sizable
increase in volumes. The land requirements for disposal of 10
million
cubic yards per year are enormous. The economic consequences of a
ban
on dredging operations in New York Harbor would be disastrous, to
the
City, region and nation.
The _U.S. Corps of Engineers is currently developing a
comprehensive
environmental' report that will discuss, in detail, all feasible
methods of dredged material disposal.' It will include a
review of the
environmental, social and economic consequences of each alternative
and will be used by the New York District Engineer to decide the
course of action to take in regard to the applications for dredged
material disposal.
This planning process and forthcoming recommendations must be
closely
reviewed by the Waterfront Revitalization Program for consistency
with
program policies, in particular, the balancing of economic and
environmental concerns. The Waterfront Revitalization Program
may
also perform an independent analysis of this problem in conjunction
with relevant and public part interests in order to adequately
assess
recommended alternatives.

AIR QUALITY
On a typical day in New York City, approximately 660,000 vehicles of
all types and about 4 million pedestrians use the 200 miles of
streets
in the Manhattan Central Business District (CBD). A myriad of
buses,
trucks, autos, cabs and bicycles crowd in the nation's slowest
traffic. Air pollution problems are associated with
congestion of
this magnitude.
65

All of the State's coastal areas are affected by Federal, State,
and
City policies to abate and prevent air pollution. The
Coastal
Management Programs must be coordinated to ensure that each can be
effectively utilized to support mutually desirable objectives.
New
York State's air pollution regulatory programs can be enlisted to
achieve coastal management objectives such as protection of
habitats
or scenic areas. New York City, through its Department of
Environmental Protection, have set some of the more stringent air
quality standards of any metropolitan area in the country by
implementing Local Law 49. At the same time, these programs could
conflict with some coastal management obJ~ectives such as those
related
to economic development.
Major air quality management concerns in the coastal area,. as
elsewhere, are grouped into four general categories: the
attainment
and maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards as
proposed
in the State Implementation Plan; protection of clean air areas
from
significant deterioration; air pollution control problems in rural
areas; and control of toxic discharges into the air.

Attainment and Maintenance Of National Air Quality Standards
Under the Federal Clean Air Act, National Ambient Air Quality
Standards have been established for seven pollutants.
Recent
amendments to the Act (1977) require that the compliance status of
all
areas of the country be determined for five of the seven
pollutants.
The Act further requires that all areas not in compliance with
these
pollutant standards be brought into compliance by the end of 1982
or,
in special cases, by the end of 1987. The act also requires states
to
prepare "State Implementation Plans" which detail the mechanisms
that
will be utilized to attain the standards by the statutory date.
A revision to the State plan has been developed dealing primarily
with
the transportation control planning element for the New York
Metropolitan Air Quality Area. Particular emphasis is
placed on
solving the problem areas for carbon monoxide and ozone in the
congested CBD areas of Manhattan. Revision documents addressing
the
mass transit improvement requirements of the Clean Air Act and the
stationary source control element of the State Implementation Plan
will be released in the near future.
The current revision includes many recommendations in complete
accord
with the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Highlights
are offered below.
- The need to reach and maintain air quality goals, should be
balanced with land use policies and development controls
which sustain the economic development of New York City as
one of the world's major urban commercial centers.
66

-Environmental review procedures will be used to review future
land use development and the traffic activity generated.
These reviews include the National Environmental Policy
Act,
the State Quality Review, the City Quality Review and the
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. Also, New York
City's
Local Law 49, the Air Pollution Control Code, sets
standards
for controlling the emissions levels of harmful substances
such as soot, gases, fumes, odors, products of combustion
and
incomplete combustion from fuel burning equipment. As part
of these processes, major traffic generating projects such
as
new office buildings and large parking facilities are
reviewed for their air quality impacts.
-Replace truck trips with rail for all or part of the movement
by increasing rail clearances to allow
for
trailer-on-flat-car service and improving rail connections
to
New York City port facilities. To enumerate' on
these
actions, New York State has sponsored an Intermodal Rail
Freight Study. This study has indicated the desirability
of
bringing new intermodal services to the New York City
region;
and as a result, New York State is spending $8 million for
clearance improvements and site preparation to
allow
trailer-on-flat-car service to High Bridge in the Bronx.
These clearance improvements are an initial step in the New
York State, Department of Transportation program to
modernize,
expand, and integrate the rail freight system in the New
York
City region. Through the Intermodal Study, the
desirability
of further clearance improvements has been affirmed, and
New
York State will provide a full clearance link between High
Bridge and Oak Point Yard. This link will remove clearance
restrictions that currently preclude intermodal equipment
to
enter New York City. Costs of this project are estimated
at
between 56 to 72 million dollars. In addition,
construction
of an intermodal yard at the Harlem Ri ver Yard is proposed
in
two stages costing a total of about 25 million dollars.
Funds will be sought from Federal, State, local and Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey sources.
An
Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared to
discuss
impacts which includes the access restrictions along 1.7
miles of the waterfront.

Protection Of Clean Air Areas From Significant Deterioration
The 1977 amendments to' the Clean Air Act require a State to
protect
lclean air areas" from significant deterioration through
regulations
that classify the entire State into one of' three land
area
classifications based upon allowable deterioration of air quality.
This program can be supportive of the overall coastal management
environmental goal to preserve, protect, enhance, or restore
natural
resources. At the present time, a]ll of New York State is
classified
"1Class 1I" which allows f'or moderate increases in air pollution.
After obtaining agreement from the affected local governments and
the
67

State Legislature, the Governor may redesignate areas as either
Class
I, where minimal increases in air pollution are allowed, or
Class III
where substantial increases in air pollution are
allowed. The
difficulty in obtaining and coordinating all of the approvals
and the
fact that the quality of air in most coastal locations is too
near the
established standards to allow full utilization of the
increment
permissible under Class 1I indicate that there will be few, if
any,
redesignations to Class 111. Similarly, it is unlikely that
there
will be any redesignations of areas of the State to Class I,
since the
State air pollution source review system, other State
development
review programs, and local land use regulations are more
suitable for
preserving undeveloped areas than the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program.
6
8

PROGRAM
POLICIES
This section explains each policy and either lists New York City
program policies or indicates that statewide program policies are
sufficient to address New York City problems. If New York
State
policies sufficiently address New York City problems, an
explanation
is provided that describes how the WRP and the New York State
policy
are connected. State agencies and programs which may
affect the
policies are listed with each policy.
An implementation of statewide policies section follows which lists
each policy developed by New York State and identifies New York
City
implementation mechanisms, the relevant city agency
(authority)
responsible for its implementation. It also details the role of
the
City Coastal Commission in implementation and enforcement.
A
discussion of the problem the policy is designed to address and the
role of Federal and State agencies in implementing the policy is
discussed at length in the New York State Coastal Management
Program
report, and is therefore only summarized in this City document.
State
policies are numbered 1 through 44.
If separate New York City policies are listed, each is followed by
a
brief restatement of the problem it is designed to address, and
the
New York State Policy it makes more specific is identified.
The
Federal Consistency Provision of the Coastal Zone Management Act
and/or the State Consistency Provision of the
Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act apply to all policies.
However, where recommendations rather than policies are set forth,
consistency would only apply if those recommendations were adopted
by
the Federal or State agency indicated. There is an
Implementation
Section that details the Federal, State, and City Actions
(authorities
and programs) which will be involved in implementing the policy.
New
York City refers to and concurs with the lists in Tables I and 2 as
those agencies, activities, and projects likely to directly affect
the
New York City's Waterfront Revitalization Program. The
Implementation
Section also details the role of the City Coastal Commission in
implementing and enforcing the policy. New York City policies
are
listed by letters A through L.
6
9

POLICY I: RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND REDEVELOP DETERIORATED
AND
UNDERUTILIZED WATERFRONT AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,
CULTURAL,
RECREATIONAL AND OTHER COMPATIBLE USES.

Explanation of Polity
Actions of governmental agencies can further the objectives of this
policy. The transfer and purchase of property, the
proposed
construction of public buildings, a highway or park, or providing
tax
incentives to businesses are governmental actions which can assist
in
a waterfront revitalization effort. Uses requiring a location on
the
shoreline must be given priority in any redevelopment effort.
Revitalization of once dynamic waterfront areas is one of the most
effective means of encouraging economic grow-th in the State,
without
consuming valuable open space outside of these waterfront
areas,
and/or fragile coastal areas. As explained in Policy 5, one
reason
for revitalizing previously active waterfront areas is that the
costs
for providing basic services to such areas is frequently less
than
providing new services to areas not previously developed.

New York City Implementation
Numerous New York City agencies have jurisdiction over waterfront
development. To address this overlap and provide for
consistent
review of proposals, New York City has developed a local
Waterfront
Revitalization Program including a uniform set of policies and
plans
which will guide and in part promote reutilization and
redevelopment
of waterfront areas.
Development and funding proposals incorporated in citywide plans,
subject to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedures or included in
an
application to the Board of Standards and Appeals for a variance
or
special permit will be reviewed for consistency with this policy
by
the City Coastal Commission.

NEW YORK CITY POLICY A: IMPROVE URBAN SHORELINES BY
MAINTAINING,
REMOVING OR RECYCLING WATERFRONT STRUCTURES (PIERS, DOCKS,
WHARVES,
ETC.) IN ACCORDANCE WITH WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PLANS.
IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE USES FOR UNDERUTILIZED WATERFRONT STRUCTURES.

In New York City, physically developed but underused waterfront
structures represent a significant public resource endangered by
erosion. The public benefits of activities and
developments
70

associated with the removal or recycling of waterfront structures
can
outweigh other costs. Efforts to rehabilitate the City's
waterfront
must be consistent with economic and recreational needs, to assure
the
most productive use of these assets.

Implementation

Federal Actions:
The U.S.' Army Corps of Engineers is authorized by Congress to
remove
the sources of drift in the waterways of New York City in
accordance
with the New York Harbor Drift Removal Project authorized by
section
91 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (Pub L. 93-251),
as
amended by section 116 of the Water Resource Development Act of
1976.

State Actions:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is
authorized to participate in federally authorized projects as
stated
in New York Unconsolidated Law Chapter 770.
The Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environmental Conservation
Law
(Article 34) contains a provision that, within coastal hazard
areas,
consideration be given to both public benefits and long range
adverse
effects of proposed activities and developments which use public
f'unds.

Local Actions:
The New York City Department of Ports and Terminals, Department of
Parks and Recreation and Department of Transportation are enpowered
to
maintain waterfront property (New York City Charter Section 704;
New
York City Administrative Code Section 532-6.0; New York City
Charter
Section 2603.c and Section 2603.d).
The City of New York, in its capital budget, allocated
local
cost-sharing funds to support the Harbor Drift Removal Program.
Recommendations for this funding are made in the Capital Needs
Statement of the City Planning Commission, acting as the City
Coastal
Commission for waterfront projects and planning.
Rehabilitation of the urban waterfront is an enormous problem
beyond
the means of State and local governments. As with beach erosion
and
hurricane projects, direct federal action must be taken to
revitalize
the developed city waterfront. While the above-mentioned
Drift
Removal Project aids in addressing the need for removal of damaged
waterfront structures, it falls short of a comprehensive solution
of
maintaining waterfront structures affected by structural erosion.
7
1

It is recommimended that the Harbor Drift Removal Program be
modified
to include funding for rehabilitation of structures identified as
appropriate for alternate uses. The City Coastal Commission
may
utilize CZM Act implementation funds to assess the technical
feasibility of alternate uses for existing structures.

POLICY 2: FACILITATE THE SITING OF WATER DEPENOENT USES
AND
FACILITTM ON OR AD~JACENT TO COASTAL WATERS.

Explanation of Policy
Waterfront space suitable for development is limited. Although
demand
for a specific piece of property will vary with economic and social
conditions, on both a citywide and statewide basis, long-term
expectations are for increased demand for waterfront property.
Traditional market forces and local land use controls do not by
themselves insure that uses which require waterfront sites will in
fact, have access to coastal waters. Government, through its
funding
and review actions, can discourage the location of non-water
dependent
uses on coastal sites suitable for water dependent uses.
In addition to water dependent uses, uses which are enhanced by a
waterfront location should be encouraged t o locate along the
shore,
though not at the expense of water dependent uses. If there is no
immediate demand for a water dependent use in a given area but a
future demand is reasonably foreseeable, temporary non-water
dependent
uses should be considered preferable to a non-water dependent use
which envolves an irreversible, or nearly irreversible commitment
of
l and.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Zoning Resolution currently contains provisions
which aid implementation of this policy. To preserve manufacturing
areas for industrial growth and expansion, three manufacturing
zoning
districts (MIl, M2, and M3) were created. Water-dependent uses
have
traditionally located in these areas to provide services to the
shipping industry. Retail and commercial uses are also permitted
in
manufacturing districts.
A C3 (commercial) district is also specifically designed to provide
locational priority for boating and fishing uses. Typical
development
includes marinas, boat repair shops and public or private beaches.
7
2

A purpose of the Zoning Resolution Special City Island District is
to
"promote and strengthen the unique character of the Special City
Island district for nautical and waterfront activities by limiting
permitted uses to those which complement and enhance the
existing
character of the Special District."
The City Coastal Commnission will review development and funding
proposals incorporated in citywide plans, subject to the Uniform
Land
Use Review Procedures or included in an application to the Board of
Standards and Appeals for a variance or special permit for
consistency
with this policy.

NEW YORK CITY POLICY B: IMPROVE CHANNELS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN
AND
STIMULATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPOMENT.

.Explanation of Policy
The process by which Federal projects are implemented is time
consuming. Often a period of five years or more passes between the
time that a proposal is brought to the Corps of Engineers and the
proposal is authorized by Congress and work is begun. It is
essential
therefore to anticipate, at the earliest possible date, waterfront
land use activity triggering. the need -to modify existing Federal
projects or establish new projects.
This policy adds specificity to New York State Policy 2.
it
identifies the need to develop or modify Federal waterways on a
timely
basis and where needed to support water dependent uses.

Implementation
Federal Actions:
Pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended (33 USC
540
et. seg) jurisdiction for Federal investigations and improvement of
rivers, harbors~ and other waterways lies with the U.S. Army Corps
of
Engineers. Investigations are conducted by the Board of Engineers
and
findings are submitted to the Public Works Committees of the Houses
of
Congress. Congressional authorization and appropriation of funds
is
then required for project initiation.

Local Actions:
Local interests must request the initiation of an investigation by
the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Government bodies with the authority
to
73

insure local cooperation in implementing projects is required.
Pursuant to its wide-ranging power to regulate waterfront property
and
certain waterfront structures, the New York City Department of Ports
and Terminals acts as the lead agency in New York City to insure
the
required local cooperation.
The Department of City Planning will periodically assess the current
and anticipated navigation needs of waterborne commerce in New York
Harbor.

POLICY 3: PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE STATE'S MAJOR
PORTS
AS CENTERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, EMPHASIZING THE SITING, WITHIN
PORT AREAS, OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS NECESSARY TO, OR
IN
SUPPORT OF, THE WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION OF CARGO AND PEOPLE.
THE STATE'S MAJOR PORTS ARE THE PORTS OF ALBANY, BUFFALO, NEW YORK,
OGDENSBURG, AND OSWEGO.

Explanation of Policy
The aim of this policy is to focus efforts on direct and positive
actions to support the major port agencies, the New York City
Department of Ports and Terminals and the Port Authority of New
York
and New Jersey, in order to promote their continued and increased
vitality. Three other development policies, discussed in- this
section, have significant implications for port development,
namely:
water dependency, concentration of development, and the expediting
of
permit reviews.
If an action is proposed for a site within or abutting a major
port,
or if there is a reasonable expectation that a proposed action
elsewhere would have an impact on a major port, then the following
guidelines shall be used:
1. In assessing proposed projects within or abutting a major
port,
the overriding consideration is the maintenance and
enhancement
of port activity which will have precedence over other,
non-port related activities.
2. Dredging to maintain the economic viability of major ports
will
be regarded as an action of regional or statewide public
benefit if: a need is shown for maintaining or improving
the
established alignment, width, and depth of existing
channels;
and, it can be demonstrated that environmental impacts will
be
minimized.
7
4

3 .Landfill projects in the near-shore areas will be regarded
as
an acceptable activity within major port areas, provided
adverse environmental impacts are minimized and a strong
economic justification is demonstrated.
4. If non-port related activities within a major port are
proposed
to be located in or near to the port, these uses shall be
sited
so as not to interfere with normal port operations.
5. When not already restricted by existing laws or convenants,
and
when there is no regional or statewide public benefit to
doing
otherwise, surplus public land or facilities within or
adjacent
to a major port shall be offered for sale, in the first
instance, to the appropriate port agencies.
6. In the programming of capital projects for port areas,
highest
priority will be given to projects that promote the
development
and use of the port. However, in determining such
priorities,
consideration must also be given to non-port related
interests
within or near the ports that have demonstrated critical
capital programming needs.
7. No buildings, piers, wharves, or vessels shall be abandoned
or
otherwise left unused by a public agency or sold without
provisions for maintenance in sound condition or
for
environmentally acceptable demolition or removal.
8. Proposals for the development of new major ports will be
assessed in terms of the anticipated impacts on: a) existing
New York State major ports; b) existing modes
of
transportation; and c) the surrounding land uses and
overall
neighborhood character of the area in which the proposed
port
is to be located.
9. Port development shall provide opportunities for public
access
insofar as these opportunities do not interfere with the
day-to-day operations of the port and the port agency and
its
tenants do not incur unreasonable costs.

New York City ImplementationI
The New York City Department of Ports and Terminals has a number of
discrete responsibilities with regard to waterfront commerce and
industry: it plans through the modification of the City's
waterfront
plans; it manages City-owned waterfront commerce property; it
develops
City-owned waterfront property; it regulates all waterfront commerce
development and use; and, it promotes New York Harbor as a center of
commerce and industry. Those actions of the Department
which are
subject to review by the City Coastal Commission will be reviewed
for
consistency with this policy.
75

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was created to promote
the Port of New York District, which covers an area between a 20 and
30
mile radius from the Statue of Liberty. The Authority is a public
corporation, created by a compact between the States of New York and
New Jersey, and empowered to purchase, construct, lease, and operate
any terminal or transportation facility withln the Part District.
The Port Authority is probably the largest entity involved in
developing and operating marine terminals and related facilities in
the
Port of New York. On the New York side of the harbor the
Port
Authority owns and operates the Brooklyn-Port Authority Piers and
operates the passenger ship terminal and the Red Hook container
terminal. To ensure effective interface between the Port Authority
and
State and local waterfront revitalization programs the Port
Authority's
development plans and activities within coastal boundaries will be
subject to review by the Secretary of State and the City Coastal
Commission.
The port system of the New York City coastal region is a component
of
the 1,500 square mile Port District of New York encompassing 17
counties and 234 municipalities in New York and New Jersey.
Individual
ports within this area compete for similar market areas, many public
and private entities are involved in the development and/or
operation
of facilities; and local, statewide and regional forecasters use
varying methods of determining capacities, freight forecasting,
cargo
flows, etc. Within such a context it is difficult for a
municipality
to assess the cargo handling capacity of port facilities, predict
locational requirements or insure the development of
needed,
economically efficient and environmentally responsive port
facilities.
Therefore, it is recommended that a New York Port District regional
port study be undertaken to provide baseline data to assist in
identifying the long-term needs of the port industry and
effectively
interface the land use policy of the City with the City's port
policy.
Federal Coastal Management funds may be used to support such a
study.
The New York City Department of Ports and Terminals would be the
appropriate agency to undertake such a task in cooperation with
other
municipalities in the New York Port District. Appropriate Federal
and
State agencies may support a study of this nature, because of the
regional importance of the port and because of study of this type
has
never been done.

POLICY 4: STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMIC BASE OF SMALLER HARBOR AREAS
BY
ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THOSE ACTIVITIES
WHICH
HAVE PROVIDED SUCH AREAS WITH A UNIQUE IDENTITY.
76

Explanation of
Policy
This policy recognizes that the traditional activities occurring i.n
and
around numerous smaller harbors throughout the State's coastal area
contribute much to the economic strength and attractiveness of these
harbor communities. Thus, efforts of State agencies shall center on
promoting such desirable activities as recreational and commercial
fishing, ferry services, marinas, historic preservation, cultural
pursuits, and other compatible activities which have made smaller
harbor areas appealing as tourist destinations and as commercial and
residential areas. Particular consideration will be given to
the
visual appeal and social benefits of smaller harbors which, in turn,
can make significant contributions to the State's tourism industry.
The following guidelines shall be used:
1. The action shall give priority to those traditional and/or
desired uses which are dependent an or enhanced by a
location
adjacent to the water.
2. The action will enhance or not detract from or adversely
effect
existing traditional and/or desired anticipated uses.
3. The action shall not be out of character with, nor lead to
development which would be out of character with, existing
development in terms of the area's scale, intensity of use,
and
architectural style.
4. The action must not cause a site to deteriorate, e.g., a
structure shall not be subject to vandalism and/or
structural
decline.
5. The action will not adversely affect the existing economic
base
of the community, e.g., waterfront development designed to
promote residential development might be inappropriate in a
harbor area where the economy is dependent upon tourism and
commercial fishing.
6. The action will not detract from views of the water and
smaller
harbor area, particularly where the visual quality of the
area
is an important component of the area's appeal and identity.

New York City Implementation
Special district zoning, the most widely used affirmative zoning
technique in New York City will be an effective means of
implementing
this policy. This technique permits special areas, with their unique
characteristics, to flourish rather than be overwhelmed by standard
development.
77

Special zoning districts have been established to achieve specific
planning and urban design objectives in limited areas. Two
existing
special zoning districts, the Special City Island District and the
Special Sheepshead Bay District were established to maintain certain
characteristics related to waterfront land use and activities.
The
establishment of the Special Sheepshead Bay District was, among
other
purposes, intended "to promote and strengthen the unique character
of
the Special Sheepshead Bay District area as a prime location for
waterfront related commercial and recreational development..."
A
principal purpose of the Special City Island District is "to promote
and strengthen the unique character of the district for nautical and
waterfront activities..." The City Coastal Commission will continue
to
enforce these special provisions in the unique harbor areas of the
City.

POLICY 5: ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE
PUBLIC
SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE.
Explanation of Policy
By its construction, taxing, funding and regulatory powers,
government
has become a dominant force in shaping the course of development.
Through these government actions, large scale development in the
coastal area will be encouraged to locate within, contiguous to, or
in
close proximity to, existing areas of concentrated development
where
infrastructure and public services are adequate, where topograprhy,
geology, and other environmental conditions are suitable for and
able
to accommodate development, and where development will -not have
significant adverse effects on the achievement of other coastal
policies.
The above policy is intended to accomplish the following:
strengthen existing residential, industrial, and
commercial
centers;
foster an orderly pattern of growth where outward expansion
is
occurring;
increas~ the productivity of existing public services and
moderate the need to provide new public services in outlying
areas;
preserve open space in sufficient amounts and where
desirable;
foster energy conservation by encouraging proximity between
home, work, and leisure activities.
7
8

New York City
Implementation
The New York City Zoning Resolution currently provides the means to
channel growth within New York City to appropriate areas, thereby
implementing this policy. For example, growth in less dense areas
of.
the City is governed by Special Zoning Districts designed to limit
density and preserve natural features (Special Natural Area
District).
Another is designed to systematically guide development
of
predominantly vacant land in southern Staten Island to maintain
densities and insure that new development is compatible with
existing
communities (Special South Richmond Development District).
Such
water-dependent uses as shipping and shipbuilding and repairs are
designated uses in M3 zoning districts which are often located along
the waterfront.
The City Planning Commission, as the City Coastal Commission, will
continue to adriiinister provisions of the Zoning Resolution
in
accordance with this policy. In addition, the City Coastal
Commission
will review development and funding proposals incorporated in
citywide
plans, subject to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedures or included
in
an application to the Board of Standards and Appeals for a variance
or
special permit for consistency with this policy.

POLICY 6: EXPEDITE EXISTING PERMIT PROCEDURES IN OROER TO
FACILITATE
THE SITING OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS

Exp lanation of Policy
For appropriate types of development activities and in areas
suitable
for such development, New York City as a participant in the
Waterfront
Revitalization Program, will to the maximum extent practicable,
coordinate and synchronize existing permit procedures and regulatory
programs, as long as the integrity of the regulations objectives is
not
jeopardized.

New York City Implementation
A City Coastal Commission will act as a coordinating body to
facilitate
the streamlining of permitting procedures in the New York City
Coastal
Zone by, for example, reducing overlapping permitting requirements
and
coordinating review by all agencies involved in waterfront project
review. The Department of City Planning as the staff of the
City
Coastal Commission will be responsible for coordinating project
reviews
among involved City agencies.
79

POLICY 7: SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS WILL BE
~P"R-TEO D AND PRESERVED SO AS TO MAINTAIN THEIR VIABILITY AS HABITATS.

Explanation of Policy
Land and water uses or development shall not be undertaken if
such
actions destroy or significantly impair the viability of an area
designated a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. When
the
action causes the elimination of a vital resource (e.g., food,
shelter,
living space) or a change in environmental conditions
(e.g.,
temperature, substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance range of
an
organism, then the action would be considered to "significantly
impair"
the habitat. Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat
include
but are not limited to: reduced *carrying capacity, changes in
community
structure (food chain relationships, species diversity),
reduced
productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and mortality.

New York City Implementation-
The New York City Zoning Resolution currently includes provisions
which
implement this policy. Pursuant to Article X of the
Resolution,
Special Natural Area Districts were established in which
development
can occur only upon the issuance of an authorization or a
special
Oermit by the New York Planning
Commission. The purpose of the
district, among others, is to preserve natural features by
limiting
modifications in topography and by preserving plant and marine
life.
Special Natural Area Districts have been mapped in the greenbelt
area
of Staten Island and in Riverdale (Bronx). These areas are
endowed
with steep slopes, rock outcrops, creeks and a variety of botanic
environments. After field checking, identified State fish and
wildlife
areas may be added to the Special Natural Area Districts section
of the
Zoning Resolution, where appropriate.
Another example is the Special South Richmond Development Distri-
ct
established to systematically guide development of predominantly
vacant
land in the southern half of Staten Island. The District mandates
tree
preservation, planting requirements, topography change controls
and the
restriction of construction within designated open space.
The City Planning Commission, as the City Coastal Commission,
will
continue to administer the Zoning Resolution in conformance with
this
policy.
so

POLICY 8: PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL AREA FROM
THE INTRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS WHICH
BIOACCUMULATE IN THE FOODCHAIN OR WHICH CAUSE SIGNIFICANT SUBLETHAL OR
LETHAL EFFECT ON THOSE RESOURCES.

Explanation of Policy
Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes
generally characterized as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or
toxic. More specifically hazardous waste is defined in
Environmental
Conservation Law [Section 27-0901(3)) as "waste or combination of
wastes which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical,
chemical or infectious characteristics may: (1) cause, or
significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitate reversible 1illness; or (2) poses a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or
otherwise
managed. "A list of hazardous wastes (NYCRR Part 366) will be
adopted
by DEC within 6 months after EPA formally adopts its list.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Department of Health enforces the New York City
Health Code. Enforcement of the Health Code involves the Department
in
housing and institutional inspections and gives it wide licensing
and
permit authority to prevent the introduction of toxic substances and
other pollutants into valuable habitats. Proposed private
sewage
disposal systems; the alteration or construction of sewage disposal
systems which discharge wastes into the City's waterways; the
siting,
construction and alteration of bathing establishments and beaches;
sewer connections; and septic tank constructions are also regulated
by
the Department.
The City Environmental Quality Review or Executive Order
91,
implemented by the Department of City Planning and Department of
Environmental Protection, considers the impact of development on the
environment as it affects the removal or destruction of large
quantities of vegetation or fauna. The Department of Health
is
routinely consulted as the expert on hazardous waste matters during
the
CEQR review process. Adherence to this policy by the Department
of
Health will, therefore, be assured through this review process.

POLICY 9: EXPAND RECREATIONAL USE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN
COASTAL-AREAS BY INCREASING ACCESS TO EXISTING RESOURCES,
SUPPLEMENTING
EXISTING STOCKS AND DEVELOPING NEW RESOURCES.
81

Explanation of
Policy
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is
authorized to manage the State's fish and wildlife resources.
Any
efforts to increase recreational use of fish and wildlife, whether
through private or public sector initiatives, must be done in
accordance with existing state law and in keeping with sound
resource
management considerations. Such considerations include: biology of
the
species, carrying capacity of the habitat, public demand, costs,
and
available technology.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Zoning Resolution currently includes provisions
which
are used to provide access to public lands. For example, the
Special
South Richmond Development District restricts construction within a
designated open space (which is a defined network of landscaped
open
space with paths and green areas to be preserved) in order to
provide
access to waterfront areas. The City Planning
Commission, while
administering the Zoning Resolution also utilizes
restrictive
declarations to require that certain amienities, such as access to
public lands, be a part of appropriate development proposals.
The Commission, as the City Coastal Commission, will continue to
utilize these techniques to ensure implementation of this policy.
The City Environmental Quality Review, or Executive Order
91,
implemented by the Department of City Planning and Department of
Environmental Protection, considers the impact of development on
the
environment as it aff ects the removal or destruction of
large
quantities 6f vegetation or fauna.
Also, the New York City Department of Ports and Terminals has the
authority to manage the wharf and waterfront property owned
or
possessed by the C ity. It may also grant a one-year terminable
use
permit to use any of the City's wharf property. The
Department'Is
policy is to require provisions for public access to and along the
waterfront when appropriate.

POLICY 10: FURTHER DEVELOP COMMERCIAL FINFISH, SHELLFISH AND
CRUSTACEAN RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL AREAS BY ENCOURAGING THE
CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING ON-SHORE COMMERCIAL FISHING
FACILITIES, INCREASING MARKETING OF THE STATE'S SEAFOOD PRODUCTS,
MAINTAINING ADEQUATE STOCKS AND EXPANDING AGRICULTURE FACILITIES.
8
2

Explanation of
Policy
Commercial fishery development activities must occur within the
context
of sound fishery management principals developed and enforced within
the State's waters by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Regional Fishery Management plans developed by
the
Regional Fishery Management Councils within the Fishery Conservation
Zone.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Department of City Planning, when identifying
sites
suitable for the location of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
support facilities, determined that infrastructure requirements for
commercial fisheries facilities were similar. Six sites
were
identified which are suitable for locating or co-locating either
industry: the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the Northeast Marine Terminal, the
Brooklyn Army Terminal, and Erie Basin in Brooklyn; St. George and
Stapleton in Staten Island. Of these sites, the 1980 waterfront
study
funded by CZM, supports the development of Erie Basin in Brooklyn as
the most viable choice in terms of physical characteristics and
overall
construction costs. The study suggests that a staged development
of
Erie Basin would be the most cost-effective approach because the
project would expand with the growth of the fishing industry.
This work will be utilized by the New York City Planning Commission,
as
the City Coastal Commission, to identify and reserve waterfront
locations to accommodate uses such as fish processing plants, per
New
York State Executive Law, Article 40.

POLICY 11: BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES WILL BE SITED IN THE
COASTAL
AREA SO AS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND THE ENDANGERING OF
HUMAN
LIVES CAUSED BY FLOODING AND EROSION.
Explanation of Policy
On coastal lands identified as coastal erosion hazard areas,
buildings
and similar structures shall be set back from the shoreline a
distance
sufficient to minimize damage from erosion unless no reasonable
prudent
alternative site is available as in the case of piers, docks and
other
structures necessary to gain %access to coastal waters to be able to
function.

New York City Implementation
Refer to New York City Policies C, D, and E below. Those policies
add
specificity to NYS Policy 11 by addressing erosion protection of
83

private shores and the commitment of technical assistance to private
property owners.
In addition, the Department of City Planning has received Coastal
Zone
Management planning (305) funds to identify, in cooperation with the
New York State Department of Enviromental Conservation, critical
erosion hazard and structural erosion areas in New York City.
This
information will be used to develop and implement an erosion hazard
area ordinance as required by Environmental Conservation Law,
Article
34.
This law provides for the identification of areas that are subject
to
critical erosion and for regulation of new development to prevent
significant damage in the future.

Where no erosion protection structures have been built, the
guidelines
would:

-require new development to be set back from the shore
sufficiently to prevent damage from erosion over at least a
30
year period;
-insure that new development does not unreasonably increase the
severity of erosion to other lands because of alteration of
land
areas that provide erosion protection; and,
-require land restoration or stabilization activities to be
used,
as may be necessary, when new development occurs, to make
sure
that damages resulting from the erosion of other lands are
minimized.

Where erosion protection structures are required, the above would
rnot
apply, but the guidelines would contain criteria for the design of
structures so that they would have a reasonable probability of
controlling erosion for a period of at least thirty years, and of
not
increasing erosion on other lands.

The City Coastal Commission will work with New York State to develop
reasonable rules and regulations for the City's waterfront areas and
thereafter assume administration of this program within the City.

The City Environment Quality Review (CEQR) process requires all
actions
subject to the City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) to
be
investigated for a determination of significance regarding adverse
environmental impacts, (Executive Order 91).
84

CEQR criteria states
that:
"Any action may have a significant effect
on the environment if it can... lead
to ... A substantial adverse change in
erosion or flooding...[orJ The creation
of a hazard to human health or safety."
(Executive Order 91, Section 6)

This process, therefore, will be used by the City Coastal
Commission
to reinforce the objectives of the Erosion Hazard Area Ordinance
during the review of proposals.

NEW YORK CITY POLICY C: PROVIDE SHOREFRONT PROTECTION AGAINST
COASTAL
EROSION HAZARDS WHERE THERE IS PUBLIC BENEFIT AND PUBLIC USE ALONG
NON-PUBLIC SHORES.

Public access and use has been assured along much of New York
City's
shorefront, especially in southeastern Staten Island. While much
of
these areas are not publicly owned, public benefit is derived from
their use. Their protection should be assured for future
generations.

This policy adds specificity to Policies 11 and 16 by providing
erosion protection and by identifying a particular public resource
endangered by erosion. Local implementation is detailed below.

Implementation

Federal Actions:
As outlined under Policy 1, the Army Corps of Engineers is
authorized
by Congress to design and construct erosion control projects.
Regulations developed by the Corps of Engineers recognize the value
of
mitigating the effects of erosion where there is a public interest
or
benefit. However, priority has been given to public areas to such a
degree that a project has never been initiated for other than
publicly
owned areas.

State Actions:

The Department of Environmental Conservation has the authority to
participate in federally authorized projects. In addition,
the
State's Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environmental
Conservation
85

Law (Article 34) provides for the identification, mapping and
designation of coastal erosion hazard areas by the State in
cooperation with local governments. Further, this state act
contains
a provision that, within identified coastal erosion hazard areas,
consideration is to be given to both the public benefits and long
range adverse effects of proposed activities which use public
funds.

Local Actions:
The City Coastal Commission will develop a local erosion hazard
area
ordinance as required by Environmental Conservation Law, Article
34.
This work will include the identification of private shores used
for
the benefit of the public. At such time as this policy would
become
enforceable at the City level and amended to the State program,
consistency provisions would apply.

NEW YORK CITY POLICY 0: PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR
THE
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF EROSION PROBLEMS, AS WELL AS THE
DEVELOPMENT OF EROSION CONTROL PLANS ALONG PRIVATELY-OWNED ERODING
SHORES.
Existing Federal and State programs for erosion control do not
provide
funding for mitigation of problems along private
shorefront.
Consequently, little effort has been made, to assist private
efforts to
provide erosion control protection for private structures.
Neglecting
these problems or allowing privately designed mitigation measures
frequently has adverse impacts on adjacent shores and public
property.
This policy also adds specificity to State Policies 11 and 16 since
it
addresses erosion protection for private property which may impact
other sites. It also identifies a practice which adversely
affects
resources of public benefit. Local implementation is detailed
below.

Implementation
State Actions:
New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Article 34 provides
that erosion protection structures shall have a
"reasonable
probability" of controlling long term erosion on the site.

Local Actions:
The City Coastal Commission, using Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act
funds, may provide technical assistance to private property owners
to
identify erosion problems, develop mitigation measures and assess
or
monitor impacts of proposed projects.
86

NEW YORK CITY POLICY E: IMPLEMENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STRUCTURAL
FLOOD
AND EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS ONLY WHEN:
- PUBLIC ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS EXCEED PUBLIC
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS;
- NON-STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS ARE PROVEN TO BE INEFFECTIVE OR COST
PROHIBITIVE;
- PROJECTS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER COASTAL MANAGEMENT GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES, INCLUDING AESTHETICS, ACCESS AND
RECREATION;
- ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE MINIMIZED;
- NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURES ARE NOT IMPAIRED; AND,
- ADJACENT (DOWNORIFT) SHORELINES ARE NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED.

In New York City, funding for publicly sponsored projects and the
range of acceptable protection measures is limited while the
potential
for environmental degradation and damage to public and
private
property is great. Much of the City's coastal areas lie in
flood
plains yet are heavily developed.
In most cases, structural protection measures are necessary to
protect
existing property from storm related damages.
This policy adds specificity to State Policies 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16,
and 17 by identifying potential problems associated with structural
flood control projects. These state policies address the siting
of
activities and developments in hazard areas.
Structures are sited to minimize damage caused by erosion, so that:
� Adverse effects are minimized on natural protective features
(Policy 12);
� There will be no measureable increase in erosion nor flooding
at other locations (Policy 14):
Public benefits exceed other costs (Policy 16); and
*Non-structural measures are used whenever possible
(Policy
17). Implementation will be as detailed below.

Implementation

Federal Actions:
It is the policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake
projects to prevent erosion and flooding of coastal areas when such
87
-

projects best serve the public interest, (33 U.S.C. Section 282).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer is authorized by Congress to study
and
construct flood control projects that are structurally feasible
'and
economically justified, where project costs exceed $1,000,000 (33
U.S.C. Section 541). Small flood control projects are authorized
by
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, 33 U.S.C. Section
701-s,
where project costs do not exceed $1,000,000.

State Actions:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is
authorized to participate in federally authorized projects as
provided
in Article 16 of the State Environmental Conservation Law.
The Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environmental Conservation
Law
(Article 34) outlines standards and criteria for the promulgation
of
regulations which will require that activities and development will
have minimal adverse effects an natural protective features, that
erosion of other lands do not measurably increase, and that public
benefits and long range adverse effects of development are
considered.
The State Environmental Quality Review Act requires a disclosure
and
minimizing of adverse environmental impacts.
The Waterfront Revitalization arnd Coastal Resources Act, Executive
Law
(Article 42), Section 912(5) states in part that it is public
policy
"to minimize damage to natural resource and property from flooding
and
erosion [through the] use of non-structural measures
whenever
pos sibl1e."

Local Actions:
Municipalities are authorized to participate with the State in
Federal
flood control projects (Environmental Conservation Law-Article 16).
Because of the enormops cost of erosion control projects, Federal
and
State participation are virtually mandatory. However, initiation
of
Corps of Engineers involvement is a complicated procedure.
In order to help streamline the procedure it is recommended that a
petition to investigate by the Secretary of State or the City
Coastal
Commission be sufficient to trigger a Corps of Engineer
investigation.
In addition the City Coastal Commission will be developing ana
implementing an erosion hazard area ordinance consistent
with
Environmental Conservation Law, Article 34, which requires
standards
and criteria for flood control projects as listed above.
88

The City's Environmental Quality Review process (Executive Order
91)
stipulates that consideration be given to changes in flooding and
erosion and to human health or safety for proposed projects.

POLICY 12: ACTIVITIES OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL
BE
UNDERTAKEN SO AS TO MINIMIZE THEIR ADVERSE EFFECTS UPON NATURAL
FEATURES WHICH PROTECT AGAINST FLOODING AND EROSION.

Explanation of Policy
Beaches, dunes, barrier islands and other natural protective
features
help safeguard coastal lands and property from damage, as well as
reduce the danger to human life, resulting from flooding and
erosion.
Their excavation, or improperly designed structures, inadequate
site
planning, or other similar actions, which fail to recognize their
fragile nature and high protective values, lead to weakening or
destruction of those landforms. Activities or development in, or
in
proximity to, natural protective features will be permitted only if
it
can be demonstrated that all responsible means have been taken to
mitigate their adverse effects upon those landforms.

New York City Implementation
Refer to New York City Policy E which outlines criteria under which
structural flood control projects (a specific type of activity)
will
be reviewed by the City Coastal Commission.
The City Coastal Commission will be developing an erosion hazard
ordinance as required by Environmental Conservation Law, Article 34
which outlines standards and criteria for the promulgation
of
regulations which will require that activities or developments will
have minimal adverse effects on natural protective features.
The City Environmental Qaulity Review (CEQR) criteria stipulate
that a
project may have a significant effect on the environment if it
leads
to:
"A substantial adverse change to erosion
or flooding,.... The removal or
destruction of large quantities of
vegetation [which acts as a natural flood
and erosion buffer or] the creation of a
hazard to human health or safety."
(Executive Order 91, Section 6)
89

POLICY 13: THE CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION PROTECTION
STRUCTURES SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN ONLY IF THEY HAVE A REASONABLE
PROBABILITY OF CONTROLLING EROSION FOR AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS AS
DEMONSTRATED IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND/OR ASSURED
MAINTENANCE OR REPLACEMENT PROGRAMS.

Explanation of Policy
Erosion protection structures are widely used throughout the coastal
areas. However, because of improper design, construction and
maintenance standards, many fail to give the protection which they
were presumed to provide. As a result, development is sited in areas
where it is subject to damage or loss due to erosion., This policy
will ensure the reduction of such damage or loss.

New York City Implementation
Refer to New York City Policy G. This policy adds specificity to
Policy 13 requiring continuous maintenance of public beaches.
In addition New York City Policy D provides for technical assistance
for individuals in addressing erosion control problems.

POLICY 14: ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OR
RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION PROTECTION STRUCTURES, SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN
SO THAT THERE WILL BE NO MEASUREABLE INCREASE IN EROSION NOR FLOODING
AT THE SITE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES NOR DEVELOPMENT AT OTHER LOCATIONS.

Explanation of Policy
Erosion and flooding are processes which occur naturally. However, by
his actions, man can increase the severity and adverse effects of
those processes, causing damage to, or loss of property, and
endangering human lives. Those actions include: the use of erosion
protection structures such as groins, or the use of impermeable docks
which block the littoral transport of sediment to adjacent shorelands,
thus increasing their rate of recession; the failure to observe proper
drainage or land restoration practices, thereby causing run-off and
the erosion and weakening of shorelands; the placing of structures in
identified floodways so that the base flood level is increased causing
damage in otherwise hazard-free areas.
90

New York City
Implementation
Refer to New York City Policy E which specifies that erosion
control
structures can only be constructed -if they do not adversely affect
adjacent shorelines. Further, the Department of City Planning will
be
developing an erosion hazard area ordinance which will be in
conformance with the State's Environmental Conservation Law,
Article
34. This law provides for minimum standards and criteria that are
to
be used to condition or modify a proposal, which include regulation
of
activities or developments, including the placement of erosion
protection structures so there will be no measureable increase in
erosion to the development site or at other locations.
The City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) criteria stipulate
that a
proposal may have a significant effect on the environment if it
creates "a substantial adverse change to erosion or flooding,"
(Executive Order 91, Section 6).

POLICY 15: MINING, EXCAVATION, OR DREDGING IN COASTAL WATERS
SHALL
NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INTERFERE WITH THE NATURAL COASTAL PROCESSES
WHICH
SUPPLY BEACH MATERIALS TO LAND ADJACENT TO SUCH WATERS AND SHALL BE
UNDERTAKEN IN A MANNER WHICH WILL NOT CAUSE AN INCREASE IN EROSION
OF
SUCH LANDS.

Explanation of Policy
Coastal processes including the movement of beach materials by
water,
and any mining or excavation in nearshore or offshore waters which
change the supply and net flow of such materials can deprive
shorelands of their natural regenerative powers. Such mining
and
excavation should be accomplished in a manner so as not to cause a
reduction of supply, and thus an increase of erosion, to such
shorel1ands.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Department of Ports and Terminals' is authorized
to
issue permits for dredging, mining and excavation along the share.
When dredging is essential for beach nourishment, navigation, flow
control, pollutant removal, water-dependent uses, etc.,
consideration
will be given to the possible adverse effects on environmental
resources.
Adherence to this policy by the Department of Ports and Terminals
will
be assured by the City Coastal Commission's review of dredging
requests not regulated by as-of-right provisions in the City Zoning
Resol ution.
9
1

In addition, as indicated for other policies above, the City
Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) process requires consideration
of
actions which may have a significant effect on the environment if
they
lead to a substantial change in erosion or flooding, (Executive
Order
91, Section 6).

POLICY 16: PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL BE EXPENDED FOR ACTIVITIES
AND
DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF
EROSION
-CONTROL STRUCTURES, ONLY WHERE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS CLEARLY
OUTWEIGH
THEIR LONG TERM MONETARY AND OTHER COSTS INCLUDING THEIR POTENTIAL
FOR
INCREASING EROSION AND THEIR ADVERSE EFFECTS ON NATURAL PROTECTIVE
FEATURES.

Explanation of Policy
Public funds are used for a variety of purposes on the shorelines.
This policy recognizes the public need for the protection of human
life, existing investment in development or new development which
requires a location in proximity to the coastal area or in adjacent
waters. However, it also recognizes the adverse impacts of
such
activities and development on the rate of erosion and on natural
protective features and requires that careful analysis be made of
such
benf its and long-term costs prior to expending public funds.

New York City Implementation
Refer to City Policies A, C, D, E, and G. Those
policies add
specificity to Policy 16 by the following:
*identifying particular public resources endangered by
erosion
where public benefits are likely to outweigh other costs
(Policies A and C);
� addressing erosion protection an private property which can
impact public lands (Policies C and 0);
� Allowing structural flood control projects only when public
benefits exceed public economic and environmental costs
(Policy
E); and,
* providing for improvements to urban shorelands which
represent
a significant public resource (Policy G).
In addition, the City will be developing and implementing an
erosion
hazard ordinance which will conform to the Environmental
Conservation
Law, Article 34.
9
2

This Law allows for proposed activities and development where
public
funds are utilized when the public benefits clearly outweigh long
range adverse effects.

POLICY 17: NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO
NATURAL
RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND EROSION SHALL BE USED
WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

Explanation of Policy
This policy recognizes both the potential adverse impacts of
flooding
and erosion upon development and upon natur'al protective features
in
the coastal area, as well as the costs of protection against those
hazards which structural measures entail.

New York City Implementation
Refer to City Policy E. 'This policy allows structural flood
control
projects when non-structural solutions are proven to be ineffective
or
cost prohibitive.

POLICY 18: TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL INTEREST OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK
AND OF IT'S CITIZENS IN THE WATERS AND OTHER VALUABLE RESOURCES OF
THE
STATE'S COASTAL-*AREA, ALL PRACTICABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN TO
ENSURE
THAT SUCH INTERESTS ARE ACCORDED FULL CONSIDERATION
IN THE
DELIBERATIONS, DECISIONS AND ACTIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL BODIES
WITH
AUTHORITY OVER THOSE WATERS AND RESOURCES.

Explanation of Policy
The State of New York is concerned that such deliberations,
decisions
and actions, and resultant programs or projects, may be undertaken
in
a manner which will impair significantly the value and use of those
waters and resources and frustrate the State's achievement of the
purposes of those safeguards which it has established to protect
them.

New York City Implementation
The City Coastal Commission, through ULURP, CEQR, the
Zoning
Resolution, and the Capital Needs Statement will review planning
efforts, applications, and development for the safety and welfare
of
New York City citizens and for its waterfront.
93

POLICY 19: PROTECT, MAINTAIN AND INCREASE THE LEVEL AND TYPES OF
ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATER-RELATED RECREATION RESOURCES.

Explanation of Policy
This policy calls for achieving balance among the following
factors:
the level of access to a resource or facility, the capacity of
a
resource or facility, and the protection of natural resources.
Priority will be given to improving physical access to existing
and
potential coastal recreation sites and to increasing the ability
of
urban residents to get to coastal recreation areas by improved
public
transportation. Facili'ties and resources given priority for
improved
access are public beaches, boating facilities, fishing areas and
waterfront parks. The Waterfront Revitalization
Program will
encourage mixed use areas and multiple use of facilities to
improve
access.
The following guidelines* will be used in determining the
consistency
of a proposed action with this policy:

1. The existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands
or
facilities to public water-related recreation resources
and
facilities shall not be reduced, nor shall the possibilty of
increasing access in the future from adjacent or proximate
public
lands or facilities to public water-related recreation
resources
and facilities be eliminated, unless such actions are
demonstrated
to be of overriding regional or statewide public benefit, or
in
the latter case, estimates of future use of these resources
and
facilities are too low to justify maintaining or
providing
increased public access.
2. Any proposed project to increase public access to
public
water-related recreation resources and facilities shall be
analyzed according to the following factors:

The level of access to be provided should be in accord with
estimated pub'lic access needs.
The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree
of use
which would exceed the physical capability of the resource
of
facility.
3. The State will not undertake or fund any project which
increases
access to a water-related resource or facility that is not
open to
all members of the public.
*Guideline terms are explained in the New York State Coastal
Zone
Management Document, Public Access Section.
94

4. In their plans and programs for increasing public access to
public
water-related resources and facilities, State agencies shall
give
priority in the following order to projects located: within
the
boundaries of the Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area and
served
by public transportation; within the Federal-Aid Metropolitan
Urban Area but not served by public transportation; outside the
defined Urban Area boundary and served by public
transportation;
and outside the defined Urban Area boundary but not served by
public transportation.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Zoning Resolution currently includes provisions
which implement this policy at the City level. For example,
the
Special Battery Park City District, created to govern a large
waterfront development in Lower Manhattan, includes requirements to
maintain visual corridors, to develop pooled open spaces and a
circulation system for pedestrians and vehicles. The
Special
Sheepshead Bay District was devised to protect that neighborhood's
unique waterfront recreation and commercial character by
restricting
uses and requiring shorefront access. Planned Unit Developments
are
also encouraged by granting bonuses for a well-designed site plan,
provision of community facilities, recreation space and shorefront
access. The Special Scenic View District protects and prevents the
obstruction of outstanding scenic views. Also, the City
Coastal
Commission, concurrent with any zoning change, may require
a
restrictive declaration which mandates the provision of amenities,
such as shorefront access, be provided as part of the development.
The City Planning Commmission, as the City Coastal Commission, will
continue to utilize these techniques to ensure implementation of
this
policy.
Also, the New York City Department of Ports and Terminals has the
authority to manage the wharf and waterfront property owned or
possessed by the City and may lease or grant a one-year terminable
use
permit to use any of the City's wharf property. It may
include
requirements to provide public access as a condition of lease
approvals. The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation
has
the authority to acquire and manage areas and facilities for the
recreation of the public. It also regulates the use of and
determines
the curb and surface construction of all streets and avenues lying
within any park, square or public place or within a distance of 350
feet from the outer boundaries thereof. The New York City
Department
of Transportation is responsible for developing and coordinating
all
transportation planning for the City.
New York City agency plans and actions regarding shorefront access
will undergo ULURP review by the City Coastal Commission to ensure
adherence to this policy. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(306)
9
5

funds may also be used, if available and where appropriate, to
implement agency actions which conform to this policy and the
specific
recommendations included in the Shorefront Access Areas section of
Chapter V of this report.

POLICY 20: ACCESS TO THE PUBLICLY OWNED FORESHORE OR WATER'S EDGE,
AND TO THE PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS IMMEDIATELY ADJJACENT TO THESE
AREAS
SHALL BE PROVIDED, AND IT SHALL BE PROVIDED IN A MANNER COMPATIBLE
WITH ADJOINING USES. TO ENSURE THAT SUCH LANDS REMAIN AVAILABLE
FOR
PUBLIC USE, THEY WILL BE RETAINED IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP.

Explanation of Policy
In coastal areas where there are little or no recreation facilities
providing specific water-related recreational activities, access to
the publicly-owned lands of the coast at large should be provided
for
numerous activities and pursuits which require only minimal
facilities
for their enjoyment. Such access would provide for walking along a
beach or a city waterfront or to vantage points from which to view
the
seashore. Similar activities requiring access would
include
bicycling, birdwatching, photography, nature study, beachcombing,
and
fishing.
The following guidelines, explained in more detail in Part II,
Section
6 of this document, will be used:
1. Existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands
or
facilities to existing public coastal lands and/or waters shall
not be reduced, nor shall the possibility of increasing access
in
the future from adjacent or nearby public lands or facilities
to
public coastal lands and/or waters be eliminated, unless such
actions are demonstrated to be of overriding regional or
statewide
public benefit, or in the latter case, estimates of future use
of
these lands and waters are too low to justify maintaining or
providing increased access.
2. Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline
and
along the coast shall be provided by new public land use or
development except where (a) it is inconsistent with public
safety, military security, or the protection of
identified
fragile coastal resources; (b) adequate access exists within
one-half mile; or (c) agriculture would be adversely affected.
Such access shall not be required to be open to public use
until a
public agency or private association agrees to
accept
responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway.
96

3. State-owned coastal lands or waters, including underwater lands,
may be sold, leased, or otherwise conveyed to persons for private
use only when such action is (a) demonstrated to be of overriding
regional or statewide public benefit and there is no reasonable
means of providing public access; or (b) the lands or waters are
contiguous to property owned by the person requesting sale, lease,
or conveyance and can continue to be used in such a manner as to
retain reasonable public access; or (c) the lands and waters are
proposed to be used in such a manner as to retain reasonable
public access.
4. The State will not undertake or fund any project which increases
access to a water-related resource or facility that is not open to
all members of the public.
5. In their plans and programs for increasing public access, State
agencies shall give priority in the following order to projects
located: within the boundaries of the Federal-Aid Metropolitan
Urban Area and served by public transportation; within the
Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area but not served by public
transportation; outside the defined urban area boundary and served
by public transportation; and outside the defined Urban Area
boundary but not served by public transportation.
6. Proposals for increased public access to coastal lands and waters
shall be analyzed according to the following factors:
-The level of access to be provided should be in accord with
estimated public access needs. If not, the proposed access to be
provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the policy.
-The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of
use which would exceed the physical capability of the coastal
lands or waters. If this were determined to be the case, the
proposed access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with
the policy.

New York City Implementation
Same as Policy 19 above.
97

POLICY 21: WATER DEPENDENT AND WATER ENHANCED RECREATION WILL
BE
ENCOURAGE'D AND FACILITATED, AND WILL BE GIVEN PRIORITY OVER NON
WATER
RELATED USES ALONG THE COAST.

Explanation of Policy
Water-related recreation includes such obviously water-
dependent
activities as boating, swimming, and fishing as well as certain
activities which are enhanced by a coastal location and increase
the
general public's access to the coast such as pedestrian and bicycle
trails, picnic areas, scenic overlooks and passive recreation areas
that take advantage of coastal scenery.
Provided the development of water-related recreation is consistent
with the preservation and enhancement of such important coastal
resources as fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetically significant
areas, historic and cultural resources, agriculture and significant
mineral and fossil deposits, and provided demand exists, all
practical
effort to increase water related recreation development will be
undertaken and such uses shall have a higher priority than any non
coastal dependent uses, includi-ng non water-related recreation
uses.
Determining a priority among coastal dependent uses will require a
case by case analysis.
Among priority areas for increasing water-related
recreation
opportunities are those areas where access to the
recreation
opportunities of the coast can be provided by new or existing
public
transportation services and those areas where the use of the shore
is
severely restricted by highways, railroads, industry, or other
forms
of existing intensive land use for development.
The siting or design of new public development in a manner which
would
result in a barrier to the recreational use of a major portion of
the
waterfront should be avoided as much as practicable.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Department of Ports and Terminals has the
authority
to manage the wharf and waterfront propperty (out to the U.S.
Pierhead
Line) owned or possessed by the City, New York City Charter
Section
704 (b) (1977).
It may lease or grant a one-year terminable use permit to use any
of
the City's wharf property; New York City Charter Section 704 (g),
704(h) (1977).
The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation has the
authority
to acquire and manage areas and facilities for the recreation of
the
public; New York City Charter Section 533.b.l. (1977).
9
8

The City Coastal Commission may use Federal Coastal Zone Management
(Section 306) funds or other appropriate funding to
identify
water-dependent uses (such as marinas) and determine where demand
is
greatest. Subsequently, City property leasing and
acquisition
activities by the Departments of Ports and Terminals and Parks and
Recreation undergo review by the City Planning Commission. If
not
incorporated into the provisions of the City Zoning~ Resolution,
these
actions will require approval by the City Coastal Commission.
The New York City Zoning Resolution, developed to insure
compatibility
of adjacent uses, currently includes provisions which implement
this
policy at the City level.
In addition, the City 'Planning Commission, as the City Coastal
Commission, may adopt a resolution approving new or amended zoning
regulations. Since most proposed zoning text is initiated by the
City
Planning Commission, the adoption of new zoning to facilitate
water-related uses along the coast is an important means to
implement
this policy.
The New York City Coastal Commission, through the Unliform Land Use
Review Procedure, will consider the increase of water-related uses
along the coast in its decision to approve, modify, or disapprove
any
proposal or application.
Similarly, the New York City Planning Commission, as the New York
City
Coastal Commission, may oppose variances to the Zoning Resolution
before the Board of Standards and Appeals if, in their judgement,
the
granting of relief requested in such application is not in
accordance
with this policy.
The 1981 Capital Needs Statement of the New York City Planning
Commission helps implement this policy at the City level.
The
Commission states that "Opening up the City's vast waterfront to
public recreational uses has been a recent City priority"
and
recommends that the " creation of waterfront recreational areas
should
continue to be encouraged." The Commission, as the City
Coastal
Commission, will continue to use the Capital Needs Statement to
implement this policy.
99

NEW YORK CITY POLICY F: PRIORITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF
MAPPED PARKLANDS AND APPROPRIATE OPEN SPACE WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY
EXISTS TO MEET THE RECREATIONAL NEEDS OF:
-IMMOBILE USER GROUPS; AND
-COMMUNITIES WITHOUT ADEQUATE WATERFRONT PARK SPACE AND/OR
FACILITIES.
Mapped parklands and vacant waterfront areas have a great potential
to
meet recreational needs of city residents who rarely
enjoy
water-related activities. Special groups of concern include
~the
elderly, handicapped, female head-of-households and others who live
in
high density, low-income commmunities which lack open space, social
or
recreational programs and waterfront access. All acquisitions
should
involve non-city maintenance if at all possible.
This policy, developed to address these concerns, adds specificity
to
New York State Policy 21. Local implementation will be as
detailed
below.
The City recommends that Gateway National Recreation Area give
priority to these concerns.

Implementation
State Action:
The New York State Parks and Recreation Law (NYSPRL) Section 3.094
authorizes park acquisition and development by the New York State
Office of Parks and Recreation. Creation of a statewide plan for
a
system of urban cultural parks by this office is mandated by
Section
3.21 of the NYSPRL and Section 3.15 authorizes the development of a
Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Plan. All plans and
actions
pursuant to this law should incorporate this policy criteria.

New York City Actions:
The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation is authorized
by
Section 533 of the City Charter to propose land acquisition,as part
of
the City park system. Acquisition activities have been minimal due
to
fiscal constraints. However, adherence to this policy
when
acquisitions occur will be assured through review of the
Department's
acquisitions by the City Planning Commission, acting as the City
Coastal Commission.
When adequate Urban Cultural Parks funding becomes available, New
York
City will coordinate with the New York State Office of Parks and
Recreation in developing a management plan for New York City Urban
Cultural Parks.
10
0

In the 1981 Capital Needs Statement, the New York City Planning
Commission, as the City Coastal Commission, recommends that "the
City
must move to develop a policy addressing vacant land and open space
needs, an issue of special importance to redeveloping
neighborhoods."
The Commission recognizes the need to "provide some opportunity for
altering and adding to the existing park system." However,
it is
recommended that "acquisition should be accomplished without any
added
City maintenance burden. This can be accomplished by
providing
another source of maintenance and operation, as with the proposed
arrangements for Westway, Riverwalk, and Battery Park City, which
the
developers or the State will maintain. The addition of natural
areas
in the outer reaches of the City, which would require minimal
maintenance, should also be considered."

NEW YORK CITY POLICY G: MAINTAIN AND PROTECT NEW YORK CITY BEACHES
TO
THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.
In New York City, public beaches are the most significant seasonal
recreational resource (especially those located in. the Rockaways,
Coney Island and Staten Island). Chronic beach erosion
causes
significant damage and results in the loss of public recreational
benefits. Only continuous efforts addressing this problem will
assure
uninterrupted public use.
This policy adds specificity to New York State Policy 21 by
insuring
that water dependent recreation will be encouraged and facilitated,
and adds specificity to New York State Policy 16 by identifying a
particular public resource endangered by erosion. In addition
this
policy implements Policy 13 which requires that erosion control
structures, including the renourishment of beaches, be built or
maintained to control erosion over a 30-year period, by providing
continuous maintenance for erosion control devices which protect
public beaches. Local implementation is as detailed below.
The City recommends that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains
and protects New York City's beaches to the extent possible
pursuant
to Section 103 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962, 33 U.S.C.
Section 426 (g) (where project costs do not exceed $1,000,000).

Implementation

The Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, Environmental Conservation
Law
(Article 34) contains a provision that, within identified coastal
erosion hazard areas, consideration is to be given to both the
public
benefits and long range adverse effects of proposed activities
which
use public funds.

New York City Actions:
The New York State Unconsolidated Laws cited above also authorized
municipalities to participate in Federal projects. ULURP
review of
proposed projects by the City Coastal Commission will ensure local
compliance with this policy. In addition, City implementation
of a
coastal erosion hazard ordinance in conformance with the State's
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 34) will provide
consideration
of public benefits versus long range effects of activities such as
beach maintenance. The City will be able to develop beach
maintenance
and protection proposals when coastal erosion hazard area maps are
completed.
The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation authorities
are
set forth in Section 533 of the City Charter. It has the power to
manage and care for all parks, to prepare plans for a City park
system, acquire, construct and improve facilities for
public
recreation and to manage all real property, which
is used for the
establishment of parks. As mentioned above, these are hampered
by
fiscal constraints.
The New York City Planning Commission will help implement this
policy
through the Capital Needs Statement. For example, in the 1981
Capital
Needs Statement, the Commission recommends that funds be
"requested to
continue the ongoing rehabilitation of beaches and boardwalks at
Coney
Island, Rockaway Beach, and Orchard Beach."

POLICY 22: DEVELOPMENT WHEN LOCATED ADIJACENT TO THE
SHORE WILL
PROVIDE -FOR WATER-RELATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES
WHENEVER SUCH
RECREATIONAL USE IS APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF REASONABLY ANTICIPATED
DEMAND FOR SUCH ACTIVITIES, AND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT.

Explanation of Policy
Many large-scale developments present practical opportunities for
providing recreation facilities as an additional use of the site
or
facility. Therefore whenever large-scale developments are
located
adjacent to the shore they should to the fullest extent permitted
by
existing law provide for some form of water-related recreation use
unless there are compelling reasons why any form of such
recreation
10
2

would not be compatible with the development, or a reasonable
demand
for public use cannot be foreseen.
Whenever a proposed development would be consistent with WRP
policies
and the development could, through the provision of recreation and
other multiple uses, significantly increase public use of the
shore,
then such development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to
the
shore (this situation would generally only apply within the more
developed portions of urban areas).

New York City Implementation
The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation has the
authority
to acquire areas and facilities for the recreation of the public;
New
York City Charter Section 533.b.l.(1977). Adherence to this policy
by
the Department of Parks and Recreation will be assured through
review
of the Department's acquisitions by the City Coastal Commission.
Also, the New York City Zoning Resolution currently
includes
provisions which implement this policy at the City level. The New
York City Planning Commission reviews all plans for the
development,
growth, and improvement of the City and its boroughs and community
districts initiated by the Mayor, Borough Boards, or Community
Boards,
New York City Charter Section 197-c, b. It has the authority to
issue
special permits in certain Special Zoning Districts, to allow the
transfer of development rights from historic landmarks, and to
initiate changes in the New York City Zoning Resolution.
The New York City Coastal Commission, through the Uniform Land Use
Review Procedure, will consider the provision of water-related
recreation activities in waterfront developments when making its
decision to approve, modify, or disapprove any proposal or
application.
The Commission also utilizes restrictive declarations,
when
appropriate, to require that certain amenities be provided as a
part
of development proposals.
In the 1981 Capital Needs Statement, the Commission recommends City
support for large-scale developments which provide water-related
recreation activities. For example, it states that "the proposal
to
create a public recreation and performance area along the
waterfront
in Battery Park City offers a special opportunity to expand public
use
of the waterfront."
The Commission, as the City Coastal Commission, will continue to
use
these techniques to ensure implementation of this policy.
103

POLICY 23: PROTECT, ENHANCE, AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS,
AREAS
OR SITES .THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE,
ARCHEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION.

Explanation of Policy
Among the most valuable of the State's man-made resources are those
structures or areas which are of historic, archeological, or
cultural
significance. The protection of these structures must
involve a
recognition of their importance by all agencies and the ability to
identify and describe them. Protection must include concern not
just
with specific sites but with areas of significance, and with the
area
around specific sites. Protection is not to be continued as a
passive
mandate but must include active efforts when appropriate to restore
or
revitalize through adaptive reuse. While the program is
concerned
with the preservation of all such resources within the coastal
boundary, it will actively promote the preservation of historic and
cultural resources which have a coastal relationship.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has the
authority
to regulate and establish landmarks, landmark sites,
interior
landmarks, scenic landmarks, and historic districts. Therefore,
this
policy is presently implemented in New York City. However,
demolition
of landmark properties or applications to demolish involve more
complex procedures and occasionally lead to the loss of valuable
coastal related historic resources. For examiple, if a building
has
been determined to be a hazard to health and safety by the
Department
of Buildings the landmarks law is preempted and demolition is
mandated
by the Department of Buildings. The owner is then
required to
demolish the structure. If the building is in hazardous condition
but
recoverable, the Commission may request the Department of Buildings
to
seal the building rather than demolish it. If a private owner
of
landmark property is not making a reasonable return on it (6
percent),
and wishes to demolish the building, the Commission seeks to
develop a
plan which will create a satisfactory return on the building, using
tax abatement or tax remission if necessary to do so. If creation
of
a reasonable return is not possible, the City must find an
alternate
buyer for the property or the City must acquire the property or an
appropriate interest in it. If the City fails to do so within a
specified time, the Commission must grant the demolition permit.
Implementation funds may be utilized to prevent the loss of such
structures and to aid in their rehabilitation.
The Department of City Planning, as a co-lead agency for City
Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) will review discretionary
actions
10
4

for possible social, economic and land use impacts. As set forth
in
Mayoral Executive Order No. 91, City Environmental Quality Review,
section 6, (a) (5) Determination of significant effect; criteria,
"An'
action may have a significant effect on the environment if it can
reasonably be expected to lead to... the impairment of the
character
or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural or
aesthetic resources (including the demolition or alteration of a
structure which is eligible for inclusion in an official inventory
of
such resources), or of existing community or neighborhood
character."
The City Planning Commission, as the City Coastal commission, will
not
act on an application under ULURP nor promulgate a zoning
regulation
until CEQR review is completed. Similarly, the Board of Standards
and
Appeals will not render a decision on an application for a variance
until CEQR procedures have been complied with. Therefore, if the
City
Environmental Quality Review results in the preparation of
an
environmental impact statement, this statement becomes part of the
record which must be considered by the administrative agency in
reaching its decision on an action. Impacts to historic
or
archeological resources would be fully disclosed and considered.

NEW YORK CITY POLICY H: INSURE ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF ALL
WATERFRONT
PARKS AND BEACHES TO PROMOTE FULL USE OF SECURE, CLEAN AREAS WITH
FULLY OPERABLE FACILITIES.

New York.City waterfront parks and outdoor recreational facilities
are
inadequately maintained; many are in dire need of rehabilitation.
While operation and maintenance funds have declined, demands for
secure and well maintained parks have grown. A solution to
this
problem is beyond the funding capabilities of local government.
There are no state policies included in the Coastal Management Plan
which address the issue of operation and maintenance. Consistency
of
Federal and State agency actions, therefore, can only be
encouraged.
However, the policy can be enforced at the City level by priority
utilization of certain non-categorial Federal funds and direct City
agency actions as outlined below.

Implementation

Federal Actions:
Park management authorities at the Federal level are held by the
U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service which may provide
assistance to states and localities for the planning and
development
10
5

of public park facilities. Funds, as mentioned earlier, cannot
be
used for operation and maintenance. The City Waterfront
Revitalization Program strongly endorses the involvement of the
Federal and State governments to provide the minimal amount of
Federal
funding to local park systems for maintenance and operation
functions,
as suggested in the draft National Urban Recreation Study.
Other
federal programs provide funds, administered by appropriate city
agencies, which can be utilized for operation, maintenance
and
rehabilitation of recreation areas. Examples include:
-Non-categorial general revenue sharing funds pursuant to the
State and Local Assistance Amendments of 1976, P.L. 94-488;
-Funds provided by the Community Development- Block Grant
Program
of the Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section
5301).
Funding levels of these programs should be increased and earmarked
where possible for preservation.

State Actions:
At the State level, authority is held by the New York State Office
of
Parks and Recreation as detailed in the New York State Parks and
Recreation Law (PRL). The Office of Parks and Recreation has, in
the
past, provided special work training programs, such as Young Adult
Conservation Corps Programs (which was eliminated in March, 1982) to
aid in recreational maintenance and operations. However,
direct
financial aid in the operation and maintenance of existing New York
City parks has been accomplished only several times by transferring
surplus city (in-rem) property to the state park system. The
vehicle
for accomplishing this task is the Statewide Comprehensive
Recreation
Plan (SCRP) which contains an evaluation procedure to guide
allocation
of State and Federal funds and a planning process to evaluate future
recreation and open space needs of the State. Section 309 of the
New
York State PRL authorizes park acquisition and development
consistent
with this plan.
The decision to transfer a given surplus parcel is a difficult one.
Each site must be studied individually with consideration given to
state policies regarding access, closing hours,
maintenance
commitments, etc. and the possibility of future policy changes.
Section 3.21 of New York State PRL establishes the Urban Cultural
Parks Program which requires the New York State Office of Parks and
Recreation to undertake a survey and formulate a plan for a
statewide
system of urban cultural parks. Once again, aid in operation
and
maintenance of existing City parks can only be accomplished through
a
land exchange to the state park system.
10
6

It is recommended that existing statutes be amended to allow funding
of operation and maintenance of City parks of statewide significance.

New York City Actions
The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation authorities are
set forth in Section 533 of the City Charter. It has the power to
manage and care for all parks, to prepare plans for a City park
system, acquire, construct and improve facilities for public
recreation and to manage all real property which is used for the
establishment of parks. As mentioned above, these are hampered by
fiscal constraints.
Adherence to this policy by the Department of Parks and Recreation
will be assured through ULURP review of the Department's acquisitions
by the City Coastal Commission.
When adequate Urban Cultural Parks funding becomes available, New York
City will coordinate with the New York State Office of Parks and
Recreation in developing a management plan for New York City Urban
Cultural Parks.
The 1981 Capital Needs Statement of the New York City Planning
Commission helps to implement this policy at the -City level. In
addressing the need for rehabilitation of waterfront parks and
recreational facilities, the Commission states that a capital program
continues an effort to rehabilitate heavily-used regional facilities
which .... are in need of a major overhaul." These funds are to be
allocated for "rehabilitation of community and local facilities,"
"lrepairs to stadiums, golf courses, and marinas" and "rehabilitation
of beaches and boardwalks at Coney Island, Rockaway Beach, and Orchard
Beach."
In addressing the issue of operation and maintenance, the Commission
recommends that "additions should be made to the Department of Parks
and Recreation's staff ....to reduce the impact of the proposed
termination of the CETA program" and that "the Department should take
measures to improve productivity via training and via other management
initiatives." Currently, the City Department of Parks and Recreation
has taken steps toward rebuilding agency staff through tax levy
positions in an attempt to offset CETA losses.
The encouragement of Federal and State actions to facilitate
implementation of this policy at the City level is stressed in the
1981 Capital Needs Statement in which, "the Commission urges that
rechanneled Federal funds be allocated fairly to the Department of
Parks," and recommends that "the role of the State in providing for
park and recreation services within the City should be expanded." The
Commission states that "the greatest need is assistance for
10
7

rehabilitating, maintaining, and operating the existing park
system"
and that Federal funds are "also needed in areas of new
development,
where the City is unable alone to provide for the appropriate
expansion and maintenance of the park system."
City waterfront parks will be considered for designation as State
Geographic Areas of Particular Concern in the future with
appropriate
amendments to the State Coastal Management Program.

POLICY 24: PREVENT IMPAIRMENT OF SCENIC RESOURCES OF
STATEWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE.

Explanation of Policy
When considering a proposed action, agencies shall first determine
whether the action could affect a scenic resource of statewide
significance. An action must not substantially hinder achievement
of
this policy if the action is not of significant regional or
statewide
public benefit. The policy can be enforced by applying siting and
design guidelines. If an action benefits a region or the
state
significantly, it must to minimize the degradation of the specified
scenic resource, set a precedent for the establishment of a
waterfront
development and coastal resources policy and remain the only option
for action possible, even though the action would hinder the
achievement of this policy.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Zoning Resolution currently includes provisions
to
prevent the impairment of its scenic resources. For
example, the
Special Natural Area District was established to preserve geologic
and
topographic features having ecological, conservation and
scenic
qualities by mandating review of all new developments and site
alterations on primarily vacant land.
In addition, many other specal permits administered by New York
City
Planning Commission have statutory scenic criteria for
their
issuance. Zoning Resolution regulations on the size, location,
and
design of advertising and business signs also have
scenic
considerations. For example, the .Zoning
Resolution, at Sections
22-34, 32-661 and 42-531 prohibits moving or stationary advertising
signs on vessels plying New York City waterways that are within
view
of an arterial highway.
The New York City Coastal 'Commission, through the Uniform Land
Use
Review Procedure, will consider the scenic resources in waterfront
development when making its decision to approve, modify, or
disapprove
the proposal or application.
10
8

These controls are enforced pursuant to Section 645(b) of the New
York
Charter, by the Department of Buildings throughout the City except
for
on the waterfront under the jurisdiction of the Department of Ports
and Terminals. The Department of Ports and Terminals, pursuant
to
Section 704(d) and 704(f) of the City Chapter, enforces these
controls
with respect to waterfront commerce structures.

POLICY 25: PROTECT, RESTORE AND ENHANCE THE NATURAL AND
MAN-MADE
RESOURCES-WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE
BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL
AREA.

Explanation of Policy
When considering a proposed action, reasonabl-e steps shall be
taken to
ensure that the action would be undertaken so as to protect,
restore
or enhance the overall scenic quality of the coastal area.
The
effects of activities which would impair the scenic quality of the
general coastal area would not be considered as serious as the
effects
of the same activities for significant scenic areas. As
in the
previous policy, siting and design guidelines serve to enforce this
policy. Emphasis may be placed on the removal of elements
which
degrade and the addition of elements which enhance the coastal
area's
scenic quality.

New York City Implementation
Much of the New York City Zoning Resolution is concerned with
scenic
quality. Many special permits administered by the
New York City
Planning Commission, for example, the Special South Richmond
Development District which requires tree preservation, height
limits
and restriction of construction within designated open space, have
statutory scenic criteria for their issuance. The City
Planning
Commission is responsible for planning relating to orderly growth
and
improvement and future development of the City. It is also
empowered,
while administering the Zoning Resolution, to require restrictive
decalarations which place conditions on the future use of land,
including scenic considerations.I
The Special Scenic View District is designed to prevent obstruction
of
outstanding scenic views as seen from existing points of visual
access
such as a public park, esplanade or mapped public place.
Such a
district has been approved for the area west of the Brooklyn
Heights
promenade in order to protect the waterfront view of the Lower
Manhattan skyline, Governor's Island, the Statue of Liberty and the
Brooklyn Bridge. The Special Battery Park City District, created
to
govern a large developement in an area close to the business core
of
10
9

Lower Manhattan, establishes regulations which reflect
vertical
separation of land uses and provision of visual corridors allowing
a
view of the waterfront from upland areas.
The City Planning Commission also has the authority to conduct
planning relating to the orderly growth and improvement and future
development of the City. It may also require restrictive
declarations
which place conditions on the future use of land, including
aesthetic
consideration.
The City Planning Commission, as the City Coastal Commission will
continue to utilize these techniques to ensure implementation of
this
policy.
Zoning Resolution provisions will continue to be enforced by the
Department of Buildings throughout the City except for on the
waterfront where enforcement is under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Ports and Terminals.

POLICY 26: CONSERVE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE STATE'S
COASTAL-AREA.
Not applicable to New York City.

POLICY 27: DECISIONS ON THE SITING AND CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR
ENERGY
FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL BE BASED ON PUBLIC ENERGY
NEEDS,
COMPATIBILITY OF SUCH FACILITIES WITH THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
FACILITY'S NEED FOR A SHOREFRONT LOCATION.
Explanation of Policy:
The supply and distribution of energy is regarded by the Federal
government as having "a greater than local interest" and State and
Federal permits are usually needed by public utilities (especially
with respect to gas facilities and pipelines). State
legislation
(Articles VII and VIII pertaining to transmission and steam plant
generation) contain provisions to determine compatibility of these
facilities with the environment and their necessity to be sited
along
the waterfront.
New York City Implementation
The need for energy facilities are set forth in the State Energy
Master Plan (SEMP) which calls for its updating every two years.
In
as much as SEMP provides for public participation, New York City,
through its Energy Office and other agencies (such as the
Department
11
0

of Planning and Department of Environmental Protection) will
continue
as it did in 1979 and early 1982 to provide input to the plan.

The siting procedures in Articles VII and VIII of the Public
Service
Law mandate that public hearings be held prior to the granting of
Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need by the
New
York Public Service Commission and the New York State Board of
Electric Generating Siting and the Environment. New York City
through
its Energy Office and other agencies including the Department of
City
Planning will continue to invoke this tool to express its views.
City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQR) (Executive Order #91)
is
the means to implement the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(ECL
Sec. 8-0113). As with SEQR, an environmental impact statement
is
required under CEQR for large-scale facilities, such as petroleum,
LNG, SNG, and resource recovery facilities. This will allow an
early
weighing of social, economic and environmental issues.
Specifically,
it will ensure that waterfront policies are considered,
alternate
inland locations for certain energy facilities are
given
consideration, and mitigation measures appropriately addressed.
Interstate transmission facilities, such as gas and
petroleum
pipelines, coal slurry pipelines and electric transmission lines
associated with hydroelectric facilities, are regulated by Federal
agencies. Through State and Federal consistency provisions,
such
facilities will be sited in a manner that is consistent with the
New
York City Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Under the New York City Air Pollution Control Code, sulfur dioxide
emmnissions from coal burned in large utility boilers may not
exceed
200 parts per million (ppm) which is equivalent to approximately
0.4
pounds of sulfur for each million British Thermal Units of heat
energy
input. This local law essentially bans coal burning in the
City,
unless it is revised. It is currently being reviewed by
the
Department of Environmental Protection and the City Energy Office.

NEW YORK CITY POLICY I: SITING OF LIQUIFIED'AND SUBSTITUTE NATURAL
GAS FACILITIES, INCLUDING THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TANKERING OF
SUCH
GAS, SHALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION STATE AND NATIONAL ENERGY NEEDS,
PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS AND THE NECESSITY FOR A SHOREFRONT LOCATION.

Explanation of Policy:
The problems of safety involved in locating LNG facilities in
mnetropolitan areas have not been adequately resolved. Additional
III

studies may be needed to determine if locating an LNG facility
along
New York City's waterways serviced by LNG tankers would create a
public saftety hazard.

New York City Implementation:
The New York City Fire Department has the authority, pursuant to
Section 489 of the City Charter, to regulate the storage,
transportatiofi and use of combustibles, chemicals, inflammable or
other dangerous substances. Pursuant to this authority,
Section
Clg-12.0 of City Administrative Code requires a permit from the
Department for such activities and uses.

The City Coastal Commission, through ULURP, will review such
proposals
to promote and protect public health and safety. For example, the
Zoning Resolution Manufacturing District Regulations states that
one
of its general goals is, "To protect adjacent residential arnd
commercial areas, and to protect the labor force in
other
establishments engaged in less offensive types of manufacturing and
related activities, by restricting those manufacturing activities
which involve danger of fire, explosions, toxic and noxious matter,
radiation and other hazards, or create offensive noise, vibration,
smoke and other particulate matter, odorous matter, heat, humidity,
glare, and other objectionable influences, to those limited areas
which are apropriate therefore" (Section 41-00, (d).
Adherence to this policy will be assured by ULURP review of such
applications by the City Coastal Commission.

POLICY 28: ICE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SHALL NOT DAMAGE SIGNIFICANT
FISH
AND WILD'LIFE AND THEIR HABITATS, INCREASE SHORELINE EROSION OR
FLOODING OR INTERFERE WITH THE PRODUCTION OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER.
Not applicable to New York City.

POLICY 29: ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES ON THE
OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS) AND IN OTHER WATER BODIES AND ENSURE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.

Explanation of Policy:
Oil exploration has been taking place in the Atlantic Ocean, north
and
south of New York State, since 1978 when Exxon spudded the first
well
in the Baltimore Canyon. As of December 1981, twenty three out of
11
2

twenty eight wells drilled came up dry. The remainder showed gas,
but
in insufficent quantities for commercial production. In the event
of
an oil or gas find, some of this fuel could be landed in New York
or
routed along New York waterways. A 1977 Department of City
Planning
study funded by Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
indicated that a successful oil find could add 150 tanker trips
along
the Ambrose-Nantucket sea lane. The study also identified sites
for
an offshore support base, which included the former Brooklyn Navy
Yard
as the most likely candidate.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Department of Ports and Terminals has
jurisdiction
over the wharf and waterfront property owned by the City and
jurisdiction over waterfront property, waterfront commerce,
navigation
structures an waterfront property up to the marginal streets.
The
Department has authority to regulate this property; to enforce the
New
York Labor Law, the City Zoning-Resolution, the City Building Code
and
all applicable laws with respect to waterfront commerce and/or
navigation structures on such property; and to regulate dredging
and
filling.
The New York City Zoning Resolution. currently contains provisions
for
guiding the location of onshore support facilities of the Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas industry.
The New York City Department of City Planning has been funded, as
participants in the CZM planning process and as grantees of the
Coastal Energy Impact Program, to provide information and technical
assistance to New York State regarding the Federal offshore leasing
process and its probable impacts on New York City.
The City Coastal Commission will utilize Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act (306) funds, if available or Coastal Energy Impact
Program funds, whichever is appropriate, to perpetuate coordination
between the City and State; and to prepare, as allowed under the
Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, recommendations
concerning proposed lease sales or development and production plans
for transmittal by the Mayor to the Secretary of the Interior.

POLICY 30: MUNICIPAL, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERICAL DISCHARGE OF
POLLUTANTS-, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TOXIC AND
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES, INTO COASTAL WATERS WILL CONFORM TO STATE WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS.

Explanation of Policy
Municipal, industrial and commerical discharges include not
only
11
3

"end-of-the-pipe"l discharges into surface and groundwater but
also
plant site runoff, leaching spillages, sludge and other waste
disposal, and drainage from raw material storage sites. Also,
the
regulated industrial discharges are both those which directly empty
into receiving coastal waters and those which pass through
municipal
treatment systems before reaching waterways.

New York City Implementation
New York City 208 Plan recommendations regarding pollutant
discharges
include:
- Complete construction of the foundation for the Red Hook
Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)., and design the North River
and
Red Hook plants for secondary treatment while seeking Federal
legislative relief from full secondary treatment requirements
at
both plants.
- Upgrade the Coney Island and Owls Head Water Pollution Control
Plants from modified aeration to secondary treatment.
- Rehabilitate the Newtown Creek W-ater Pollution Control Plant,
retaining modified aeration.
- Provide staffing for the operation and maintenance of the new
North River and Red Hook WPCP's and additional staffing for
the
upgraded Coney Island and Owls Head WPCP's contingent upon
City
finances, continued State aid, and Federal funding.
- Disinfect all sewage treatment plant discharges to the Harbor
during the summer to permit bathing in classified waters and
discontinue year-round disinfection unless required to protect
shel lfishing.
- Prepare 208 Continuing Planning or 201 Facilities Planning
studies of: a) less than full secondary treatment during the
cold
weather months at all. treatment plants and year-round at the
new
North River and Red Hook WPCP's; b) the need for
dechlorination
or alternative methods for disinfection of sewage plant
effluents
in areas of high chlorine residuals; and c) alternatives to
improve the removal of BOO and suspended solids at City
WPCP's.
- Amend existing Federal water pollution laws to permit less than
full secondary treatment of municipal wastewater if the
discharge
is to well-mixed estuarine/marine waters and all water quality
standards and uses are met.
- Rehabilitate regulators along the waterfront and in
tributaries,
assure adequate regulator maintenance, and seek State and
Federal
support if additional funding is required.
11
4

- Conduct 201 Facilities Planning studies of regulator systems and
propose integrated improvements.
- Continue recent City improvements in sewer maintenance and
integrate sewer rehabilitation/modernization as well as new
construction into 208 Continuing Planning.
- Conduct a Harbor-wide 201 Facilities Planning study of heavy
metals, cholorine related compounds and PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) to determine sources, effects on marine life, and
problem areas, contingent upon regional support.
- Amend existing City regulations to permit control of industrial
wastes discharged to the sewer system, consistent with water
quality maintenance and standards in the Harbor.
- Conduct a City-wide 201 Facilities Study to identify all sources
of heavy metals and toxic substances (industrial and other) in
the sewer system (combined, sanitary, and storm), including a
list of regulated industries, based upon the City definition
of
"inormal sewage" and "industrial wastes", as amended.
- Develop a pretreatment program for heavy metals and toxic
substances discharged to the City sewer system, consistent
with
water quality maintenance and standards in the Harbor and
considering influent standards, water treatment modifications,
residentiaT/commercial product controls, and building
code
revisions.
In addition, the City Environmental Quality Review process requires
a
determination of any significant adverse changes to water quality,
(Executive Order No. 91, Section 6), which will ensure conformance
to
Federal and State water quality standards. Further, the
City's
"Capital Needs and Priorities" Statement (1981) indicates
Commission
support for continued funding for water pollution control.

POLICY 31: STATE COASTAL AREA POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
OF
APPROVED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS WILL BE
CONSIDERED
WHILE REVIEWING COASTAL WATER CLASSIFICATIONS AND WHILE
MODIFYING
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; HOWEVER, THOSE WATERS ALREADY OVER-
BURDENED
WITH CONTAMINANTS WI[LL BE RECOGNIZED AS BEING A DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRAINT.

Explanation of Policy
The State has classified its coastal and other waters in accordance
with considerations of best usage in the interest of the public and
has adopted water quality standards for each class of waters.
These
11
5

classifications and standards are reviewable at least every three
years for possible revision or amendment. Management objectives
of
Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans and State coastal management
policies shall be factored into the review process for coastal
waters. Waters not meeting State standards and which would not be
expected to meet these standards even after applying "best
practicable
treatment" to effluent discharges are classified as "water quality
limiting". Those segments meeting stream standards or areas
expected
to meet them after application of "best practicable treatment" are
classified as "effluent limiting", and all new waste discharges
must
receive "best practicable treatment". However, along stream
segments
classified as "water quality limiting", waste treatment beyond
"best
practicable treatment" would be required, and costs of applying
such
additional treatment may be prohibitive for new development.

New York City Implementation
New York City 208 Plan recormmendations regarding standards
and
classifications include:
- Review the State water quality standards for New York Harbor,
particularly the fecal coliform standards for bathing and the
toxic standards for marine life.
- Consider the reclassification of Fish Survival waters (Class
SD)
in New York Harbor to Fishing water (Class 1), after the
completion of wastewater treatment plant improvements.
In addition, the New York City Department of City Planning, as a
participating agency in the 208 Water Quality Management Program
and
as the grant agency in developing the Waterfront Revitalization
Program has utilized technical and land use data generated in 208
Task
Reports to make land use recommendations within the coastal area.
The
Department will continue to recognize water quality as a positive
or
negative factor in development decisions to reflect Waterfront
Revitalization policies.

POLICY 32: ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE OR INNOVATIVE
SANITARY
WASTE SYSTEMS IN SMALLER COMMUNITIES WHERE THE COST OF CONVENTIONAL
FACILITIES ARE UNREASONABLY HIGH, GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING TAX
BASE OF THESE COMMUNITIES.

Explanation of Policy
Alternative systems include individual septic tanks and
other
subsurface disposal systems, dual systems, small systems serving
11
6

clusters of households or commercial users, and pressure or vacuum
sewers. These types of systems are often more cost-
effective in
smaller less densely population communities and for which
conventional
facilities are too expensive. Areas of New York City where this
occurs are Northern and Southern Queens and Southern Staten Island.

New York City Implementation
New York City 208 Plan recommendations regarding the study and
implementation of innovative approaches for water quality
improvement
and waste disposal include:
- Prepare 201 Facilities Planning Studies for the City
tributaries
identified as having significant water quality problems and
study
the remaining tributaries under 208 Continuing Planning.
These
studies should consider other tributary improvements in
addition
to wastewater treatment, such as CSO controls, dredging, dike
modification, flushing tunnel reactivation, and land use
controls.
Specific water quality improvement recommendations are also
included
in the Waterfront Revitalization work. For example, the redesign
of a
drainage plan to prevent the destruction of valuable
natural
watercourses in southern Staten Island.
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (306) funds, if available, may
be
used by the City Coastal Commission to participate in tributary
studies with the designated 208 Agency and 'to assist in
the
implementation of alternative or innovative sanitary waste disposal
systems in appropriate locations.
In addition, the City's "Capital Needs and Priorities" Statement
(1981) states that the "Commission also supports the continuation
of
tributary studies."

POLICY 33: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE
THE
CONTROL OF STORMWATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING
INTO COASTAL WATERS.

Explanation of Policy
Structural approaches to controlling stormwater runoff
(construction
of retention basins) and combined sewer overflows (e.g.,
replacement
of a combined system with separate sanitary and stormwater
collection
systems) are presently economically not feasible. Until
affordable
technology is developed, nonstructural approaches (e.g., improved
street cleaning, reduced use of road salt) will be encouraged.
11
7

New York City
Implementation
New York City 208 Plan recommendations regarding the control of
storm
runoff and combined sewer overflows include:
- Advance a 201 Facilities Planning Study of CSO (combined sewer
overflow) control facilities along Jamaica Bay to improve
bathing
water quality, in conjunction with beach use studies and
Gateway
National Park plans. Institution of 201
Design/Construction
phases should be contingent upon the results of these studies,
plans and financial arrangements.
- Advance a 201 Facilities Planning Study of CSO controls for
Eastchester Bay, in conjunction with beach use
stud.ies.
Institution of 201 Design/Construction phases should
be
contingent upon the results of these studies and financial
arrangements.
- Advance a 201 Facilities Planning Study of diversion,
relocation,
or other alternatives for CSO problems in specific
tributaries;
and along the Upper East River, in conjunction with beach use
studies. Institution of 201 Design/Construction phases should
be
contingent upon the results of the studies and financial
arrangements.
In addition, the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, and the CEQR
process, provides an implementing mechanism for ensuring that
storm
water runoff and sewer overflows are investigated. Any adverse
change
in drainage and water quality induced by private or public
proposals
must be considered and evaluated per CEQR regulations, (Executive
Order No. 91, Section 6).

POLICY 34: DISCHARGE OF WASTE MATERIAL INTO COASTAL
WATERS FROM
VESSELS UNDER THE STATE'S JURISDICTION WILL BE LIMITED SO AS TO
PROTECT SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, RECREATIONAL AREAS
AND
WATER SUPPLY AREAS.

Explanation of Policy
The discharge of sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other solid and
liquid
materials from watercraft and marinas into the state's waters is
prohibited. Specific effluent standards for marine toilets have
been
promulgated by the Department of Environmental Conservation (6
NYCRR,
Part 657). Priority will be given to the enforcement of
these
regulations in the areas such as shellfish beds and other
significant
habitats, beaches and public water supply intakes, which
need
protection from contamination by vessel wastes.
11
8

New York City
Implementation
Implementation of this policy by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation pursuant to the New York State
Navigation
Law, Section 33-c is sufficient to protect the coastal area of New
York City. This law prohibits the discharge of sewage,
garbage,
rubbish and other solid and liquid materials from all watercraft
and
marinas into the State's waters.

POLICY 35: DREDGING AND OREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL IN COASTAL WATERS
WILL
BE UNDERTAKEN IN A MANNER THAT MEETS EXISTING STATE DREDGING PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS AND PROTECTS SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS,
AESTHETIC RESOURCES, NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURES,
IMPORTANT
AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND WETLANDS.

Explanation of Policy
Dredging often proves to be essential for waterfront revitalization
and development, maintaining navigation channels at sufficient
depths,
pollutant removal and meeting other coastal management needs.
Such dredgi'ng projects, however, may adversely affect water
quality,
fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands and other important coastal
resources. These adverse effects can be minimized through
careful
design and timing of the dredging operation and proper siting of
the
dredge spoil disposal site. Dredging permits will be granted after
it
has been satisfactorily demonstrated that these anticipated adverse
effects have been reduced to a level considered acceptable by
permitting agencies.

New York City Implementation
The New York City Department of Ports and Terminals has the
authority
to approve, through a permitting process, dredging proposals along
the
waterfront of New York City.
However, the problem for New York City is one of disposing of
dredged
materials in an environmentally acceptable and erconomically
feasible
manner. Between 8 and 10 million cubic yards of dredged material
is
removed each year while the Corps of Engineers routinely maintains
the
shipping channels in New York Harbor. Up to now approximately
90
percent has been disposed of at the ocean site commonly known as
the
"mud dump". An additonal two to four million cubic yards per year
from private sources have also been disposed of at this site under
U.S. Corps of Engineers permits.
119

Environmental challenges to rules and reg.u.ations governing -the
disposal of dredged materials and thie 'failure)of -bio-assay tests,
required to determine the quality of spoili-~bef-ofe dumping is allowed,
has led to a number of studies to determine an alternative-to ocean
dumping. Most of these alternatives involve 1 Isps a method
that would have tremendous impact on the City s waterfront and the
economy of the Port of New York. .v-_e,
Because of its potential impact, this disposal problem is treated
separately in the Solid Waste issue section in Chapter IV.

POLICY 36: ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE SHIPMENT AND STORAGE OF
PETROLEUM AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER
THAT WILL PREVENT OR AT LEAST MINIMIZE SPILLS INTO COASTAL WATERS: ALL
PRACTICABLE EFFORTS WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO EXPEDITE THE CLEANUP OF SUCH
DISCHARGES; AND RESTITUTION FOR DAMAGES WILL BE REQUIRED WHEN THESE
SPILLS OCCUR.

Explanation of Policy
See New York State Coastal Policy 39 for definition of
hazardous materials.

New York City Implementation

Implementation of this policy will be addressed as discussed under New
York State Coastal Policy 39.

POLICY 37: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE THE
NON-POINTr DISCHARGE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS, ORGANICS AND ERODED SOILS
INTO COASTAL WATERS.

Explanation of Policy
Best Management Practices used to reduce non-point sources of
pollution could include but are not limited to encouraging organic
farming and pest management principals, soil erosion control
practices, and surface drainage control techniques.
12
0

New York City
Implementation
208 Plan studies conclude that nutrient concentrations, primarily
nitrogen, will increase very slightly in the Harbor waters after
1985
because of other plan recommendations which will increase
wastewater
flows. The potential for algal bloom would remain, but an "unknown
factor" prevents massive summer algal blooms in the Harbor.
The study also concluded that mitigation measures would not be
effective unless all non-point sources are treated or controlled
for
nitrogen removal, a massive undertaking.
The 208 Plan, therefore, recommended the following:
- Develop a Harbor-wide water quality monitoring program, based upon
federal, state and regional resources, emphasizing toxic
substances
(heavy metal, PCB's, chlorine) and nutrient
parameters(Biochemical
Oxygen Demand, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, salinity, and
col iforms).
- Require major waterfront construction projects, such as new
highways and landfilling, to assess non-point water quality
impacts
and monitor, if necessary, under existing Federal and State
permit
programs.
Such a requirement can be enforced through the CEQR regulations
or
ULURP process which allow development only upon mitigation of
adverse environmental impacts.

POLICY 38: THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF SURFACE WATER AND
GROUNDWATER
SUPPLIES WILL BE CONSERVED AND PROTECTED PARTICULARLY WHERE SUCH
WATERS CONSTITUTE THE PRIMARY OR SOLE SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY.

Explanation of Policy
Groundwater is used as a potable water supply in the southeastern
part
of Queens (60 million gallons per day servicing 500,000 persons).
The
quality of this water is continually deteriorating because of the
impact of nitrates, primarily from sewage, and chlorides, primarily
from salt water intrusion.
Groundwater is also used for industrial cooling in parts of
Brooklyn
and Queens. The quality of water in these areas has deteriorated
to
such an extent that Federal and State potable water standards are
rnot
met.
12
1

New York City
Implementation
The New York City 208 Plan makes tha following recommendations:

- Encourage the State and the U.S. Geological Survey to study
groundwater resources throughout the City and
monitor the
groundwater in Brooklyn and Queens, especially the Jamaica Water
Supply wells.
- Provide a regional mechanism for stabilizing potable (drinkable)
groundwater use in Jamaica, Queens and Nassau County, including
monitoring and pollutant modeling.
- Encourage the City, in conjunction with the State, to study
potential potable water problems in the City watersheds
and
reservoirs under 208 Continuing Planning and existing Federal
water
legislation.
Any major project request which will adversely impact ground water
supplies will be modified through the CEQR and ULURP procedures.
306 CZM funds may be used to support technical feasibility analyses
conducted per the above recommTendations.

POLICY 39: THE TRANSPORT, STORAGE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID
WASTES, PARTICULARLY HAZARDOUS WASTES, WITHIN COASTAL AREAS WILL BE
CONDUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO PROTECT GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE
WATER SUPPLIES, SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, RECREATION
AREAS, IMPORTANT ARGRICULTURAL LANDS AND SCENIC RESOURCES.

Explanation of Policy
Examples of solid waste management facilities include resource
recovery facilities, sanitary landfills and solid waste reduction
facilities. Although a fundamental problem associated with
the
disposal and treatment of solid wastes is the contamination of water
resources, other related problems may include filling of wetlands
and
littoral areas, atmospheric loading, and degradation of scenic
resources.

New York City Implementation
The New York City 208 Plan includes the following recommendations
regarding the disposal of solid wastes:
122

- Integrate into 208 Continuing Planning the leachate survey program
for sanitary landfills being developed by the Department of
Sanitation.
- Continue the ocean dumping of sewage sludge but consider the
effects of dumping at a 12 mile site versus a potential 106 mile
site to permit the development of locally proven, cost-effective
solutions.
The disposal of solid waste (residential, industrial and commercial
wastes; demolition and construction debris; sludges from air, water
pollution control, or resource recovery facilities; and dredge spoils)
is an issue of major concern in New York City. Land disposal sites
are quickly reaching capacities while the search for alternative
disposal methods is encountering environmental and/or economic
roadlocks.
Therefore, the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program
includes the following solid waste policies. All policies are
designed to add specificity to New York State Policy 39 above.

NEW YORK CITY POLICY J1: ADOPT END-USE PLANS FOR LANDFILL AREAS WHICH
SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING:
- FINAL CAPACITY
- FINAL CONTOURS
- LEACHATE, EROSION AND GAS CONTROL SYSTEMS
- RE-VEGETATION STRATEGIES
- INTERIM REVIEW SCHEDULES

In New York City all landfill sites, except the ones in Staten Island
are scheduled to close by the mid-1980s. All these active landfill
areas lack approved end-use plans that fix ultimate capacities,
delineate final contours and appropriate land-use; or outline measures
to abate the adverse effects of gaseous emissions, leachate discharge
into surrounding waters and erosion.
It may be necessary to locate new landfill areas or reactivate old
landfill sites to dispose of valueless components (i.e., residue from
recource recovery facilities) of the solid waste stream.
123

IMPLEMENTATIO
N
Federal Actions:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assists states in the
development of solid waste disposal plans and dispenses Federal aid
for planning and implementation consistent with Federal standards
pursuant to Section 6941 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C. & 6901. It has also promulgated rules and
regulations
governing the ocean disposal of various solid and liquid wastes.
The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits to regulate the ocean
disposal of various liquid and solid wastes.

State Actions:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is
responsible for development of a statewide comprehensive solid
waste
management plan, which gives approval prior to construction and
operation of a solid waste management facility and provides
financial
aid to localities pursuant to Section 27-0507 of the New York
Environmental Conservation Law.

New York City Actions:
The New York City Department of Sanitation.has the authority to
issue
permits for the use of land as dumps pursuant to Sections 755(5) -
2.0
and 755(5) - 3.0 of the New York City Administrative Code.
It also is cooperating with Federal and State agencies to develop
plans in compliance with promulgated rules and regulations.
The
Department of Sanitation has awarded a consultant contract to
develop
an operational plan pursuant to Part 360 of the State
Environmental
Conservation Law.
The Department of Sanitation's plan will be subject to consistency
review by the City Coastal Commission to insure compliance with
this
policy. In addition, Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (306)
funds
may be used to assist in performing studies to determine future use
plans for these sites.

NEW YORK CITY POLICY K: CURTAIL ILLEGAL DUMPING
THROUGHOUT THE
COASTAL ZONE AND RESTORE AREAS SCARRED BY THIS PRACTICE.

Explanation of Policy
Illegal dumping continues' to degrade neighborhoods, scar
parklands,
destroy remaining natural resources and add to the cost of
upgrading
such areas.
124

This policy adds specificity to New York State Water Quality Policy
39. However, its enforceability depends on completion of an illegal
dumping curtailment plan.

Implementation

New York City Actions:
The New York City Department of Sanitation, has the authority to
issue
fines for illegal dumping pursuant to section 755(2)-7.1 of the New
York City Administrative Code, however, the practice continues due
to
the difficulty encountered in enforcement.
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (306) funds may be used by the
City Coastal Commission, in cooperation with the Department of
Sanitation, to develop a strategy to curtail this practice and/or
to
hire enforcement personnel. Those areas which have attracted
this
practice and contain vital natural resources will be identified and
considered for restoration.

NEW YORK CITY POLICY L: ENCOURAGE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT FROM WASTE
AND
WASTE LANDFILLS

Explanation of Policy
The City of New York is committed to the national goal of
independence
from foreign imported oil for energy use. The City's
1977
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Report, developed with Federal
and State assistance, entails ways of refuse disposal with
provisions
for recovery of materials and energy resources. This
policy of
recovering or producing energy from waste is in line with the
national
objective of energy independence.

IMPLEMENTATION

Federal Actions:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assists states in the
development of solid waste disposal plans and dispenses Federal aid
for planning and implementation consistent with Federal standards
pursuant to Section 6941 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C. & 6901.
125

State
Actions:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is
responsible for development of a statewide comprehensive solid
waste
management plan, gives approval prior to construction and operation
of
a solid waste management facility and provides financial aid to
localities pursuant to Section 27-0507 of the New York
Environmental
Conservation Law.

City Actions
The Department of Sanitation is mandated by City Charter to dispose
of
City waste. The resource recovery technology method of
disposing
waste allows energy production as well. The Department has produced
a
resource recovery plan and has a current application to construct a
facility pursuant to that plan. Adherence to this policy will
be
assured through review of this and future applications pursuant to
ULURP and CEQR.

POLICY 40: EFFLUENT DISCHARGED FROM MAJOR STEAM ELECTRIC
GENERATING
AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES INTO COASTAL WATERS WILL NOT BE UNDULY
INJURIOUS TO FISH AND WILDLIFE AND WILL CONFORM TO STATE WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS.

Explanation of Policy
The State Board of Electrical Generation Siting and the
Environment
must consider a number of factors when reviewing a proposed site
for
facility construction. One of these factors is the facility
"not
discharge any effluent that will be unduly injurious to the
propagation and protection of fish and wildlife, the industrial
development of the State, public health, the public enjoyment of
the
receiving waters." The effects of thermal discharges an water
quality
and aquatic organisms will be considered by the Board when
evaluating
an application to construct a new steam electric generating
facility.

New York City Implementation.
Implementation of this policy through Article VII and VIII of the
New
York State Environmental Conservation law is sufficient to protect
the
coastal area of New York City. This Law authorizes the
establishment
of standards for thermal discharges into State waters.
1
26

POLICY 41: LAND USE OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL NOT
CAUSE
NATIONAL OR STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS TO BE VIOLATED
Explanation of Policy
New York's Coastal Management Program incorporates the air quality
policies and programs developed for the State by the Department of
Environmental Conservation. Coordination of the coastal
management
and air pollution programs will focus on ensuring the required
consistency. Mutual program review will concentrate on
identification
of the effect of each program upon the other. Any adjustments that
are required will reflect the primacy of National Ambient Air
Quality
Standards.
To the extent possible, the State Implementation Plan will be
consistent with coastal land and water use policies.
Conversely,
coastal management guidelines and program decisions with regard to
land and water use and any recommendations with regard to specific
sites for major new or expanded industrial, energy, transportation,
or
commercial facilities will reflect an assessment of their
compliance
with the air quality requirements of the State Implementation Plan.

New York City Implementation
In New York City, the Department of Environmental Protection and
the
Department of Buildings have responsibility to safeguard clean air.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has the authority
to
set standards for the regulation of all emissions into the open air
pursuant to Section 1403 of the City Charter. Also, this
section
gives the Commissioner of DEP the authority to enforce all rules
and
regulations pertaining to air pollution control. The Department
of
Buildings (DOB) enforces those sections of the Zoning Resolution
which
pertain to performance standards for air pollution emissions.
These
standards are applied to certain manufacturing and commercial uses.
Both DEP and DOB have the authority to issue permits prior to the
installation of certain control equipment. In addition to the
two
agencies discussed above the New York City Environmental Control
Board
acts as a judicial body with respect to violation of the Air
Pollution
Control Code and the Department of City Planning participates with
DEP
and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in
developing and revising air quality management plans.
The City Coastal Commission will perform continuing reviews of
developing plans and strategies and consider proposed air quality
requirements during implementation of the Local WRP
Program,
especially with respect to use determinations and designation of
areas
for special management attention.
127

POLICY 42: COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES WILL BE CONSIDERED IF THE
STATE RECLASSIFIES LAND AREAS PURSUANT TO THE PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT.

Explanation of Policy
The policies of the State and local coastal management programs
concerning proposed land and water uses and the protection and
preservation of special management areas will be taken into account
prior to any action to change prevention of significant
deterioration
land classifications in coastal regions or adjacent areas.
In
addition, the Department of State will provide the Department of
Environmental Conservation with recommendations for proposed
prevention of significant deterioration land classification
designations based upon State and local coastal management programs.

New York City Implementation
The City Coastal Commission will provi.de the various responsible
agencies mentioned under Policy I with recommendations for proposed
significant deterioration land classification designations based
upon
the New York City WRP.

POLICY 43: LAND USE OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST NOT
CAUSE
THE GENERATION OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF THE ACID RAIN PRECURSORS:
NITRATES AND SULFATES.
Explanation of Policy
The New York Coastal Management Program incorporates the State's
policies on acid rain. As such, the Coastal Management Program will
assist in the State's efforts to control acid rain. Conversely,
these
efforts to control acid rain will enhance the continued viability of
coastal fisheries, wildlife, agricultural, scenic and water
resources.

New York City Implementation
The City Coastal commission will perform continuing reviews of
developing plans and strategies concerning acid rain control and
will
make recommendations on proposed plans to various responsible
agencies
mentioned under Policy 41.
128

POLICY 44: PRESERVE AND PROTECT TIDAL AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND
PRESEVE1THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THESE AREAS.

Explanation of Policy
Tidal wetlands include the following ecological zones: coastal
fresh
marsh; intertidal marsh; coastal shoals; bars and flats; littoral
zone; high marsh or salt meadow; and formerly connected tidal
wetlands. These tidal wetland areas are officially delineated on
the
Department of Environmental Conservation's Tidal Wetlands Inventory
Map.
Freshwater wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs, and
flats
supporting aquatic and simi-aquatic vegetation and other wetlands
so
defined in the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act and the New
York
State Protection of Waters Act.
The benefits derived from the preservation of tidal and freshwater
wetlands include but are not limited to:
habitat for wildlife and fish, including a substantial
portion
of the State's conmmercial fin and shellfish varieties; and
contribution to associated aquatic food chains;
erosion, flood and storm control;
� natural pollution treatment;
� groundwater protection;
�recreational opportunities;
educational and scientific opportunities; and
aesthetic open space in many otherwise densely developed
areas.

New York City Implementation
The enforcement of New York State Tidal and Freshwater Wetland
Statutes by the New York State Department of
Environmental
Conservation is sufficient to implement this policy at the City
level. Adherence to this policy is aided when, pursuant to the
City
Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), Mayoral Executive Order No.
91,
discretionary actions of City agencies are reviewed for
determination
of significant effect. This review would include criteria such
as
"the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation..."
(Section 6(a)(2). This review is made before a final decision
to
approve an action can be made by the City Planning Commrission in
the
UJLURP process.
129

CHAPTER V: SPECIAL REVITALIZATION
AREAS
INTRODUCTION
The area within the waterfront boundary, as discussed earlier, is
the
area where land uses and activities will be regulated to protect
life
and property from natural hazards, to restore and conserve
valuable
natural and man-made resources or to preserve critical habitats.
Within this zone, where uses and activities will be subject to
some
degree of management, there are a number of specific areas where
natural or manmade features, environmental processes, or existing
and
potential economic and recreational opportunities merit
further
protection, preservation or enhancement. The New York City
Waterfront
Revitalization Program identifies Erosion/Flood Hazard
Areas,
Shorefront Access Areas and Areas of Particular
Waterfront
Significance, and selected existing Special Zoning Districts as
Special Revitalization Areas.
Erosion/Flood Hazard areas, Shorefront Access Areas and Areas of
Particular Waterfront Significance are discussed further in the
following sections of this chapter. Details of selected
existing
Special Zoning Districts can be found in the New York City Zoning
Resolution. The existing Special Zoning Districts selected to
further
implementation of the New York City WR Program include: The
Special
Battery Park City District, created to .govern a large development
in
the business core of Lower Manhattan by requiring visual
corridors,
views of the water from upland areas and pooled open spaces; The
Special Scenic View District, intended to prevent obstruction of
outstanding scenic views as seen from a public park, esplanade or
mapped public place by not allowing buildings or structures to
penetrate a scenic view plane; The Special Natural Area Districts,
designed to preserve natural features in Staten Island and Bronx
by
reviewing all new developments and site alterations; The
Special
South Richmond Development District, established to systematically
guide development of vacant land in southern Staten Island
by
mandating tree preservation, planting and maintenance of open space
networks; The Special Sheepshead Bay District, devised to
encourage
develpment that will strengthen and protect the neighborhood's
unique
waterfront and recreation character by establishing special density
and height limits and requiring sitting areas, kiosk and cafes;
and,
The Special South Street Seaport District, enacted to preserve and
restore the Seaport's historic building by allowing transfer of
development rights. The Special City Island District was enacted
to
promote the nautical and waterfront uses of City Island in a
compatible way with the existing community.
These Special Districts all clearly contain provisions in complete
accord with Waterfront Revitalization goals and objectives and are
used as tools to implement certain WR policies (please refer to
Chapter IV - Waterfront Policies). The City Coastal Commission will
aid in administering the special provisions within these areas.
1
30

Erosion/Flood Hazard Special Management
Areas
Federal regulations covering shoreline erosion/mitigation planning,
developed in response to the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments
of
1976, require "A planning process for (A) Assessing the effects of
shoreline erosion (however caused), and (B) Studying and evaluating
ways to control, or lessen the impact of such erosion."
In order to meet these requirements, New York State has articulated
Program Policies and demonstrated how existing State laws may be
used
for their implementation. In addition, it has developed a new
program
which provides for the identification, mapping and designation of
waterfront erosion hazard areas in cooperation with
local
governments. The legislation requires local governments to
adopt
minimum standards and criteria for the siting and building of
structures and for land use and development within erosion hazard
areas.
The Flooding and Erosion issue and some of the New York City
Policies
section of Chapter IV, details how the City Coastal Comrmission
will
implement the new State Erosion Hazard Legislation. That
chapter
identifies a unique form of erosion in urbAn areas, structural
erosion.
This section of the New York City WRP Program addresses those
reaches
* (linear sections of shorefront) which have been studied in detail
by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Much of the New York Harbor has
active proposals to mitigate flooding and erosion and to remove
decaying structures and floating debris.
Coastal hazards occur along two distinct shorelines. First,
exposed
shorelines along the Lower New York Bay facing the Atlantic Ocean
and
Western Long Island Sound are eroded and flooded by winds, waves
and
storms. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] has identified
four
reaches where these hazards are serious:

I National Shoreline Study; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972
1
31

Reach I - STATEN ISLAND - Fort Wadsworth to Arthur Kill
Reach 2 - CONEY ISLAND - Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point
Reach 3 - THE ROCKAWAYS - East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet
Reach 4 - WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND - Eastern Bronx Shore and
Nearby Islands

Second, physically built-up shores along the numerous bays, inlets
and
rivers of New York Harbor are subject to both natural and man-
induced
forces which erode waterfront structures, a problem studied by the
Army Corps of Engineers.2 Work is nearly complete on Reach A and
Reach B is now in the planning and engineering stages to remove
waterfront structures along the shoreline:
Reach A - MANHATTAN - East River, Battery Park to East 96th
Street
Reach B - STATEN ISLAND - St. George to the Verrazano Narrows
Bridge

Shorefront Access Areas
Coastal Zone Management Act rules and regulations encourage the
development of a single coordinated statewide access planning
process.
The New York State Coastal Management Program explains that the
statewide process "... utilizes, in part, various methodologies and
inventories already developed by ... state and local agencies and the
lists of specific sites needing access improvements."
Presented below is the work completed by the Department of City
Planning during the development (305) phase of the
Waterfron
t
Revitalization Program. It includes a methodology for
identifyi
ng
shorefront areas appropriate for improved access and a tabulation
of
the nature of access issues for thirty-three (33) areas.
Planning during the development (305) phase also included site
specific studie's for three areas - Fulton Ferry, in
Brooklyn,
Soundview Pennisula, in the Bronx, and the Northeastern Shore of
Queens; tife detailed plans resulting from these studies may be
incorporated at a later date as amendments to the New York City WR
Program.

2 "Survey Report on Review of' Project, New York Harbor
Collection
and Removal of Drifts"; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974.
13
2

Fig-u-re 12

I
I
I
I
Ii
I

I
t
I

I-

t
i
I
i
i
,v U E :-: -
s,'
a
'-

.72
wi.
a IR 0NX

-S..'

.1
N ASS Ali
Q UEE N S
N
i
NEW JERSEY
A.
I
1
1

'N
I.- *
'-N

I
x
, I
SR 00 K LYN
PI Riach 3
1
1 _ 14
c :1
0

9,
NEW4EI YOR-K CITY:
~ROSION AND 'FLO(D(
IHAZARD AREAS
Reac.~ I

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (306) funds and other
appropriate
funding may, if available, be used to complete the remaining site
specific studies and to implement recommendations in accordance
with
the statewide access planning process.

Identification Methodology
The entire New York City waterfront area has been examined with
regard
to need, potential, and demand for shorefront access relating to:
1) the inaccessibility of waterfront recreation areas, views
or
open space;
2) the absence of available waterfront or upland open space;
3) conflicts generated by expanding shorefront access; and
4) opportunity for shorefront recreation.

Sources for data leading to the identification of areas showing
shorefront access needs were:
- previous studies and reports done by the Department of City
Planning;
- City and State agencies involved in the planning and
development of the waterfront for activities compatible with
public shorefront access;
- experts associated with public agencies and civic
groups;
(These include: New York City Department of Parks
and
Recreation, New York City Parks Council, New York State Sea
Grant, New York State Office of Parks and Recreation,
various
New York City Community Planning Boards and
civic
associations. )and,
- inventories of existing recreational facilities.

Shorefront Access Areas are listed in Table I in relationship to
the
type of access involved (physical, visual, transportation) and
general
nature of the access issue. In addition, all City parks and other
City-owned waterfront property are generically designated.
Additional
sites may be identified during the implementation phase of the
program.
Shorefront Access Areas are also designated in Table I according to
their basis of selection in order to provide an historical
perspective
on how the study originated. These sites have been selected based
on
a proposed plan, policy or WRP identification: either a proposal
was
requested by a conmmmunity board which suggested a study should be
made
of the designated area; or a plan regarding the specific shorefront
access area was drawn up by the New York City Department of
Planning;
13
4

I
9

c
I

Basis for Tyrpe o f Nature of Access Issue
Selection Access

4.)

04 -H04.

P..~~~ C (U .r.,j ~
U)U)~~~ 0d 0 F
U) 1:3 ( 110 Po

O~~~~pi 0J W4P,~ 44)
<0 4.J *riU) O.r - '4-
Cd 9 4.) bO 4

U *10 4.J4 .,40 4
CdO m-C ~04 Cd1 +.44 0d-

~Cd 4). F iu 9 00 O 4-4

4-i '4-4 ."
Cd Cd %4
1.44-i Cd
P4 U)
tn Cd 10
C. Cd

(24

4.) 0 0 '--
14 Cd ba.0
.H a.
wI .,-4 0 P..
SliOREFRONT
ACCESS:

TABLE I

'-4

0
P4
a
H.

e-i

.rA
0
4 I
-4)
Id
0
--i
Cd

a.'
0
0
10

L44
0
0
.9 0
CJCd
Cd P..
_a tn
0
4..

.r-

4)
r.
0
4.H
4.1
F-P
0
P..
U)

F-i
1-4
Cd
:3
*rl
Bronx Sites

1
Bronix River
City Island
Ferry Point Park
Pelhain Bay Park
Soundview Peninsula
Riverdale Natural
Area
x
x
x x
x

x x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
I -4

Basis for Type of Nature of Access Issue
-Selection Access

-440

r.4 0

.'1 0 4)

~U4J 4J
400
o 0
0
pa

.r4
'4J

0
0 .4.4 CO

o- I. 0
0411

4J~~~9

4JU0 r-4 d
tn id bko0
SHORE FRONT
ACCESS:
TABLE I
U
-I
0 r.
C- 0
.H.

9~ 0

-4L -9

044
0 C-
94
Al 9
44

0
9.4
.20

0~ 4)
44- .?d

0 44

0 0
L.
4)
00u
P4 F:

U)U 0 -

440 4
d)4.) : 0
c0 t kc 13
DI- 44 in
0 1-4
4.04 0 xi
404-1 4)4
r. 4)9..
--A3t =

0-%

.4)

1-4
,U
U)
U
.rq
0-4
r.
44
0 c~
4-1 .0
m F,-

-9-.

0
.5-4
443
Cu
,4

9-
.-I

.4-4
Brooklyn Sites
Spring Creek

Paerdegat Basin

Slicepshead Bay

Coney Island Beach

Dreier-Offernan Park

Red tiook

Fulton Ferry

Nortlhern Brooklyn
Waterfront
x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x x x

x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~~
~~~~~~~x
xxx
x
x
x
I

Basis for Type of Nature of Access Issue
-Selectionl Access
4J

0 44 .
0 0 $4 0 J
:314 P. :3u 4i~o
k~I 0 4tnA 0 " >
O0 la 0 0 9: 4 4

C-i >~4 4

Rd 4)i
Qtn.
.1 4
ce
&4 4)
(014
_r4 co

co -44
.0.40

'1-4 ~44

I44Ju P
o. _4 0n

S Lqo a
.pi .J..n
(4.4
SHOREFRONT
ACCESS:
TABLE I

r-4
0

P..

1.4
C_

.9-
1-4
+_4
Q)
0
r-S

-4
co

c.1
0
.1-4
C3

~p
0

.9-

.1-4
Manhattan Sites

(4
'-4
Manhattan Landing
Battery Park City
Greenwichi Street
West way
Penni Yards
North River WIIC
Randall's Island
East Rtiver Wlaterfront
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.4

Basis for I'ype of. Nature of Access Issue
-Selection Access

U
'--4
o r.
0j. 0

1-4 r
.r44

1-4 *r-

*r4
0i 0)

o1 V

0)-

.1- 0

.1-4 Fu)
ar 0 0)

0C 0 e
0
".4
4J.

Cie4
o 4-i

If 0
0 -4 i
*r4

0 41R

fl. 0
o .'.i "A
.,I4. 44 V.
4.3. 14. .,4
P 0 cdi

U) cd '13

P4 0
tn 0)4 -
.o-4 4 U)
+j u 0 '-
tn cii bo.
~4 0 f
uj rA0 1-.
SHORE FRONT
ACCESS:
TABLE I
0

a)
44i

*4 0
44 -ri
044

_44
00
r.. tl
0)
0 u

U) k
.0 44t

44F v U

0 $4 OPA4
V4-4 4-4 U
0k$
-g 0 -0 r
c14. 0 0

6-4: g zO

1-4
j i

0~~
.rj 0
coi
44J
0 0l
P, t-4 0
U) cli -e4

P ::~. 91
r.
04
0

'1)

0
0 c
Cd P4
clip.'

.,I4
r-A

044
:011

0 m
cli cl
Ca 'm
Queens Sites

(4
x
Northi East Shore

Flushinig Meadow
Park

Nortlhwest/East
River
Shiore
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
Edgeiinere Landfill
x
x
Arvernexx
x
x
x

Basis for Type of Nature of Access Issue
Selectionl Access
a
4-i
r.~

"-4 0

0 0
f4 la P
o. VI 4-
F:
0
a.3

$0)
.ri
*410
Cd
0 '44
(4-i

-AZ
4-4 4J

0443
o. 0-
0 H00
,1- 4-4 V.
CH3 4-4 .
Cd 1

C 9
o p..
4i r

t4J LAQ-
(A Cu bo.0
m 0P
w r 40
SUOREFRONT ACCESS:
TABLE I

$4-
0

90;
4.3 r
Cu

0 0

u04.

0
a.

0,
,-I
Cu
-tn
0
p.'
0
NL
a)
a ci
i-aC d -
p.. F:
U)t 0n
En $
CD: P ti
u04 Pi
0 P. 0
< 0 4-'
Ca
04)4. 394)
Ca 0 'H m
Cr-44 44
to

0 4-) 4) 0
CF: ma)M
3:4 z 0

$4
4.3

Cu
.5-3
VI
>1-
r-
+-.'

.5-4

'4-4

0
a)
la
WI

-4

C- -H-

,-I 4i)

z0)3

Fk-

4-1
4.3

0
P.
F:
mr
-
k--
'-4
Cu
:3
-H
Staten Island Sitos

LO~
ko
Sailor Snug Harbor
St. L-eorie Ferry
Yerm M ya
Al iCUAste11

Richimond Natural Area

South Richmond
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x

2(
x
x
x
a
a, -- - -- -

or a policy regarding the shorefront access area was previously
identified in the New York City Zoning Resolution. WRP
identification
indicates that the investigation of the site took place during
the CZM
planning period (305) and that previously, no proposal, plan or
policy
had been established.
Each of the identified sites presents a unique case exhibiting
different problems and requiring varied solutions. This
necessitates
site specific studies which must include the following elements:
- commiunity characteristics (population, housing, open
space,
etc.), recent trends, and future development plans;,
- an identification and evaluation of the current modes of
access
to the shore;
- an identification of specific shorefront access problems
based
on the above investigations; and,
- recommended actions necessary to mitigate these problems.

Areas of Particular Waterfront Significance
A site specific resource and management studies of a limited
number of
areas with unique, scarce or sensitive resources (natural or
man-made)
where the general policies of the Waterfront Revitalization plan
do
not meet specific area needs were undertaken. For example, a
study
might promote preservation, reclamation, restoration, public
access to
the shorefront and/or economic development. These areas are
called
Areas of Particular Waterfront Significance (APWS).
Management plans for New York City APWSs address site specific,
as
opposed to waterfront areawide problems. The selection
process
included identifying candidate areas through review of the data
and
determinants used to map the waterfront area boundaries as well
as
federal, state and city programs applicable to specific areas
and
conditions in the area. City agencies and departments, New York
City
Department of City Planning Borough Offices and neighborhood and
interest groups offered nominations.
Potential sites were reviewed in terms of present uses and
conditions,
proposed uses and projected changes which could alter the site
and
adjacent areas. They were then grouped according to
representative
categories listed in Coastal
Zone Management Act regulations.
The
categories are:
- areas of significant natural habitats or character;
- areas of historical significance or cultural value;
- areas of existing or potential scenic value;
140

- areas of high natural productivity or habitats essential for
living resources;
- areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity;
- areas of water-dependent developments and facilities,
- areas of geological or topographic significance to
industrial
or commiercial development.
- areas~ of urban concentration where shoreline utilization
and
water uses are highly competitive;
- areas of significant hazard or damage if developed (or
already developed) due to storms, slides, floods,
erosion,
settlement, dreainage or inadequate sewer systems;
- areas to protect, maintain or replenish coastal
lands or
resources or areas in need of shoreline protection; and,
- areas of value for scientific research and academic
study.

Once grouped, the potential sites within each category were
evaluated
for significance relative to the other potential sites based on
additional criteria addressing specific urban concerns.
These
additional criteria are:
- sites with unique problems or scarce qualities.
- sites suited for intense use or development;
- sites vulnerable to impacts from developments and exhibiting
an
immediacy of need for protection;
- sites with conflicting isssues of concern requiring
protection
beyond existing plans and management strategies.
Evaluation of over 50 initial nominations resulted in the
selection of
twelve areas that, were proposed for designation as APWS's and
submitted to the New York State Department of State's Coastal
Management Unit:
The State then selected ten areas it considered of statewide
importance. These areas are: Bronx - Bronx River Valley, Brooklyn
-
Spring Creek, Manhattan - Southwest Waterfront Area, Queens -
Eastern
North Shore, South Shore, and Northwest Waterfront, Staten
Island -
South Richmond Natural Drainage Basin Area, Fresh Kills/Richmond
Creek
Drainage Basin and Raritan Bay, and City-wide - East River/Upper
Bay.

NEW YORK CITY
WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
AREAS OF PARTICULAR WATERFRONT SIGNIFICANCE
1. BRONX RIVER VALLEY
2. EASTERN NORTHSHORE QUEENS
3. EAST RIVER/UPPER BAY
4. FRESH KILLS/RICHMOND CREEK
5. RARITAN BAY
14
1

Areas of Particula-r Waterfront Significsww

WATERMNrO REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

I.BRONX RIVER VALLEY t - ~
- EASTERN NORTHSHORE QUEENS .
S.EAST RRIVRUPPER BAY
4.FRESH ICILLS/RICHMOND CREEK
S.RARITAN SAY
G.SOUTH SHORE QUEENS
7.STATEN ISLAND 'IATURAL DPAINAGE BASINS V *:
B.SPRING CREEKC
9.WESTERN ;ORTH SHORE QUEENS
IO.SOIJTHW'EST ANHTAN 14 WATERFRONr

-~~~~~~ ml.
142

6. SOUTH SHORE QUEENS
7. STATEN ISLAND NATURAL DRAINAGE BASINS
8. SPRING CREEK
9. WESTERN NORTH SHORE QUEENS
10. SOUTHWEST MANHATTAN WATERFRONT
The City Coastal Commission will develop management plans for each of
these areas. Six plans have been preliminarily drafted to date. They
will be submitted for approval as program amendments at a later date.

Community Participation
In. the continued planning and implementation these areas, the local
government will work with all interests which may be affected by the
program's implementation. The Waterfront Revitalization Program will
be a detailed program based on extensive dialogue and cooperation
among all affected interests of the community and all levels of
government. All local authorities will be utilized to enforce the
achievement of the community's waterfront needs.
Each pl'an amendment will undergo review by appropriate City agencies
and local community boards through the Uniform Land Use Review Process.
14
3

ICAT
SID: 08541 OL
Beginning of record displayed.
OLUC ti
HELD BY
OCLC:
"STATE OF NEW YORK COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...
NO@ - 9 OTHER HOLDINGS
13332207 Rec stat: n
Record 1 of 3
19851218 Replaced: 19950331 Used: 19970807
ELvl: Srce: Audn: Ctrl: Lang: eng
Form: Conf: 0 Biog: MRec: Ctry: dcu
Cont: b GPub: f Fict: 0 Indx: 0
Ills: a Fest: 0 DtSt: m Dates: 1982,9999
85-602686
DLC *c DLC
n-us-ny
0 HT393.N7 *b N37 1982
0 333.91/7/09747 *2 19
*b
NO@M
2 National Ocean Survey. *b Office of Coastal Zone Management.
10 Final environmental impact statement and the New York Coastal
Program / *c prepared by Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Entered:
Type: a
BLvl: m

Desc: a
1 010
2 040
3 043
4 050
5 082
6 090
7 049
8 110
9 245
Management
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce and New York
Department of State.

11CAT
SID: 08541 OL
End of record displayed.

OLUC ti "STATE OF NEW YORK COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM... Record 1 of 3
HELD BY NO@ - 9 OTHER HOLDINGS
10 260 Washington, D.C. (3300 Whitehaven St., N.W., Washington, 20235)
*b U.S. Dept. of Commerce, *c [1982-
11 300 v. <1, 3 > : *b ill. ; *c 28 cm. I
12 500 Title on cover: State of New York coastal management program and
final environmental impact statement. I
~ 13 504 Includes bibliographical references.
~ 14 650 0 Coastal zone management *z New York (State)
~ 15 650 0 Coastal zone management *x Environmental aspects *z New York
(State)
~ 16 710 1 United States. *b National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
~ 17 710 1 New York (State). *b Dept. of State.
~ 18 740 01 State of New York coastal management program and final
environmental impact statement.

APPENDIX A: MAJOR STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
1. Power and Responsibility of Department of City Planning --
Charter
Section 191.
2. Power and Responsibility of City Planning Commission -- Charter
Section 192.
3. Uniform Land Use Review Procedure -- Charter Section 197-c.
4. Zoning Reglations -- Charter Section 200
5. Findings for Board of Standards and Appeals Variances -- Zoning
Resolution Section 72-21.
6. City Environmental Quality Review -- Executive Order No. 91.
7. Capital Needs Statement -- Charter Section 214.
8. 197-a Plans -- Charter Section 197-a.
A
l

1.Powe'r and Responsibility of Department of City Planning -- Cliaater
Section 191.

j191. Department aod dir;~ctor of city planning, a. There
ihall be a department of city planning. the head ui which shall be the di-
r-ectr of city planning. fie shall be chairman and a memaber of the city
planning Commission.
b. The cilrector of city planning shaUl
1. Advise and assist the majyor, the board of estim.ite and
the council in regard to the physical pl*nning andl ptublic im-
provement aspecs of all matters relatedi to the develop~ment of
the city.
2. Provide staff assistance to the city planning commis-
sion in all matters under its jurisdiction.
3. Be the custodian of the city map and record thereot
alChanges legally authorized.
4. Conduct continuous studies and collect statistical and
other data to serve as the basis for planning recommendations.
5. Pro%ide community boards with such staff assistance
and other profewsional and technical aswistance as muay be nec-
eiard to permit such boards to perform their planning cluties
aniresponsililities under this chapter.
6. Perform such other functions as are assixned to himn by
the may-or or other provisions of law.
c. The department shall employ such plaqnning experts. engineers.
architects and ether officers~ ancl emnployees as may bo requtired to perform
its dluties. within the appropriation therefor.. (Ameaded by- Local Law
1 96 9. N~o. 39; u*e of the electors. NVot. 4. 1 975)

2. Power and Responsibility of City Planning Commission --Charter
Aection 192.

192. City p'Lanning Commission. a. There -shall be a citv
planning commission to consist of the chairman and six members to be
appointed by the mayor. The appointmenus shall be made so that there is
at least one resident of eacht borough on the commission. Except as other-
wise provided in section one huncdredi ninety-one. no mermber shall ho~ld
anyv other city oifice. Mlembers other than the chairman sh"l be
appointed for a tf-rin of eight vears. In case of a vacancy in the office of a
mernber other than that of the chalirznan. the mavor shall appoint a mem-
ber to serve for the remainder of the tnexpired term.
b. One of the members other than the chairman ahall be designated
by the mavor as vice-chairmnan and shall serve as such at the pleasure of
the mayor. The vice-chairman sha'll possess the powers and performn Lhe
4uties oi the chairman when the chairman is absent or while a vacancv
exists in the offi'ce of chairman. and tshall at :such times serve as director o
city planning. (A4mended by rote of che elec.-ors.N.ov. 4. 197'5)
A2

3. Uniform Land Use Review Procedure -- Cnarter Section 197-c.

� 19T-c. Uniform land use review orocedure. a. Except as
otherwise provided in this charter. proposals and applications by any per-
son or agency respeting the use. development or improvement of real
property subject to city regulation shall be reviewed oursuant to a uni-
form review procedure. Such procedure shall apply to changes. approvals.
contracts, consents, permits, and authorizations respecting:
(I) The city map pirsuant to section one hundred ninety-
eight;
12) Map of a subdivision or platting of land into streets,
avenues or public places pursuant to section two hLndred two;
13) Designations of zoning districts under the zoning reso-
lution, including conversion from one land use to another land
use;
14) Special permits pursuant to the zoning resolution;
13) Site selection for capital projects pursuant to section
two hundred twenty-seven;
16) Franchises and revocable consents involving residen-
tial, industrial, commercial or community facility projects pur-
suant to chapter fourteen:
I T) Improvements in real property the costs of which .re
payable other than by the city pur:uant to section two hundred
twenty-nine;
13) Housing and urban renewal plans and projects pur-
suant to city. state and federal housing laws;
19) Land-fills pursuant to chapter fifty.-ix and other ap-
plicable provisions of law;
;10) Sale. lease. other than the lease of office space, ex-
change, or other disposition of real property to the city and of
the real property of the city. and the proposed acquisition, sale
or lease of land under w .er pursuant to section sLXty-seven. sec-
tion sixteen hundred three. chapter fiftsn,. and other applicable
provisions of law; and,
I 1) Such other matters involving the use. development
or improvement of property as are specified by the board qo es-
timate upon recommendation of the city planning commission.
b. Each proposal or application shall be filed with the department
of city planning. which shall forward a copy within five dav3 to the ccmn-
munity board for the communitv district in which the land is located. and
to the respective borough board,. if the proposal or application involves
land located in two or more community districu.
c. Each community board shall t 1) notify the public of the propoial
or application in a manner specified by the city planning commission pur-
suant to subsection g of this section, 121 conduct a public hearing. and 13)
prepare and submit .a wriuen recommendation directly to the city plan-
ning commission not later than sixty days after reeeipt of the proposal or.
application.

A3
w

submeinion c of this section uiat inv(3lves' land located 'withiA !WO Or mreOr
cornmunitv districts -hall also be filed with the borough board within the
same timne period ipeciiied In tubwetion c of this section. Not later thani
thirty clays aiter the filing, the borough board ma, hold a public hearirtg
an any such recommendation and submit a written recommendation to
the city planning commission.
e. Not later than si:,ty,days after thie tiling of any recocnmendation
with it, the city planning commission shall approve, mocdify. or disap-
prove the proposal or application and shall file its decision with the b-oard
*of estimate. The city planning commission shall 'wonduct a public hearing
an any proposal or application on which a hearing was not heild by a coin-
fmnily board or borough b-oard. rhe commission may waive a public
heuring if a community board or borough b-oa4-d held a public hearing
after adequate notice. Prior to taking any action pursuant to this subsec-
tion on a matter involving the sitir.; of a capital project. the sale. lease.
exchange Gr other disposition of real property, a franchise or a revocable
consent, the city planning commission shall obtain a reprt from the office
of management and budget. the department of real estate, or the bureau
Of franchises, as aPPropriatcl. .Any action of the city planning commis-sion
which modifies or disa4pproves a :ecommendation of a commnunity Board
or borough board Shall be accompanied by a written explanation of its
reasons for such aCtiCo.
f. The city planning commissioni shiall file copies of its decision or
recomnmendation w-ith the board of estL-mate, together with copies of any
recommnendation of a community board or borough board. Withia sixty
days -of -such filing, the board of estimate shall hold a public hearing on
the matter and take final action byv a maajority vote unless otherwise spec.
dized in this charter.
g. The city planning commission. sfter notlce and a public heaving.
shall estabVish and publish not later than June first, nineteen hundred
seventy-six. guidelines, minimum standards. and procedural
requirements for community boards, borough boards and the Commission
in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities pursuant to this section.
h. If a community board, borough board. or the city planning com-
mnission fails to act within th-e tirme limits for review pursuant to subsec-
tion-s c, d and e of this section. the proposal or application is referred to
the next level of re-dew. if the board of estizmate fails to act. within the time
limit specified in subsection f of this secti-on, any prior decision of the city
planning commis3ion is fitnal.
L Noatice of any hearing an a proposal or applilcation by the city
Planning commission or board of estimnate shall be published in the City
Record at least ten days immediately Prior to the cdate of the hearing, and
a cop'y of the notice shiall be mailed to all community boards or borough
boards affected by the proposal or aPplication. (Ad pted by uote of 4he
A4

4. Zoning Regulations -- Charter Section 200
� 200. Zoning re_ulations. Exc�,t for changes in tne dernia-
tion of zoning districts and the isuance of special permits unzder tlhe
zoning &esolution which are subject. to the uniform review procedure pur-
s ant to section one hundred ninety-seven-c and to subsection four of this
section, any existing resolution or regulation of the board of estimate or of
the citv planning commission to regulate and limit the height and bulk of
buildings,. to regulate and determine the area of yards, courts and other
open spaces. to regulate density of population or to regulate and restrict
the locations of trades and industries and location of buildings designed
for specific uses or creating districts for any such purpose, including any
such regulation which provides that the board of standards and appeals
may determine and vary the application of such resolutions or regulations
in harmony with their general purpose and intent and in accordance with
general or specific rules contained in.such regulations. may be amended.
repealed or added to only in the following manner:
I. The city planning commission may upon its own initiative at any
time, or upon application as provided in section two hundred one. adopt a
resolution for any such purpose subject to the limitations provided by law.
Before adopting any such resolution, the commission shall notify any
community board or borough board affected by the resolution and shall
afford persons interneted an opportunity to be heard at a time and place to
be specified in a notice of hearing to be published in the City Record for
the ten days of publication of the City Record immediately prior thereto
setting forth in general terms the nature of the proposed resolution and a
statement of the place at which the entire resolution may be examined.
Any such resolution shall be filed with the secretary of the board of es-
timate within five days from the day of its adoption.
2. Approval, disapproval or modification by the board of estimate
of a recommendation by the commission for a change in the zoning resolu-
tion must occur within sixty days from the date of filing of the recommen-
dation of the commission with the board. In case the board shall fail to act
on such affirmative resolution within such period of sixty days. such
change shall be deemed approved and effective on the sixty-first day after
the date of filing unless a protest of owners of affected property shall have
been filed in accordance with the provisions of subdivision three. Any
resolution for a zoning change which the mayor shall have certified to the
planning commission as necessary. and which has been disapproved by
the commission. may be adopted by the board of estnimate by a three-
fourths vote and. after notice to the parties affected. a public hearing. The
foregoing limitation of sixty days shall be inapplicable to such an adop-
tion and the change shall become effective at a time fixed by the board of
estimate.
A5

3. in case a prote-t against a proposed resolution shall have been
presented to the secretary of the board of estimate within thirty days from
the date of such fiding. duvly signed and acknowledged by the owners of
twenty per centum or more of the area of:
11 the land included in changes proposed in such proposed
resolution. or
121 the land immediately adjacent extending one hundred
feet therefrom, or
13) the land. if any. directly opposite thereto extending
one hundred feet from the street frontage o! such opposite land,
such resolution shall not be effective after the filing of such pro-
test unless approved. by the board of estimate, either in the form
in which it was fied or as modified by the board. by a three-
fourths vote of the board within one hundred eighty days after
the filing of said resolution with the secretary of the board of
estimate. The effective date of such resolution, if so approved,
shall be the date of such approval. A protest duly filed as herein
provided may be withdrawn at any time within sixty days from
the date of the filing of such resolution.
14) Whenever the city planning commission has not
recommended approval of a proposed change in the designation
of a zoning district or the issuance of a special permit under the
zoning resolution or has failed to act on such a matter with the
time specified in section one hundred ninety-even-c, the board
of estiimate by a three-fourths vote may approve such change or
the issuance of such permit only if the mayor shall have certified
to the city planning commission that such change or issuance is
necessary. (Amended by vote of the electors, Nov. 4. 1975)
A6

5. Findings for Board of Standards and Appeals Variances -- Zoning Resolution
Sec:ion 72-21.

ltindings Required for Variances
W-hen in the course of enforcement of thi3 reso.o:-
tion, any oilcer from whom an appeal mav be
taken under the provisions of Section 72-1I (Gen-
eral Provisions) has applied or interpreted a pro-
vision of this resolution, and there are practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of
carrying out the strict letter of such provision. the
Board may, in accordance with the requirements
set forth in this Section. vary or modify the pro-
vision so that the spirit of the law shall be observed,
public safety secured, and substantial justice done.
Where it is alleged that there are practical diflicul-
ties or unnecessary hardship, the Board may Wrant
a variance in the application of the provisions of
this resolution in the specific case, provided that
as a condition to the grant of any such variance,
the Board shall make each and every one of the
following dndings:
(a) That there are unique physical conditions,
including irregularity, narrowness or shallow-
ness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topo-
_.phical or other physical conditions peculiar
to and inherent in the particulir ioning lot;
and that, as a result of such unique physical
conditions, practical difitcukies or unnecessary
hardship arise in complying strictly with the
use or bulk provisions of the resolution: and
that the alleged practical difficulties or un-
necessary hardship are not due to circumstances
created senerally by the strict application of
such provisions in the neighborhood or district
In which the zoning lot is located.
(b) That because of such' physical conditions
there is no reasonable poasibility that the dercl-
opment of the soning lot in strict conformity
with the provisions of this resolution will bring
a reasonable return. and that the grant of a
variance is therefore necessary to enable the
owner to resliz. a reasonable return from -itch
zoning lot. This finding shall not be required
for the granting of a variance tt a nun-prucid
organization.
(c) That the variance, if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood or
district in which the zoning lot is located;
will not iubstantially impair the appropriate
use or development of adjacent property; and
will not be detrimental to the public welfare.

(d) That the practical diRlculties or unneces-
.ury hardship claimed as a ground for a vari-
ance have not been created by the owner or by
a predecessor in title. Where all other r,:iuired
.ndings are made, the purchase of a toning !ot
subject to the restrictions sought to be varied
shall not itself constitute a sclf�-reated hard-
ship.
Te) That within the intent and purposes of
this resolution the variance. if granted, is the
minimum variance necessary to anord relief;
and to this end. the Board may pe.rmit a lesser
variance than that applied for.

It shall be a further requirement that the decision
or determination of the Board shall set forth .each
required finding in each.specific grant'of a variance,
and in each denial theraof which of the required
andings have not been satisdfed. In any such case,
each dnding shall be supported by substantial evi.
dence or other data considered by the Board in
reaching its decision, including the personal knowl.
edge of or inspection by the members of the Board.
Reports of other City agencies made as a result
of inquiry bt the Board shall not be considered
hearsay. but may be considered by the Board sa
if the data therein contained were iecured by per-
sonal inspection.

-.
A8

THE CITY OF NEW YORK
OF'FICE OF THE MAYOR
NEw YORIK.N.Y. 10007

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 91

AUGUST 24, 1977

CITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW

WHEREAS, the improvement of our urban environment is critically
important to the overall welfare of the people of the City; and
WHEREAS, the development and growth of the City can and should
be reconciled with the improvement of our urban environment; and
WHEREAS, it is the continuing policy of the City that environ-
mental, social and economic factors be considered before governmental

approval is given to proposed activities that may significantly affect

our urban environment; and
WHEREAS, subdivision (3) of section 8-0113 of Article 8 of the
New York State Environmental Conservation Law (State Environmental

Quality Review Act, or "SEQRA") and the regulations promulgated there-

under (6 NYCRR 617) authorizes local governments to adopt rules, pro-

cedures, criteria and guidelines for incorporating environmental
quality review procedures into existing planning and decision making

processes; and
WHEREAS, the procedures formulated in this Executive Order are
intended to be -ategrated :n_o exis s genr-cy ?-rcedur_s, -nclc-dinc
the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure contained in section 197-c of
Chapter 8 of the City Charter, in order to avoid delay and to encourage

a one-stop review process; and
A1O

-2-
WHEREAS, section 8-0117 of SEORA, as amended, provides that only

actions or classes of actions identified by the State Department of

Environmental Conservation as likely to require preparation of an en-

vironmental impact statement shall be subject to this Executive Order
until September 1, 1978, after which date non-exempt actions will be
fully subject to this Executive Order; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of SEORA in the City by this Executive
Order will accomplish the purposes for which Executive Order No. 87 of
October 18, 1973 ("Environmental Review of Major Projects") was promul-
gated and will continue the policy established therein.
NOW, THEREFORE, by the power vested in me as Mayor of the City of

New York, Executive Order.No. 87 of October 18, 1973 is, in accordance

with the provisions of sections 16 and 18 hereunder, hereby replaced

by this Executive Order,as follows:

Section 1. Definitions

As used herein, the following terms shall have the indicated

meanings unless noted otherwise:
(a) Action means any activity of an agency, other than an exempt
action enumerated in section 4 of this Executive Order, including but
not limited to the following:
(I) non-ministerial decisions on physical activities such as
construction or other activities which change the use or appear-
ance of any natural resource or structure;
(2) non-ministerial decisions on funding activities such as
the proposing, approval or disapproval of contracts, grants, sub-

sidies, loans, tax abatements or exemptions or other forms of
direct or indirect financial assistance, other than expense budget

funding activities;
Al
l

-3-
(3) planning activities such as site selection for other
activities and the proposing, approval or disapproval of master

or long range plans, zoning or other land use maps, ordinances or
regulations, development plans or other plans designed to provide

a program for future activities;

(4) policy making activities such as the making, modification

or establishment of rules, regulations, procedures, policies and
guidelines;
(5) non-ministerial decisions on licensing activities, such
as the proposing, approval or disapproval of a lease, permit,
license, certificate or other entitlement for use or permission
to act.
(b) Applicant means any person required to file an application
pursuant to this Executive Order.

(c) Agency means any agency, administration, department, board,
commission, council, governing body or any other governmental entity

of the City of New York, unless otherwise specifically referred to as
a state or federal agency.
(d) Conditional negative declaration means a written statement
prepared by the lead agencies after conducting an environmental anal-
ysis of an action and accepted by the applicant in writing, which
announces that the lead agencies have determined that the action will
not have a significant effect on the environment if the acticn is modi-
fied in accordance with conditions or alternatives designed to avoid
adverse environmental impacts.
(e) DEC means the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
A12

(4)
(f) Environment means the physical conditions which will be

affected by a proposed action, including land, air, water, minerals,
flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance,

existing patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth,
and existing community or neighborhood character.

(g) Envzironmental analysis means the lead agencies' evaluation
of the short and long term, primary and secondary environmental ef-
fects of an action, with particular attention to the same areas of
environmental impacts,as would be contained in an EIS. It is the
means by which the lead agencies determine whether an action under
consideration may or will not have a significant effect on the

environment.
(h) Environmental assessment form means a written form completed

by the lead agencies, designed to assist their evaluation of actions

to determine whether an action under consideration may or will not

have a s.ignificant effect on the environment.
(i) Environmental impact statement (EIS) means a written document

prepared ig* .accordance with sections 8, 9, 11 and 13 of this Executive
Order. An EIS may either be in a draft or a final form.

(j) Environmental remort means a report to be submitted to the
lead agencies by a non-agency applicant when the lead agencies prepare
or cause to be prepared a draft EIS for an action involving such an
applicant. An environmental report shall contain an analysis of the
environmental factors snecified in section 9 of this Executive Order
as they relate to the applicant's proposed action and such other in-

formation as may be necessary for compliance with this Executive Order,
including the preparation of an EIS.

(k) Lead agencies means the Department of Environmental Protection
A13

-5-

and the Department of City Planning of the City of New York, as
des-

ignated by the Mayor pursuant to section 617.4 of Part 617 of
Volume
6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, for the purpose of

implementing the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Con-
servation Law (SEQRA) in the City of New York, by order dated
Decem-

ber 23, 1976.
(1) Ministerial action means an action performed upon a given
state of facts in a prescribed manner imposed by law without the
exercise of any judgment or discretion as to the propriety of the
action, although such law may require, in some degree, a
construction
of its language or intent.

(m)Negative declaration means a written statement orepared by
the lead agencies after conducting an environmental analysis of an

action which announces that the lead agencies have determined that
the action will not have a significant effect on the environment.

(n) Notice of determination means a written statement prepared
by the lead agencies after conducting an environmental analysis of an
action which announces that the lead agencies have determined that
the action may have a significant effect on the environment, thus
requiring the preparation of an EIS.
(o) NYCRR means the New York Code of Rules and Regulations.
(p) Person means an agency, individual, corporation,
governmental
entity, partnership, association, trustee or other legal antity.
(q) Project data statement means a written submission to the
lead
agencies by an applicant on a form prescribed by the lead agencies,

which provides an identification of and information relating to the
environmental impacts of a proposed action. The oroject data state-

ment is designed to assist the lead agencies in their evaluation of
Aid

-6-
an action to determine whether an action under consideration may or

will not have significant effect an the environment.
(r) SEQRA means the State Environmental Quality Rpview Act
(Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law).

( s) Typically associated environmental effect means changes in
one or more natural resources which usually occur because of impacts
on other such resources as a result of natural interrelationships or
cycles.
Ct) ULUERP means the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (section
197-c of Chapter 8 of the New York City Charter).

92. General rule
No final decision to carry out or approve any action which may
have a significant effect on the environment shall be made by-any
agency until there has been full compliance with the provisions of

this Executive Order.
� B. Actions involving federal or state participation
(a) If an action under consideration by any agency may involve a
"major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," then

the following procedures shall apply:
(1) in the case of an action for which there has been dulv
prepared both a draft EMS and a final EIS, no agency shall have
an obligation to prepare an EIS or to make findings pursuant to
section 12 of this Executive Order.
(2) in the case of an action for which there has been mre-
pared a Negative Declaration or other written threshold determi-
nation that the action will not require a federal impact statement
A1 5

-7-
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the lead
agencies shall determine whether or not the action may have a
significant effect on the environment pursuant to this Executive

Order, and the action shall be fully subject to the same.
(b) If an action under consideration by any agency may involve

any state action which may have a significant elfect on the environ-
ment under SEQRA, pursuant to which a state agency is required to
comply with the procedures specified in 6 NYCRR 617, then the deter-
mination as to whether the state agency or the lead agencies shall be
responsible for the environmental review shall be made on the basis of

the following criteria:
(11 the agency to first act on the proposed action;
C2) a determination of which agency has the greatest
responsibility for supervising or approving the action as a
whole;
(3) a determination of which agency has more general gov-
ernmental powers as compared to single or limited powers or

purposes;
(4) a determination of which agency has the greatest capa-
bility for providing the most thorough environmental assessment

of the action;
(51 a determination of whether the anticipated impacts of
the action being considered are primarily of statewide, regional
or local concern, e.g., if such immacts are primarily of local
concern, the lead agencies shall conduct the environmental review.
If this determination cannot be made within 30 days of the

filing of an application, the Commissioner of DEC shall be re-
quested, in writing, to make such determination.
Al6

-8-
� 4. Exempt actions

The following actions shall not be.subject to the provisions of

this Executive Order:

(a) projects or activities classified as Type I pursuant to sec-
tion 15 of this Executive Order directly undertaken or funded by an
agency prior to June 1, 1977 except that if such action is sought to
be modified after June 1, 1977, which modification may have a signi-

ficant adverse effect on the environment, then such modification shall
be an action fully subject to the requirements of this Executive Order;

(1) such actions include, but are not limited to, those

actions defined in sections l(a)(1),,(2),,(3) and (4) of this

Executive Order;
(2) an action shall be deemed to be undertaken at the point

tha.t:

(i) the agency is irreversibly bound or committed to
the ultimate completion of a specifically designed activity
or project; or

(ii) in the case of construction activities, a contract
for substantial construction has been entered into or if a
continuous program of on-site construction or modification
has been engaged in; or
(iii) the agency gives final approval for the issuance
to an applicant of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy,
loan or other form of financial assistance; or
(iv) in the case of an action involving federal or state

participation, a draft EIS has been prepared pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or SEQRA, respec-

tively.
A17

-9-
(b) projects or activities classified as Type I pursuant to
section 15 of this Executive Order approved by an agency prior to

September 1, 1977 except that if such action is sought to be modified

after September 1, 1977, which modification may have a significant
adverse effect on the environment, then such modification shall be an

action fully subject to the requirements of this Executive Order;

(1) such actions include, but are not limited to, those
actions defined in sections l(a)(2) and (5) of this Executive
Order;
(2) an action shall be deemed to be approved at the point
that:
(i) the agency gives final approval for the issuance to
an applicant of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy,
loan or other form of financial assistance; or
(ii) the agency gives final approval for the issuance to
an applicant of a discretionary lease, permit, licence,

certificate or other entitlement for use or permission to

act; or

(iii) in the case of an action involving federal or
state participation, a draft EIS has been prepared pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or SEQRA,
respectively.
(c) projects or activities not otherwise classified as Type I
pursuant to section 15 of this Executive Order directly undertaken,
funded or approved by an agenc prior -o September 1, 1978 except
that if such action is sought to be modified after September 1, 1978,
which modification may have a significant adverse effect on the en-
vironment, then such modification shall be an action fully subject to
Al8

-10
the requirements of this Executive Order;
(1) such actions include, but are not limited to, those

actions defined in section l(a) of this Executive Order;

(2) an action shall be deemed to be undertaken as provided

in subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section, as applicable.
(d) enforcement or criminal proceedings or the exercise of pro-

secutorial discretion in determining whether or not to institute such
proceedings;

(e) ministerial actions, which shall appear on a list compiled,
certified and made available for public inspection by the lead agen-
cies, except as provided in section 15, Type I, of this Executive
Order, relating to critical areas and historic resources;
(fl maintenance or repair involving no substantial changes in
existing structures or facilities;
(g) actions subject to the provisions requiring a certificate
of environmental compatibility and public need in Articles 7 and 8
of the Public Service Law;
(h) actions which are immediately necessary on a limited emer-
gency basis for the protection or preservation of life, health, pro-
perty or natural resources; and
(i) actions of the Legislature of the State of New York or of
any court.
� 5. Determination of significant effect; applications
(a) Each agency shall ascertain whether an application need be
filed pursuant to this section, employing lists of actions, classi-
fied as either exempt, Type I or Type II pursuant to sections 4 and

15 of this Executive Order, respectively, which lists shall be certi-
fied by the lead agencies.
Al
9

-11-
(b) The applicant initiating the proposed action, other than an
exempt or Type iI action pursuant to sections 4 and 15 of this Execu-
tive Order, shall file an application with the lead agencies, which

application shall include a Project Data Statement and such other docu-
ments and additional information as the lead agencies may require to
conduct an environmental analysis to determine whether the action may
or will not have a significant effect on the environment. Where pos-
sible existing City applications shall be modified to incornorate
this procedure and a one-stop review process developed;
(!) within 20 calendar days of receipt of the application,
or of a determination pursuant to section 3(b) of this Executive
Order, if applicable, the lead agencies shall notify the applicant,
in writing, whether the application is complete or whether addi-
tional information is required;
(2) when all required information has been received, the lead
agencies shall notify the applicant, in writing, that the appli-
cation is complete.
(c) Each application shall include an identification of those
agencies, including federal and state agencies, which to the best
knowledge of the applicant, have jurisdiction by law over the action
or any portion thereof.
(d) Where appropriate, the application documents may include a
concise statement or reasons why, in the judgment of the apolicant,
the proposed action is one which will not require the preparation of
an EIS pursuant to this Executive Order.
A20

-12-
(e) Initiating aipplicants shall consider the environmental im-

pacts of proposed actions and alternatives at the earliest possible

point in their planning processes, and shall develop wherever possible,

measures to mitigate or avoid adverse environmental impacts. A state-

ment discussing such considerations, alternatives and mitigating mea-
sures shall be included in the application documents.

(f) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit an appli-
cant from submitting a preliminary application in the early stages of
a project or activity for review and comment by the lead agencies.
6. Determination of significant effect; criteria
(a) An action may have a significant effect on the environment
if it can reasonably be expected to lead to one of the following
consequences:

(1) a substantial adverse change to ambient air or water
quality or noise levels or in solid waste production, drainage,

erosion or flooding;

(2) the removal or destruction of large quantities of vege-

tation or fauna, the substantial interference with the movement

of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, impacts
on critical habitat areas, or the substantial affecting of a
rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of
such a species;
(3) the encouraging or attracting of a large number of people
to a place or places for more than a few days relative to the
number of people who would come to such a place absent the action;
(4) the creation of a material conflict with a community's
existing plans or goals as officially approved or adopted;
A21

-13-
(5) the impairment of the character or quality of important

historical, archeological, architectural or aesthetic resources
(including the demolition or alteration of a structure which is

eligible for inclusion in an official inventory of such resources),

or of existing community or neighborhood character;

(6) a major change in the use of either the quantity or type

of energy;

(7) the creation of a hazard to human health or safety;
(8) a substantial change in the use of intensity of use of
land or other natural resources or in their capacity to support
existing uses, except where such a change has been included,
referred to, or implicit in a broad "programmatic" EIS preps. red
pursuant to section 13 of this Executive Order;
(9) the creation of a material demand for other actions
which.would result in one of the above consequences;

(10) changes in two or more elements of the environment, no
one-of which is substantial, but when taken together result in

a material change in the environment.
(b' For the purpose of determining whether an action. will cause

one of the foregoing consequences, the action shall be deemed to in-
clude other contemporaneous or subsequent actions which are included
in any long-range comprehensive integrated plan of which the action
under consideration is a part, which are likely to be undertaken as a
result thereof, or which are dependent thereon. The significance of
a likely consequence (i.e. whether it is material, substantial, large,
important, etc.) should be assessed in connection with its setting,
its probability of occurring, its duration, its irreversibility, its
controllability, its geographic scope and its magnitude (i.e. degree
A22

-14-
of change or its absolute size). Section 15 of t.his Executive Order

refers to lists of actions which are likely to have a significant ef-
fect on the environment and contains lists of actions found not to
have a significant effect on the environment.
7. Determination of significant effect; notification

(a) The lead agencies shall determine within 15 calendar days
following notification of completion of the application pursuant to
section 5(a) of this Executive Order whether the proposed action may
have a significant effect on the environment;

(1) in making their determination, the lead agencies shall
employ the Environmental Assessment Form, apply the criteria
contained in section 6 and consider the lists of actions con-
tained in section 15 of this Executive Order;
(2) the lead agencies may consult with, and shall receive
the cooperation of any other agency before making their deter-
mination pursuant to this subsection.
(b) The lead agencies shall provide written notification to the

applicant immediately upon determination of whether the action may or
will not have a significant effect on the environment. Such determi-
nation shall be in one of the following forms:
(1) Negative Declaration. If the lead agencies determine
that the proposed action is not an exempt action or a Type II
action pursuant to sections 4 and 15 of this Executive Order,
respectively, and that the action will not have a siagnificant
effect on the environment, they shall issue a Negative Declara-
tion which shall contain the following information:
(i) an action identifying number;
(ii) a brief description of the action;

I
-15-

(iii) the Proposed location of the action;
Civ) a statement that the lead agencies have deter-
mined that the action will not have a significant effect

on the environment;
(v) a statement setting forth the reasons supporting

the lead agencies' determination.
(2) Conditional Negative Declaration. If the lead agencies
determine that the proposed action is not an exempt action or a
Type II action pursuant to sections 4 and 15 of this Executive
Order, respectively, and that the action will not have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment if the applicant modifies its
proposed action in accordance with conditions or alternatives

designed to avoid adverse environmental_impacts, they shall issue
a Conditional Negative Declaration which shall contain the follow-
ing information (in addition to the information required for a
Negative Declaration pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection):

(i) a list of the conditions, modifications or alterna-
tives to the proposed action which supports the determination;

Cii) the signature of the applicant or its authorized
representative, accepting the conditions, modifications or
alternatives to the proposed action;

(iii) a statement that if such conditions, modifications
or alternatives are not fully incorporated into the proposed
action, such Conditional Negative Declaration shall beccme~

null and void. In such event, a Notice of Determination
shall be immediately issued pursuant to paragraph (3) of

this subsection.
A24

-16-
(3) Notice of Determination. If the lead agencies deter-
mine that the proposed action is not an exempt action or a
Type II action pursuant to sections 4 and 15 of this Executive

Order, respectively, and that the action may have a significant

effect on the environment, they shall issue a Notice of Determir

nation which shall contain the following information:

Ci) an action identifying number;
(ii) a brief description of the action;
(iii) the proposed location of the action;

Civ) a brief description of the possible significant
effects on the environment of the action;
(v) a request that the applicant prepare or cause to
be prepared, at its option, a draft EIS in accordance with

sections. 8 and 9 of this Executive Order.
(c) The lead agencies shall make available for public inspection

the Negative Declaration, Conditional Negative Declaration or the
Notice of Determination, as the case may be, and circulate copies of
the same to the applicant, the regional director of DEC, the commis-
sioner of DEC, the appropriate Community Planning Board(s), the City
Clerk, and all other agencies, including federal and state agencies,
which may be involved in the proposed action.
8. Draft environmental impact statements; responsibility
for preparation
(a) Ncn-agency applicants:
(1) after receipt of a Notice of Determination pursuant to
section 7(c)(3) of this Executive Order, a non-agency anplicant
shall notify the lead agencies in writing as to whether it will
A25

-17-
exercise its option to prepare or cause to be prepared a draft EIS,

and as to whom it has designated to prepare the draft EIS, provided
that no person so designated shall have an investment or employment

interest in the ultimate realization of the proposed action;

(2) the lead agencies may prepare or cause to be prepared

a draft EIS for an action involving a non-agency applicant. In

such event, the applicant shall provide, upon request, an envir-
onmental report to assist the lead agencies in preparing or
causing to be orepared the draft EIS and such other information
as may be necessary. All agencies shall fully cooperate with
the lead agencies in all matters relating to the preparation
of the draft EIS.

(3) if the non-agency applicant does not exercise its option
to prepare or cause to be prepared a draft EIS, and the lead
agencies do not prepare or cause to be prepared such draft EIS,
then the proposed action and review thereof shall terminate.

(b) Agency applicants:
(1) when an action which may have a significant effect on
the environment is initiated by an agency, the initiating agency

shall be directly responsible for the preparation of a draft EIS.
However, preparation of the draft EMS may be coordinated through
the lead agencies:
(2) all agencies, whether or not they may be involved in the
proposed action, shall fully cooperate with the lead agencies and
the applicant agency in all matters relating to the coordination
of the preparation of the draft EIS.
A26

-18-
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in subsections
(a) and (h) of this section, when a draft EIS is prepared, the lead

agencies shall make their own independent judgment of the scope, con-

tents and adequacy of such draft EIS.
9. Environmental impact statements; content

(a) Environmental impact statements should be clearly written
in a brief and concise manner capable of being read and understood by
the public. Within the framework presented in subsection (d) of this
section, such statements should deal only with the specific signifi-
cant environmental impacts which can be reasonably anticipated. They
should not contain more detail than is appropriate considering the
nature and magnitude of the proposed action and the significance of

its potential impacts.
(b) All draft and final EIS's shall be preceded by a cover sheet

stating:

(1) whether it is a draft or a final;
(2) the name or other descriptive title of the action;

(3) the location of the action;
(41 the name and address of the lead agencies and the name
and telephone number of a person at the lead agencies to be con-

tacted for further information;
(5) identification of individuals or organizations which
prepared any portion of the statement; and
(6) the date of its completion.
(c) If a draft or final EIS exceeds ten pages in length, it shall
have a table of contents following the cover sheet.
(d) The body of all draft and final EIS's shall at least contain
A27

-19-
the following:
(1) a description of the proposed action and its environ-
mental setting;
(2) a statement of the environmental impacts of the proposed
action, including its short-term and long-term effects, and

typical associated environmental effects;
(3) an identification of any adverse environmental effects
which cannot be avoided if the proposed action is implemented;
(4) a discussion of the social and economic impacts of the
proposed action;
(51 a discussion of alternatives to the proposed action and
the comparable impacts and effects of such alternatives;
(6) an identification of any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of'resources which would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented;
(7) a description of mitigation measures proposed to minimize
adverse environmental impacts;
(8) a description of any growth-inducing aspects of the pro-
posed action, where applicable and significant;
(9) a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on
the use and conservation of energy, where applicable and signi-
ficant;

(10) a list of underlying studies, reports or other infor-
mation obtained and considered in preparing the statement; and

(11) (forthe final EIS only) copies or a summary of the sub-
stantive comments received in response to the draft EIS and t-he

applicant's response to such comments.
A28

-20-
(e) An EIS may incorporate by reference all or portions of other
documents which contain information relevant to the statement. The
referenced documents shall be made available to the public in the same

places where copies of the statement are made available. When a state-
ment uses incorporation by reference, the referenced document shall be

briefly described and its date of preparation provided.
� 10. Draft environmental impact statements; procedures

(a) Notice of Completion. Upon the satisfactory completion of a
draft EIS, the lead agencies shall immediately prepare, file and make
available for public inspection a Notice of Completion as provided in
paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this subsection. Where a proposed
action is simultaneously subject to the Uniform Land Use Review Pro-
cedure ("ULURP"), the City Planning Commission shall not certify an

application pursuant to ULURP until a Notice of Completion has been
filed as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection.

(1) Contents of Notice of Completion. All Notices of Com-

pletion shall contain the following:

(i) an action identifying number;
(ii) a brief description of the action;

(iii) the location of the action and its potential
impacts and effects; and
(iv) a statement that comments on the draft EIS are re-
quested and will be received and considered by the lead
agencies at their offices. The Notice shall specify the
public review and comment period on the draft EIS, which
shall be for not less than 30 calendar days from the date
of filing and circulation of the notice, or not less than
A29

-21-
10 calendar days following the close of a public hearing
on the draft EIS, whichever last occurs.
(2) Circulating Notice of Completion. All Notices of
Completion shall be circulated to the following:

(i) all other agencies, including federal and state

agencies, involved in the proposed action;

(ii) all persons who have requested it;

(iii) the editor of the State Bulletin;
(iv) the State clearinghouse;
(v) the appropriate regional clearinghouse designated
under the Federal Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-95.

(3) Filing Notice of Completion. All Notices of Completion
shall be filed with and made available for public inspection by
the following:
Wi) the Commissioner of DEC;
(ii) the regional director of DEC;
(iii) the agency applicant, where applicable;
Civ) the appropriate Community Planning Board(s);
tv) the City Clerk;
(vi) the lead agencies.
(b) Filing and availability of draft EIS. All draft EIS's shall
be filed with and made available for public inspection by the same
persons and agencies with whom Notices of Completion must be filed
pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this section.
Cc) Public hearings on draft EIS.

(1) Upon completion of a draft EIS, the lead agencies shall
conduct a public hearing on the draft EIS.

AQ "~

-22-
(2) The hearing shall commence no less than 15 calendar
days or more than 60 calendar days after the filing of a draft
EIS pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, except where a
different hearing date is required as appropriate under another
law or regulation.

(3) Notice of the public hearing may be contained in the

Notice of Completion or, if not so contained, shall be given in
the same manner in which the Notice of Completion is circulated
and filed pursuant to subsection Ca) of this section. In either
case, the notice of hearing shall also be published at least 10
calendar days in advance of the public hearing in a newspaper of
general circulation in the area of the potential impact and ef-
fect of the proposed action.
(4) Where a proposed action is simultaneously subject to
.ULURP, a public hearing conducted by the .appropriate community

or borough board and/or the City Planning Commission pursuant to
ULURP shall satisfy the hearing requirement of this section.

Where more than one hearing is conducted by the aforementioned
bodies, whichever hearing last occurs shall be deemed the hearing
for purposes of this Executive Order.
11. Final environmental impact statements; procedures
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the
lead agencies shall prepare or cause to be prepared a final EIS within
30 calendar days after the close of a public hearing
(1) If the proposed action has been withdrawn or if, on the

basis of the draft EIS and the hearing, the lead agencies have
determined that the action will not have a significant effect
A31

-23-
on the environment, no final EIS shall be prepared. In such
cases, the lead agencies shall prepare, file and circulate a
Negative Declaration as prescribed in section 7 of this Execu-

tive Order.

(2) The final EIS shall reflect a revision and updating
of the matters contained in the draft EIS in the light of fur-

ther review by the lead agencies, comments received and the
record of the public hearing.
(b) immediately upon the completion of a final EIS, the lead
agencies shall prepare, file, circulate and make available for public
inspection a Notice of Completion of a final EIS in the manner speci-
fied in section 10(a) of this Executive Order, provided, however, that
the Notice shall not contain the statement described in paragraph
(1) (iv) of such section.
(c) Immediately upon completion of a final EIS, copies shall be
filed and made available for public inspection in the same manner as
the draft EIS pursuant to section 10(b) of this Executive Order.
� 12. Agency decision making
(a) No final decision to carry out or approve an action which
may have a significant effect on the environment shall be made until
after the filing and consideration of a final EIS.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection
where a final decision whether or not to carry out oe approve an
action is required by law to be made by any agency, such decision
shall be made within 30 calendar days of the filing of a final EIS.
(2) Where a proposed action is simultaneously subject to ULURP,
the final decision whether or not to carry out or approve the
A32

-24-
action shall be made by the Board of Estimate within 6-0 calendar
days of the filing of the final EIS.
(b) When an agency decides to carry out or approve an action
which may have a significant effect on the environment, it shall make
the following findings in a written decision:

(1) consistent with social, economic and other essential

considerations of state and city policy, from among the reason-
able alternatives thereto, the action to be carried out or
approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental
effects to the maximum extent possible, including the effects
disclosed in the relevant environmental impact statement;
(2) consistent with social, economic and other essential
considerations of state and city policy, all practicable 'means
will be taken in carrying out or approving the action to mini-
mize or avoid adverse environmental effects.

(c) For public information purposes, a copy of the Decision
shall be filed in the same manner as the draft EIS pursuant to sec-
tion 10(b) of this Executive Order.
S 13. Programmatic environmental impact statements

(a) Whenever possible, agencies shall identify programs or
categories of actions, particularly projects or plans which are

wide in scope or implemented over a long time frame, which would
most appropriately ser,ve as the subject of a single ES. Broad pro-
gram statements, master or area wide statements, or statements for
comprehensive plans are often appropriate to assess the environmental
effects of the following:
(1) a number of separate actions in a given geographic

area;
A33

-25-
(2) a chain of contemDlated actions;
(3) separate actions having generic or common impacts;
(4) programs or plans having wide application or restricting
the range of future alternative policies or projects.
(b) No further EIS's need be prepared for actions which are in-
cluded in a programmatic EIS prepared pursuant to subsection (a) of
this section. However:

(1) a programmatic EIS shall be amended or supplemented to
reflect impacts which are not addressed or adequately analyzed
in the EIS as originally prepared; and
(2) actions which significantly modify a plan or program which
has been the subject of an EIS shall require a supplementary EIS;
(3) programmatic EIS's requiring amendment and actions re-
quiring supplementary EIS's pursuant to this subsection shall
be processed in full compliance with the requirements of this
Executive Order.
� 14. Rules and regulations
The lead agencies shall promulgate such rules, regulations,
guidelines, forms and additional procedures as may be necessary to
implement this Executive Order.
0 15. Lists of actions
TYPE I
Type I actions enumerated in section 617.12 of 6 NYCRR 617 are
likely to, but will not necessarily, require the preparation of an
EIS because they will in almost every instance significanty affect

the environment. However, ministerial actions never require the pre-
paration of an EIS except where such actions may directly affect a
critical area or an historic resource enumerated in paragranhs (22)
and (23), respectively, of subdivision (a) of section 617.12. In
A34

-26-
addition, for the purpose of defining paragraph (2) of said subdivi-
sion and section, the following thresholds shall apply:

(a) relating to public institutions:
(1) new correction or detention centers with an inmate
capacity of at least 200 inmates;
(2) new sanitation facilities, including:

(i) incinerators of at least 250 tons/day capacity;
(ii} garages with a capacity of more than 50 vehicles;
(iii} marine transfer stations;
(3) new hospital or health related facilities containing
at least 100,000 sq. ft. of floor area;
(4) new schools with seating capacity of at least 1500 seats;
(5) any new community or public facility not otherwise speci-
- fied herein, containing at least 100,000 sq. ft. of floor area,

or the expansion of an existing facility by more than 50 percent
of size or capacity, where the total size of the expanded facility

exceeds 100,000 sq. ft. of floor area.
Cb) relating to major office centers: any new office structure
which has a minimum of 200,000 sq. ft. of floor area and exceeds per-
mitted floor area under existing zoning by more than 20 percent, or the
expansion of an existing facility by more than 50 percent of floor area,
where the total size of the expanded facility exceeds 240,000 sq. ft.
of floor area.
TYPE II
(a) Type II actions will never require the precaration of an EIS
because they are determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment, except where such actions may directly affect a critical
A35

-27-
area or an historic resource enumerated in paragraphs (22)and (23),
respectively, of subdivision (a) of section 617.12 of 6 NYCRR 617.
(b) Pursuant to SEQRA, as amended, a list of Type II actions shall
be promulgated prior to July 1, 1978, to become effective on September

1, 1978.
� 16. Related orders; repeal
(a) Executive Order No. 87 of October 18, 1973 shall remain in
effect prior to the effective dates of this Executive Order pursuant
to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law.
(b) In the event of the repeal of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, Executive Order No. 87 of October 18, 1973 shall re-
place this Executive Order.
� 17. Evaluation of effectiveness
The lead agencies shall conduct a public hearing, not later than
June 1, 1979, for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of this
Executive Order in implementing the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, and its impact on the City's physical and economic development
process.
� 18. Effective date
This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

D. BEAME
MAYOR

7. Capital 'Nleeds Statement __ Cla:rtar Section 214

1 214. Departmenta -~tirnates for capital projects. a. On
such daze as the mayor may direct. but riot later than the fifteenth dav of
December. the head of each agency shall submit to the mavor. the boardi
of e-stimate, the council. the city planning comnmission. and the depart-
menit of city planning a detailed estimate of all capital projects pending or
which he believes should be undertaken within the ensuing fiscal vear and
die three succeeding f'iscal years. The estimates shall be known as depart-
mnenal estimates for capital projects and shall be in such formn and
contain such information as way be required by the mayor. Copies of
dlepartmental estimates shall be forwarded to each community b-oard and
borough board. Agencies shall consult with the community boards in the
preparation of the estimnates.
b. Not later than the lirst day of February, each community board
shaH (1) hold a public heating an the departmental estimates with respect
to the capita needs and priorities of the commucity district, and I 21 suxb-
mit a statement of its budget priorities and capital improvement needs for
the ensuing, R.scal. year and the three succeeding fiscal years to the mayor,
board of. estimate. counc-il, city planning commission, deparunent of city
planning, and the respective borough board.
c. Not later than the tenth day of February, each borough board
shall submit a comprehensive statemnent of the budget priorities and needs
of the borough for the fiwcal year and three succeeeding years to the mayor.
board.of estimate, council city planning commission, and depart:ment of
city Planning.
d. NtLtrta h is a fMrh h iypann oms
goon shall -submit to the mnayor, board of estimnate, and council a report
containing a statement of the city's capital needs atxd priorities, including
recommendad doilar allocations for general categories of programs and an
explanation of recommended priorities among such c-inegorits of pro-
grams and their likely hupact on the orderly growth and developmen~t of
the city. (Formerly 3 213. Amended b; Local Lawo 1963, No. '30;
amended &ad renuzmbered by- rate of dih electors. Nor. 4. 19705. Local
Law 1977. No.12)-
A37

8. 197a Plans -- Charter Section 197a.
� 197-a. Plans. a. The city pianning commission shall be re-
sponsible for the conduct of planning relating to the orderly growth and
improvement and future development of the city. including adequate and
appropriate resources for the housing. business, industry. transportation.
distribution, recreation, comfort, convenience. health and welfare of its
population. Plans for the development. growth. and improvement of the
city and of its boroughs and community districts may be initiated by ( 1)
the mayor. ( 2) the city planning commission, 31 a borough board with re-
spect to land located within two or more community districts. or (4) a
community board with respect to land located within a community dis-
trict. A community board or borough board that initiates any such plan
shall conduct a public hearing on it and submit a written recommendation
to the city planning commission. Plans initiated by the mayor or the city
planning commission shall be referred to the affected community board or
borough board for review and recommendation'after public hearing. The
mayor or the city planning commission, respectively, shall establish the
procedures and schedule for review by community boards and borough
boards and for public hearings on any plans initiated by them which in-
volve matters of city-wide concern.
b. The city planning commission shall review any plan initiated
pursuant to subsection a of this section, hold a public hearing on it and
recommend to the board of estimate approval or disapproval of the plan.
The board of estimate shall hold a public hearing, and thereafter by a
three-four:ths vote may override any action of the city planning
commission which disapproved a plan. If the city planning commission
has approved a plan, the board of estimate may take final action on it by
majority vote. Copies of approved plans shall be filed with the city clerk,
the department of city planning, the borough president, and the borough
board and community board s affected. (Adopted by vote of the electors,
Nov. 4, 1975)

A38

APPENDIX B: FUTURE
APPROACHES
Introduction
It was stated in Chapter V that while there exist many areas of
conflicting interests and overlapping authorities and controls,
there
are no significant governmental objectives or functional areas that
are not at work in the complex system which has evolved over the
years
to manage the New York City Waterfront area. In short, regulatory
gaps are almost non-existent; the major problem is institutional
and
regulatory overlap.
The primary land use management tool of New York City, the City
Zoning
Resolution must be revised to remove conflicts, incorporate
Waterfront
Management guidelines, policies and standards and to streamline the
development process where appropriate.
This appendix summarizes some standards and guidelines which will
be
followed to adjust the City Zoning Resolution within the boundaries
of
the New York City Waterfront Area and outlines the existing or
additional authorities required to implement such a system.
if
approved, these changes will become amendments to the New York City
Waterfront Revitalization Program.

Flood Plains

Standards:
New York City, as of July, 1975, became a participant in the
National
Flood Insurance Program. The program, administered by the
U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Federal InsurancZe
Administration (FIA), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 401, enables
persons to purchase insurance against losses from physical damage
to
or loss real or personal property caused by floods.
Maps developed by FIA the purposes of this program identify areas
within which flood protection measures must be undertaken for all
new
construction or substanial improvements existing structures
(i.e.,
additions, major renovations, etc.).
These flood protection measures, basically c-onstruction standards,
were added by Local Law No. 13 (1975) to the New York City Building
Code and are enforced by the New York City Department of
Buildings.
B
i

The more significant aspects of these
regulations are:
- all new residential and institutional buildings must be
built
with the lowest residential floor at or above elevation +
8.6
U.S datum (approximately + 6.0+ on the local borough
datum).
For two-famiily or larger residential building, all levels
below
this datum are limited to non-residential areas (i.e.,
garage,
cellar, utility room, etc.) and must be flood proofed;
- non-residential buildings can have floor area below the +8.6
elevation provided the space is flood proofed; and,
- within special flood hazard areas and below the regulatory
flood datum, materials, designs and construction of
structural
elements must conform with Reference Standard RS 4-5,
Flood
Proofinq Regulations published by the Office of the Chief
of
Engineers, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C. dated June 1972,
Sections 210.1 through 210.4, Table I, Chapters 3, 4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 13 and 14. Please refer to that document for details
along
with the New York City Building Code, New York City
Administrative Code Section C26-409.2, et. seg.
It should be noted that all property owners in New York City are
now
eligible for subsized flood insurance due the passage of Local
Law
13. Property owners are able to obtain this insurance without
being
required to make any physical changes to existing structures or
property no matter what the present condition of these
structures or
to what elevations they were built. Property owners whose
property
are not in flood-prone areas but are subjected to flooding
during and
after heavy rainfall for any reason, e.g., inadequate sewers,
are also
eligible. Property owners in flood-prone areas applying for
mortgage
or other loans from banks or other lending institutions are now
required to obtain flood insurance as a condition for receiving
the
loan. While this is a requirement for Federally assisted
mortgage
loans, it has been extended by the banks to include all loans.

Authorities:
Existing performance standards in the City Building Code, New
York
City Administrative Code Section C26-400.1 et. seg., that were
added
by Local Law No. 13 (1975) so that the City could participate in
the
National Flood Insurance Program are adequate to prevent major
flood
damage to newly constructed buildings in New York City's flood
plains. Performance standards related to environmental
protection of
sensitive features within flood plains, in contrast to the
protection
of structures, will be developed.
B2

Steep
Slopes
Standards:
Construction guidelines applicable to new developments that would
result in structures able to minimize the hazards to both the new
development and the environment associated with steep slopes will
be
developed by the New York Department of City Planning.
Such
construction guidelines will be applicable to new developments or
significant site alterations and will resu'lt in structures able
to
minimize the hazards to both the new development or site alteration
and the environment. However, steep slope hazards are
dependent on
soil type and condition, information not inventoried on a city-
wide
basis. This information can be obtained, as mentioned in Chapter
2,
by designation of the City as a Soil Conservation District and
assistance from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. After
this
information is gathered for the City, a developer will be required
to
design and locate his building in accordance with the performance
standards pertaining to those soil conditions on his site.
In
addition, all steep slopes in New York City waterfront area that
have
scenic value will be identified and development or site alteration
only allowed if the proposed action does not destroy the aesthetic
value of site topography.

Authorities:
Two different additional authorities are needed for steep areas:
one,
to protect future developments from the hazards of locating on
steep
slopes, e.g., erosion and mudslides; and two, to preserve areas of
steep slopes for their aesthetic value.
Construction standards to protect newly constructed buildings from
the
hazards associated with steep slcpes will be authorized by new
provisions in the City Building Code and the Zoning Resolution.
This
authority, like other controls in the City Building Code will be
enforced by the Department or Ports and Terminals for waterfront
commerce structures, New York City Charter Section 704 (1977), and
the
Department of Buildings for all other structures, New York City
Charter Section 643 (1977), through these Oepartments' issuance of
building permits and certificates of occupancy.
Preservation of steep slopes for scenic value will be authorized
by a
new zoning control patterned after the steep slope preservation
provisions in the Special South Richmond Development District, New
York City Zoning Resolution Section 107-00 et. seg. This
authority
will be enforced by the Departments of Buildings, and Ports and
Terminals through their issuance of building permits and
certificates
of occupancy.
B3

High Water Table/Shallow
Soils
Standards:
The New York City Department of City Planning has been investigating
construction standards to protect both newly constructed buildings
from hazards associated with areas of high water table or shallow
soils and to protect groundwater in such areas.
AUTHORITIES:
Construction standards to protect newly constructed buildings from the
hazards associated with areas of a high water table or shallow soils
and to protect the groundwater in such areas will be authorized by new
provisions in the City Building Code. This authority, like other
controls in the City Building Code, will be enforced as now by the
Department of Ports and Terminals for waterfront commierce structures,
New York City Charter Section 704 (1977), and the Department of
Buildings for all other structures, New York City Charter Section 643
(1977), through the issuance of building permits and certificates of
occupancy.

Significant Flora and Fauna Areas
Standards:
As discussed in Chapter 2 (significant flora and fauna and 'unique
flora and fauna sections) the New York City Department of City
Planning has undertaken an extensive effort to develop a data base and
criteria to identify significant flora and fauna. Areas for
preservation of existing habitats, areas where new ecosystems should
be created and areas where new fish or wildlife species should be
introduced to an existing natural habitat will be designated.
Standards and criteria regarding the maintenance of plants and animals
on these sites in the appropriate density and variety to maintain a
viable habitat by assuring the reproductive cycles of the desired
species, and by assuring food sources throughout the entire food cycle
for the desired species are also under investigation.
Preliminary work indicates the standards to be applied to land use and
development in management areas should be based on the following
elements:
- the use, operation or development should not be a source of
poisons, toxins or contamination of the animal/plant system.
These toxins, poisons or contaminants are to be identified from
existing health and hazard codes, and from knowledge of
compounds which are known to affect the food chain and specific
organisms comprising the system in the area;
84

- the use, operation or development should not create
potentially
disastrous conditions which can destroy or eliminate the
plant
and animal system for the area without well developed
pTans,
designs or procedures as to how to prevent such disasters
or
arrest their damage.
- top soil of the area around the use, development and
operation
shall not be destroyed, buried, eroded or eliminated.
Where
possible, existing soil shall be improved in quality or
extent;
- drainage from development, use or operations shall not
create
water runoff which will erode, cause fluctuations in
either
water quality or quantity which are destructive to the
plant
and animal system for the immediate surrounding area or
subsequent areas through which it passes;
- the development, use or operation should serve to extend and
improve the plant and animal association designated for
the
area;
- an area planting requirement should be established which may
be
met at alternative locations removed from the development
site
- these requirements would establish the desired mixture of
species and the quantities of each to be established and
maintained;
- the development; use or operation should serve to protect,
establish or extend the nesting and feeding habitat for
the
animal population being managed;
- animal circulation should not be unduly restricted by
siting or
construction detail or timing of operations; and,
- the introduction of or reduction of animals into the area
as a
result of the development use or operation should be
clarified
as to numbers and types so as to not upset the
plant/animal
balance found or anticipated for the area.

Authorities:
Coastal Management proposed land or water uses (i.e., those
activities
that tend to impact flora or fauna) in the waterfront area will
be
required to be designed in conformance with performance
standards
regarding the maintenance of plants and animals on the site in
the
appropriate density and variety to maintain a viable habitat by
assuring the reproductive cycles of the desired species, and by
assuring food sources throughout the entire food cycle for the
desired
species. This additional authority will be added to the City
Zoning
Resolution as a voluntary requirement.
8
5

This authority will be enforced by the Departments of Buildings
and
Ports and Terminals through their issuance of building permits
and
certificates of occupancy.

Scenic Vistas
Standards:
The New York City Department of City Planning has been
investigating
standards and criteria to preserve scenic vistas for their
aesthetic
value.
Authorities:
Preservation of scenic vistas for their aesthetic value will be
authorized by a new zoning control patterned after the
preservation of
visual corridors in the Special Battery Park City District and
the
Special Manhattan Landing District, New York City Zoning
Resolution
Section 84-00 et. seg. and 98-00 et. seg.
This authority will be enforced by the Departments of Buildings
and
Ports and Terminals through their issuance of building permits
and
certificates of occupancy.

Historic and Archeological Sites
Standards:
There are extensive existing controls at the City level
regarding
landmarks vested in the New York City Landmarks
Preservation
Commission (LPC). The Commission's functions include the
designation
of landmarks, landmark sites, historic districts, interior
landmarks
and scenic landmarks, and the protection of designated landmarks
and
buildings within historic districts through the
regulation of
construction, alterations or demolition thereon. Regulation
takes the
form of requiring LPC permits prior to demolition or alteration
of
historic properties. These regulations are described in brief
below.
In alteration work, three types of certificates are used:
Certificate
of No Effect on Protected Architectural Features; Certificate of
Appropriateness; and Permit for Minor Work. If changes are to be made
only to the interior of a historic structure, and do not affect the
exterior, a Certificate of No Effect is issued immediately.
Alterations and structural changes to the exterior requiring a
Certificate of Appropriateness must be given a public hearing, after
which the Commission may approve or deny the application or approve it
subject to designated changes. Signs which must be filed with the
Department of Buildings fall into this category. In addition,
the
B6

Commission is required to provide advisory reports on projects
affecting city-owned property.
Demolition of landmark properties or applications to demolish
involve
more complex procedures. If a building has been determined to be a
hazard to health and safety by the Department of Buildings, the
landmarks law is preempted, and the demolition is mandated by the
Department of Buildings. The owner is then required to demolish
the
structure. If the building is in hazardous condition but
recoverable,
the Commission may request the Department of Buildings to seal the
building rather than demolish it. If a private owner of a
landmark
property is not making a reasonable return on it, and wishes to
demolish the building, the Committee seeks to develop a plan which
will create a satisfactory return on the building, using tax
abatement
or tax remission, if necessary, to do so. If creation of a
reasonable
return is not possible, the City must find an alternative buyer
for
the property or the City must acquire it or an appropriate
interest in
it. If the City fails to do so within the specified time,
the
Commission must grant the demolition permit.
Landmark and historic district owners are also charged with an
affirmative duty to keep their property in good repair, New York
City
Administrative Code Section 20710.0. Violations are subject to
fines
and/or imprisonment.
The New York City Department of City Planning is also
investigating
development of construction guidelines applicable to
future
development that would result in structures which would preserve
existing archeological resources, either in situ or in recorded
form.
This work may be added as an amendment to the WRP in the future.

Authorities:
Additional authority in historic sites is unnecessary given the
existing authority.
Performance standards to achieve management objectives
at
archeological sites will be authorized by new provisions in the
City
Building Code and the Zoning Resolution. This authority
will be
enforced by the Department of Parts and Terminals for waterfront
commerce structures, New York City Charter Section 704 (1977),
and
the Department of Buildings for all other structures, New York
City
Charter Section 643 (1977), through the Department's issuance of
building permits and certificates of occupancy.
B7

Parks and
Beaches
Standards:
Existing rules and regulations pertaining to the management of
parks
and beaches, administered by the New York City Department of
Parks and
Recreation are sufficient to meet Waterfront Revitalization
goals and
objectives. Highlights of those regulations are given below.
Prohibited Uses: Included are discharging household refuse in
litter
receptacles; intentionally disturbing or attempting to disturb
any
animal life in park waters; allowing any animal to discharge
urine or
fecal matter in any park; commercial advertising; commercial
fishing;
parking in undesignated areas, etc.
Regulated Uses: Included are holding of meetings; holding
organized
and supervised activities; selling
or leasing of anything
whatsoever; of animals; building of fires; camping, etc.
For a complete listing, refer to rules and regulations
promulgated
pursuant to Section 533(s) (9) of the New York City Charter.

Authorities:
Additional authority within the City's waterfront parks and
beaches is
unnecessary given existing authority held by the City Department
of
Parks and Recreation.

Tidal Wetlands
Standards:
Existing use guidelines and development restrictions promulgated
by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
pursuant
to the New York Environmental Conservation Law, Article 25
regulate
land use within these areas and within 150 feet (in NYC)
surrounding
them. Regulation takes the form of requiring notification
letters and
permits prior to construction.
For a complete description and listing of definitions, use
guidelines
and development restrictions, see Tidal Wetlands - Land
Use
Regulations, Part 661 (Statutory authority:
Environmental
Conservation Law Section 1-0101, 3,0301 and 25-
0302), State of New
York - Department of Environmental Conservation.

Authorities:
Additional authority within tidal wetlands, and 150 feet from a
tidal
wetland, in New York City is unnecessary given existing
authority held
BB

by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC)
pursuant to the Tidal Wetlands Act, New York
Environmental
Conservation Law. However, New York Waterfront Revitalization
Program
will request that delegation of authority to administer this act
be
transferred to the City Coastal Commission. This will
require
amending the State Tidal Wetlands Act and development of an
additional
City authority embodied in the Zoning Resolution. Refer to
Freshwater
Wetlands in this section.

Freshwater Wetlands
Standards:
Draft use guidelines and development restrictions have been
developed
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
pursuant to the New York Environmental Conservation Law, Article
24
similar to those above for tidal wetlands. Until these
regulations
are adopted and final maps are drawn designating freshwater
wetlands
areas, land uses are subject to interim rules and regulations
enforced
through an interim permitting procedure.
Any person wishing to alter the state of any freshwater wetland
having
a surface area of twelve and four-tenths acres or more, or of
one
having a smaller surface area which has been determined to be of
"ounusual local importance", or any of the adjacent areas (100'
surrounding these water bodies in NYC) must obtain this interim
permit.
A permit is issued if actions are consistent with the policies
of the
Freshwater Wetlands Act. As mentioned, this discretionary review
will
end upon filing of the final maps and adoption of rules and
regulations.
The New York City Department of City Planning -as staff to the
City
Coastal Commission is working closely with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation to complete the
freshwater
wetlands mapping effort in New York City and is proposing to
assume
administration of this program, under the proposed
organizational
structure.

Authorities:
Additional authority to achieve Waterfront Revitalization
Program
goals and objectives within freshwater wetlands, or within 100
feet
thereof, in New York City is unnecessary given existing
authority held
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC)
pursuant to the Freshwater Wetlands Act.
89

However, since future amendments of the Waterfront Revitalization
Program in New York City may involve delegation of this existing
State
Coastal Management authority to the City, an option included in
the
existing statute, an additional City authority is
necessary. Th is
will be accomplished by a new zoning authority. All waterfront
area
land or water uses in the area falling within the jurisdiction of
the
Freshwater Wetlands Act will be required to be in accord with the
new
zoning regulations. Regulated activities will include but
not be
limited to: draining, dredging or excavation; the removal of
soil,
mud, shells or gravel; dumping or filling or the depositing of
fill of
any kind; the erecting of~ any structure or the construction of
any
road; the placing of any obstacle; and any activity causing any
form
of pollution which impairs the function or benefits of the
wetland
area. The depositing or removal of products connected
with
recreational or commuercial fishing and activities related to
public
health are among exempt activities. A building permit will be
granted
only if the proposed land or water use is consistent with the OEC
freshwater wetland land use regulations, as well as provisions of
the
Zoning Resolution and the Building Code. The control will be
enforced
by the Departments of Buildings and Ports and Terminals through
their
issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy.

Unique Flora and Fauna
Standards:
The New York City Department of City Planning has undertaken -an
extensive flora and fauna identification effort (See Chapter 2,
NYC
Waterfront Revitalization Boundaries and Significant Flora and
Fauna
in this chapter).
This work will be completed and amended into the program.
Bl 0