-------
X
V
u
u
<0
<3
V
U
<
1111
11(1
msoa>sonn^-.(r5«N

<
0)
3
C
V
>
<
u
V
<9 -C
(fl
e —
o x
0)
u
u
ŁL u
Cfl
< OJ
a u
o o
aa a.
u	*0
U
>	i>
**	3
oc	s
a
e	>
**	<
^	3
C	i>
3	—
U	>
H	u
0)	4)
S	3
C	3
OJ	u
>	>
<	<
a	-3
i	e
a	
cj >
<
>>
 U	>
s u
w >
*3
«3
O
a; *4
OJ
3
e
01
>
< ¦s
c
s Q.
: 3
= Z as
uuiduuuuuuwuu
u>
M
s> *o	U
Cb o	m
o .* .* 9
DSuwioBiata
—I 9) 1I4J U «4 M
 j e
Ss >» ^ V> <0
B C X J
b h ^
<8 <8 -J "O O
« « « « n ^ go
— X M x O PM
33
P>» »H
« < -o u
- - #> J e T


•
U

>-s

X

Z

Ci2





a.

-3

-a

<0

e

D

CQ

U



<

e



m

•

bŁ)
•
a

faa
Q.
«


U
•H

•
O
a

a
u


w

j*



u
e
iri

<9


>%
35
<

j
-«Nri-»invONeo»o-N

-------
Designated
Nuaber
Name
13	Rutherford
14	Esposlto Const.
15	Village of Kldgttfleld Park
16	Bergen County SWDA
Table 3-6
(continued)
Municipality	Area (acres)
Rutherford	62
Little Ferry	9
Rldgefleld Park	45
Ridgefleld	45

-------
TABLE 3-7
HACKENSACK RIVER NETWORK, SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION
River Segment 		Classification
Hackensack River:
-	Oradell Dam to Overpeck Creek	SET
-	Overpeck Creek to Routes 1 & 9 Bridge	SE2
-	Routes 1 & 9 Bridge to Kearny Point	SE3
Berry's Creek:
-	Entire Length	FW2-NT/SE2
(tah3-7)

-------
TABLE 3-8
NEW JERSEY WATER QUALITY CRITERIA THAT ARE IMPORTANT IN THE HACKENSACK RIVER
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
CRITERION
SE1
SE2
WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION
SE3
FW2-NT
Fecal Coliform
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Suspended Solids
Temperature
Toxic Substances
<200/100ml
24 hr. Average 25.0 mg/1 but
not <4.0 mg/1 any time
<770/100ml
24.0 mg/1 all the
time
<1500/100ml
23.0 mg/1 all the
time
6.5-8.5	6.5-8.5	6.5-8.5
None which would render the water unsuitable for the designated uses.
No thermal deviations which would cause AT > 2.2°C (4 F) from Sept.- May
or AT > 0.8°C (1.5°F) from June to August;
T s29.4°C(85°F)
<200/100ml
24 hr. average 25.0 mg/1 but not < 4.0 mg/1 any time
6.5-8.5
<40 mg/1
AT s2.8°C (5°F);T <27.S::C (82°F) for small-mouth bass or yellow perch
waters, or T s30°C (86°F) for other non-trout waters.
None, either alone or in combination with other substances, in such concentrations as to affect humans or be detrimental to the natural aquatic biota,
produce undesireable aquatic life, or which would render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
Toxic substances shall not be present in concentrations that cause acute or chronic toxicity to aquatic biota, or bioaccumulate within an organism to
concentrations that exert a toxic effect on the organism or render it unfit for consumption.
The concentration of nonpersistent toxic substances in the State's waters shall not exceed one-twentieth (0.05) of the acute definitive I.Cv or EC.:,
value, as determined by appropriate bioassays conducted in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:18.
The concentration of persistent toxic substances in the State's waters shall not exceed one-hundredth 0.01) of the acute definitive LCK or ECW value,
as determined by appropriate bioassays conducted in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:18.
Ammonia, un-ionized	0.1 of acute definitive LQo or ECM	< 50 wg/1
(24-hr avg)
Lead (total			5 /-cg/1
recoverable)
Nitrate (as N)			10 ug/1
(tab3-8)

-------
Table 3-9
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS (IN HG/L)
(SOURCE: HMDC, 1990)
LOCATION

1978
Station 1
Hackensack R.
Marina
MIN
MAX
AVG
1.5
6.6
3.6
Station 2
Hackensack R.
Conesco
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.5
5.3
3.3
Station 3
Bellman's Creek
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
11.9
4.6
Station 4
Cromakill Creek
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.3
4.9
1.9
1979 1980
Station 5
Mill Creek
Louer
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.9
5.8
3.2
Station 6
Mill Creek
Upper
MIN
MAX
AVG
1.9
12.0
6.3
Station 7
Berry's Creek
Lower
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.6
7.5
3.7
Station 8
Berry's Creek
Middle
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.4
9.2
3.3
Stat ion 9
Berry's Creek
Upper
MIN
MAX
AVG
1.1
11.6
3.9
Station 10
Hackensack R.
Erie RR
MIN
MAX
AVG
1.4
5.9
2.9
Station 11
Saum ill Creek
MIN
MAX
AVG
2.3
12.2
5.4
Station 12
MIN
2.5
2.3
Hackensack R.
MAX
7.4
8.5
Turnpike
AVG
4.5
4.3
Station 13
MIN
0.3
1.7
Moonachie Creek
MAX
8.8
9.0

AVG
4.4
4.5
Station 14
MIN
3.1
2.3
Losen Slote
MAX
8.7
10.0
Lower
AVG
5.6
6.4
Station 15
MIN
2.8
3.2
Losen Slote
MAX
12. D
13.8
Upper
AVG
6.7
6.8
Station 16
MIN
0.1
0.0
Penhorn Creek
MAX
1.5
1.8
Upper
AVG
0.7
1.1
1.7	2.0
4.2	7.0
3.0	4.2
2.0	1.9
6.8	11.Q
4.4	5.8
0.0	0.5
8.5	5.0
2.4	3.0
0.0	0.5
5.0	9.7
2-0	2.7
14	1.5
8.0	9.4
3.9	5.2
2.1	2.2
6 0	7.2
43	5.1
1.5	0.7
4 5	8.2
31	4.6
04	l.o
6.2	14.0
2.6	5.3
1-6	3.0
7.5	14.0
4.1	6.6
1.3	1.5
7.7	6.5
3 2	3.9
2 0	0.8
10.0	9.4
4.7	4.6
0.3
7.3
2.8
1.9
7.7
4.4
3.2
15.2
8.5
5.2
10.0
7.4
0.2
2.6
1.1
Station 17 MIN
Penhorn Creek MAX
Lower	AVG
Station 18 MIN	0.3 0.2
Kearny	MAX	3.2 2.0
Freshwater Marsh AVG	1.4 0.9
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
0.6
0.3
2.6
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.3
2.0
15.2
6.6
9.2
8.4
5.6
5.0
6.5
8.9
3.3
1.9
4.2
3.8
4.1
2.3
3.2
4.5
0.7
1.0
1.7
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.4
1.6
12.0
15.7
8.9
6.2
14.6
4.0
6.4
7.1
4.2
4.4
4.0
2.9
4.2
2.1
2.4
3.4
1.2
0.7

1.2
1.8
0.2
1.1
2.2
12.8
9.2

6.3
7.4
4.6
4.2
8.7
4.1
4.2

3.6
4.8
1.8
2.6
4.5
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.8
1.4
0.1
0.0
0.6
5.0
4.8
4.3
5.3
5.0
2.2
2.2
9.8
0.9
1.7
2.1
2.8
3.0
0.6
0.6
3.2
5.2
3.0
1.7
2.2
1.8
0.4
0.8
2.3
19.0
16.0
4.9
4.8
7.5
4.0
6.8
7.5
10.2
6.5
3.1
2.9
3.5
1.8
3.2
4.0
0.3
2.0
2.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
1.0
2.6
17.0
14.7
4.0
4.2
6.1
4.8
6.0
11.2
6.4
7.1
2.8
2.4
2.9
2.2
4.0
5.6
0.2
0.0
1.6
1.9
1.0
0.4
1.2
2.2
16.5
7.0
11.4
5.6
8.0
5.1
7.5
9.7
4.7
1.8
4.0
3.2
4.3
2.8
3.6
4.7
0.2

1.6
1.5
2.4
0.2
2.2
2.6
8.4

15.0
6.2
12.6
10.0
10.0
11.0
3.7

6.3
3.9
6.6
3.5
5.2
6.4
2.1
0.5
0.8
2.3
0.8
0.2
2.0
2.6
12.5
7.7
13.0
6.5
16.5
7.2
10.0
9.0
5.7
4.5
6.0
4.1
7.7
3.2
5.4
5.4
0.7
1.4
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.0
2.0
7.3
5.0
6.0
5.8
7.5
8.5
9.0
13.2
2.8
2.7
3.4
3.6
3.9
2.8
3.4
4.6
0.7
1.5
2.4
3.1
0.5
1.2
1.8
2.8
9.8
6.S
12.6
7.3
11.0
4.7
6.2
10.6
4.5
3.0
5.1
5.1
5.6
3.2
3.5
5.0
0.5
1.9
1.8
2.4
2.1
1.4
1.6
2.2
6.1
5.1
6.2
5.3
7.8
4.5
6.5
8.0
3.1
3.8
3.9
3.5
3.8
2.5
2.9
4.5
0.1
0.8
2.6
1.7
0.3
1.0
2.5
4.1
6.1
4.6
15.0
9.2
10.8
11.0
12.8
11.2
2.5
2.6
7.8
4.9
4.1
5.1
6.2
7.7
1.9
0.5
0.8
3.1
0.0
1.0
2.8
2.0
5.7
10.3
11.0
13.0
11.5
11.0
15.0
5.6
3.5
3.4
4.8
6.1
5.0
5.3
9.9
3.6
0.3
0.7
3.1
1.2
0.6
1.0
1.0
2.1
2.0
8.5
15.0
12.4
17.0
10.0
9.0
6.6
0.9
2.6
7.3
5.9
3.7
5.5
3.9
4.3
0.9
o.a

2.2
1.2
0.4
0.8
1.6
11.4
6.6

8.8
13.0
14.7
14.7
7.8
4.2
3.1

5.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.3
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.0
0.6
0.1
0.2
1.8
5.1
4.9
15.0
8.6
7.7
12.1
14.0
10.2
3.1
3.6
7.1
3.7
2.6
2.8
3.9
5.4
0.2
0.1
0.4
1.6
0.6
0.1
0.6
3.2
6.3
3.2
9.4
9.2
5.0
4.4
12.8
9.4
1.3
1.0
3.7
4.8
2.7
1.5
6.7
5.8

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
Table 3-9 summarizes some of the data for different locations (see Figure 3-10 for the sampling
locations) within the District that have been monitored by HMDC during the last decade. All
these data indicate that the levels of dissolved oxygen are below water quality standards, and
approach levels that can severely impact most forms of aquatic life. The most extensive
degradation of DO in the river occurs above Berrys Creek (CBA, 1990). Under current
conditions DO levels violate the water quality criterion of 4 mg/1 approximately 20% of the time
during the summer months (CBA, 1990).
The levels of dissolved oxygen in the lower Hackensack River and its tributaries have recently
been subject to extensive modeling and data collection as part of the Bergen County Utilities
Authority analysis of its sewage treatment plant discharge (CBA, 1990). This study provides an
exceptionally detailed assessment of dissolved oxygen and the environmental and man-made
factors that influence it. The following paragraphs summarize the results from this recent study
of dissolved oxygen in the Hackensack River.
¦	The major pollutants discharged into the river that create an oxygen demand in the water
and lower the DO are organic matter (Biochemical Oxygen Demand, or BOD) and
ammonia. The estimated loadings of these pollutants for the summer of 1988 from
different sources are summarized in Table 3-10.
¦	The CBA analysis shows that the largest quantifiable sources of oxygen demanding
compounds are the Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA) wastewater discharge,
landfills, and stormwater discharges. The problems of these discharges, however, are
compounded by the thermal discharges from the power plants which increase the rate of
oxygen consumption by microorganisms. Dissolved oxygen violations would be reduced
(and thus the water quality would increase) in the absence of the thermal discharges.
¦	The modeling also suggests that the BOD and ammonia present in Newark Bay from
sources other than the Hackensack River increase the loadings of oxygen demanding
materials at the mouth of the River. These wastes are brought into the District by the tides.
¦	The modeling indicates that the section of the river between Berrys Creek and Overpeck
Creek is the most stressed area of the river with regards to low oxygen levels. This is a
result of the discharges from several sewage treatment plants and the thermal discharge
from PSE&G's Bergen Power Plant. The high temperatures created by the thermal
discharge from the power plant increase the rate of oxygen consumption of organisms
feeding on the BOD released by the treatment plants.
¦	The severity of DO depletions in the District is greater during dry summer months than
during wet summer months. This is a result of the low flows during dry summers.
During wet summers the flow in the river is large enough to dilute the discharges from the
treatment plants even though the treatment plant discharges are also higher.
¦	The marshes act as a net source of DO in the District. Some of the DO results from primary
productivity on the marsh surface and some from the increased aeration that occurs as
water moves between the emergent vegetation.
3-45

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
TABLE 3-10
POLLUTANT LOADINGS IN THE LOWER HACKENSACK RIVER
DURING SUMMER OF 1988 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER) FROM ITS MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS
Major Contributors
C-BOD, (Tons)
nh3-n
(Tons)
BCUA
1243
690
Landfills
656
623
Stormwater
408
23
Benthos
196
338
Others*
550
83
' STPs, CSOs DWOs
Source: CBA, 1990.
(tab3-10)

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
3.4.2 Nutrients
Nutrients discharged into estuarine waters can become a water quality issue when they
stimulate primary productivity to levels that generate significant amounts of BOD. In addition,
one nutrient (ammonia) can exert an oxygen demand that is independent of the BOD. This
results from the bacterial oxidation of ammonia (NH4) to nitrate (N03). The stimulation of
primary productivity can also create nuisance algal blooms. In estuarine waters, the one
nutrient most often limiting primary productivity is inorganic nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate,
nitrite) (Nixon & Pilson, 1983). Most discussions on nutrients in estuarine waters, therefore, are
focused on the sources and fates of inorganic nitrogen.
In the District, most of the nitrogen is discharged into the waterways as ammonia (a form of
inorganic nitrogen) and organic nitrogen (which together are measured as Total Kjedahl
Nitrogen, or TKN)) from wastewater treatment plants, industrial discharges, CSOs, storm
drains, and runoff. Very little comes in the form of nitrate or nitrite. In the estuarine waters, the
organic nitrogen is eventually broken down by bacteria to ammonia.
The nutrient monitoring that was done as part of the BCUA modeling effort (CBA, 1990)
indicates that the concentrations of organic and inorganic nitrogen can vary significantly in time
and space, but are always very high relative to the concentrations needed for plant growth.
Thus, in the Lower Hackensack River, the existing nitrogen loadings are very high, and the
ambient concentrations of inorganic Nitrogen (as nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium) are very much
above those that can inhibit phytoplankton growth. Nitrogen begins to limit phytoplankton
growth below concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 inorganic nitrogen; the concentrations of inorganic
nitrogen as measured in the lower Hackensack River are in the 1 to 3 mg/1 range. Therefore, as
in most eutrophied estuaries, the limiting factor for phytoplankton growth becomes light
(Keller, 1988). The light penetration in the estuary is limited by the high populations of
phytoplankton, and by the suspended sediments.
Although the concentrations of the nitrogen compounds vary greatly, it is of interest to note that
the ratio of organic nitrogen (as TKN-ammonia) and inorganic nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate and
nitrite) remains fairly constant and is approximately 1.0 (CBA, 1990). Also, the concentrations of
nitrate and nitrite together approximately equal the concentration of ammonia. The reasons for
these apparent constants are not known.
The available information does not suggest that the high nutrient concentrations cause any
nuisance algal blooms, though the high ammonia concentrations do contribute to the oxygen
depressions (see previous section).
Tidal wetland systems have generally been assumed to be highly productive systems that can
absorb excess nutrients, and support the productivity of estuarine and coastal waters. Given the
high nutrient inputs to the river from all sources, however, the modeling done for the BCUA
was unable to predict the role of the District's wetlands in the nutrient balance of the lower
Hackensack River. Detailed studies were therefore, undertaken of the nutrient budgets in three
wetlands as part of the BCUA modeling effort (CBA, 1990). The results of this extensive study
indicated a high temporal and spatial variability in the export/import of the nitrogen nutrients.
The variability was so high that no conclusions could be reached whether the wetlands were
3-48

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
acting to absorb some of excess nutrients being discharged into the water. Table 3-11
summarizes the results of the 9 separate nutrient balance studies that were undertaken in the
District's wetlands.
3.4.3	Temperature
There are three power generating plants discharging "cooling" waters in excess of 100 degrees F
into the lower Hackensack River (see Table 3-6). These discharges raise the water temperature
in the river to over 90 degrees F during the summer months (CBA, 1990), which violates the
state water quality criterion of 85 degrees F. The modeling of oxygen dynamics in the lower
Hackensack River has shown that these thermal discharges contribute significantly to the low
oxygen concentrations found in the Berrys Creek area (CBA, 1990). The warmer waters increase
the rate of degradation (oxidation) of the BOD discharged by the wastewater treatment plants.
3.4.4	Toxics
A qualitative assessment of the existing land use in the watershed indicates that there is a
significant potential for degradation of water quality from the discharges of toxic compounds.
One concern is the leachate from the solid waste landfills that were built in, or adjacent to the
wetlands in the District. Of the 12 major landfills in the District, leachate is controlled at only
two: the Kingsland and the Kearny (1-A) landfills. Thus, of the approximately 1,400 acres of
past and present undeveloped solid waste landfills in the District (HMDC, 1991) leachate is
controlled from only 200 acres. The remaining 1,200 acres of solid waste fills are uncapped and
leachate can drain directly into the creeks, wetlands and groundwater in the river basin.
The loadings of toxic materials in the leachate have not been monitored in all landfills, but data
are available from the Harrison Avenue landfill in Kearny (1-A) tq provide an estimate of the
loadings of toxics that may be reaching the Hackensack River. The average concentration of
toxic metals and petroleum hydrocarbons in four samples (taken monthly) in 1991 are given in
Table 3-12. Assuming an average leaching rate of 540,000 to 670,000 gallons per acre per year for
uncapped vegetated landfills (HMDC, 1991; K. Ochab, pers. comm.) the 1,200 acres of solid
waste landfill that have no leachate control contribute significant amounts of toxic metals to the
river basin annually based on the average concentrations measured (see Table 3-12). The highest
loadings are petroleum hydrocarbons, zinc, nickel, and lead.
Ammonia is also toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Concentrations of ammonia acutely
toxic to fish may cause loss of equilibrium, hyperexcitability, increased breathing, cardiac output
and oxygen uptake, and in extreme cases, convulsions, coma, and death. At lower
concentrations ammonia has many effects on fish, including a reduction in hatching success,
reduction in growth rate and morphological development, and pathological changes in tissues
of gills, livers, and kidneys. Factors that have been shown to affect ammonia toxicity include
oxygen concentration, temperature, pH, previous acclimation to ammonia, fluctuating or
intermittent exposures, carbon dioxide concentration, salinity, and the presence of other
toxicants. Data for concentrations of ammonia toxic to freshwater phytoplankton and vascular
plants, although limited, indicate that freshwater plant species are appreciably more tolerant to
ammonia than are invertebrates or fish (EPA, Quality Criteria for Water, 1986).
3-49

-------
TABLE 3-11
SUMMARY OF NET TRANSPORT FOR SELECTED PARAMETERS

nh3-n
N03-N
Total N
DO
Experiment
N J A
N J A
N J A
N J A
Sawmill Creek
E E I
E E I
E E I
E E I
Mill Creek
E* o r
OI E
0 r I
I* I
Berrys Creek
- E* I
I E
- E* I
E E*
Notes:
N = November 1988	A = August 1989	I = Import
J = July 1989	O = no net transport	E = Export
* = Less than 5% of Mass transported
Source: CBA, 1990.
(tab3-ll)

-------
TABLE 3-12
CONCENTRATIONS OF TOXIC COMPOUNDS IN LANDFILL LEACHATE
AND THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOADING TO THE HACKENSACK RIVER
Compound
Concentration in
leachate* (ug/1)
Annual mass
loading to river
(k«/yr)
Petroleum Hydrocarbons'3
1300
2,200
Cadmium
49
83
Chromium
140
238
Copper
75
128
Lead
150
255
Nickel
199
338
Zinc
294
500
Arsenic
153
260
a HMDC leachate water quality data from Kearny for January, February,
March 1991.
b Mean of 22 samples.
(tab3-12)

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
Another concern is the toxic compounds that come from industrial discharges, runoff, and the
hazardous materials stored or dumped on lands close to the river (including three Superfund
sites). Urban runoff is known to usually be high in lead and zinc. The industrial discharges and
hazardous materials sites can contain a wide range of compounds.
The known hazardous waste sites in the District include the following (for a detailed description
of these sites, see section 3.17):
¦	Burrough's Corp.
¦	Scientific Chemical Processing
¦	Universal Oil Products
¦	Ventron/Velsicol
¦	Diamond Shamrock
¦	Chromate Contamination Sites
¦	Koppers Coke
¦	Standard Chlorine Chemical Company
The hazardous chemicals at these sites range from volatile organics (e.g., benzene, chloroform,
and trichloroethylene) to heavier organics (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and
polychlorinated biphenols) to heavy metals (most importantly chromium, mercury, and arsenic).
In addition to the known hazardous waste sites, there are potentially many currently unknown
locations of previous industrial waste disposal, also contributing to the water quality problems
in the District.
The toxic compounds in these locations can reach the waters of the District in several ways. As
already mentioned for the solid waste landfills, the leachate created by rain draining through
sites exposed to the elements can dissolve some of them. The leachate can drain directly into
streams or be carried down to the groundwater which then flows into the wetlands. Some toxic
metals and organic compounds preferentially bind to solid particles such as soils, and then are
carried into the wetlands and waters by erosive processes.
3.4.5	Coliform Bacteria
High levels of fecal coliform bacteria were found throughout the District on many occasions.
The monitoring done by the HMDC between 1983 and 1988 found that the fecal coliform
standard for SE2 waters (700/100ml) was violated at all 18 sampling locations at least once each
year. In fact, the fecal coliform count at some stations never fell below the criterion during some
years. Table 3-13 summarizes the minimum, maximum, and average counts measured at each of
the 18 sites during the five years of the HMDC survey. The data show a high variability in
coliform counts, and no general trends are apparent for the five years of the survey.
3.4.6	pH
The State water quality standards specify that all saline estuarine waters (class SE) should have a
pH between 6.5 and 8.5. The data collected by the HMDC during their five year survey indicate
that pH measurements of less than 6.5 are reported some of the time at most of the 18 stations
sampled. This is likely due to sampling error; salinities in the Hackensack River are relatively
high (salt water has a significant buffering capacity), and the tidal mixing is extensive.
3-52

-------
Table 3-13
FECAL COL I FORM BACTERIA IN THE HACKENSACX RIVER AMD ITS TRIBUTARIES (IN MPN X 1000)
(SOURCE: HHDC, 1990)
LOCATION

1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Station 1
Hackensack R.
Marina
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
24.0
3.7
2.4
24.0
15.3
0.5
17.0
5.7
0.2
16.0
3.3
0.2
16.0
7.5
Station 2
Hackensack R.
Conesco
MIN
MAX
AVG
2.4
46.0
13.8
0.6
240.0
39.1
0.8
9.4
2.6
0.2
9.0
3.3
0.8
16.0
7.0
Station 3
Bellman's Creek
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.1
24.0
7.0
o.o
240.0
46.5
1.1
16.0
6.7
0.2
16-0
4.9
0.3
16.0
9.9
Station 4
CronakiU Craak
MIN
MAX
AVG
2.3
240.0
161.9
24.0
240.0
168.0
5.0
16.0
12.3
9.0
160.0
61.6
16.0
16.0
16.0
Station 5
Mill Craak
Lower
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
11.0
3.2
2.3
240.0
73.4
0.3
16.0
5.0
0.2
16.0
3.6
0.8
16.0
10.4
Station 6
Mill Creek
Upper
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
240.0
38.8
0.0
240.0
46.2
0.3
24.0
10.0
0.0
160.0
24.9
0.0
16.0
4.6
Station 7
Berry'a Creek
Lower
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
24.0
7.0
2.3
46.0
12.8
0.2
22.0
8.8
0.2
24.0
7.4
0.5
16.0
4.6
Station 8
Berry's Creek
Middle
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
24.0
8.1
2.4
240.0
108.5
0.5
30.0
12.9
0.2
30.0
8.6
0.7
16.0
8.1
Station 9
Berry's Creek
Upper
KIN
MAX
AVG
0.4
24.0
8.6
0.2
240.0
76.1
0.7
16.0
S.5
0.2
160.0
35.0
0.1
16.0
9.8
Station 10
Hackanaack R.
Erie RR
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
240.0
36.4
2.4
24.0
8.6
0.2
11.0
2.8
0.2
3.0
1.2
0.2
24.0
7.1
Station 11
Sawmill Creek
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
24.0
7.0
0.6
24.0
11.4
0.3
9.0
2.4
0.2
9.0
2.3
0.7
16.0
6.4
Station 12
Hackensack R.
Turnp ike
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
24.0
9.2
0.2
24.0
4.7
0.1
13.0
2.9
0.5
5.0
2.7
0.8
9.0
4.0
Station 13
Mocnachie Creek
MJM
MAX
AVG
0.0
15.0
2.4
2.4
24.0
12.0
0.0
2.4
1.5
0.2
2.6
1.0
0.0
16.0
6.2
Station 14
Locen Slote
Lower
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
24.0
9.6
0.4
240.0
39.5
0.2
16.0
3.2
0.2
22.0
7.2
0.3
16.0
4.0
Station 15
Losen Slote
Upper
MIN
MAX
AVG
2.4
240.0
123.9
24.0
240.0
135.7
1.6
160.0
28.4
1.7
1600.0
353.0
0.1
16.0
8.5
Station 16
Panhorn Creek
Upper
MIN
MAX
AVG
1.5
240.0
73.2
2.4
240.0
49.2
1.6
24.0
8.1
0.2
160.0 -
31.4
0.2
16.0
6.4
Station 1/
Panhorn Creek
Lower
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.4
240.0
164.7
0.0
240.0
180.0
1.6.
160.0
29.2
0.2
160.0
56.5
0.1
16.0
10.3
Station IB
Kearny
Freshwater Marsh
MIN
MAX
AVG
0.2
2.4
1.7
0.2
24.0
5.3
0.0
24.0
5.1
0.1
1.1
0.5
0.1
9.0
4.5

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
The annual averages, however, were within the criterion range. Table 3-14 summarizes the pH
data for the 18 stations between 1983 and 1988.
3.5 Soils and Geology
3.5.1	Soils
Soil associations, as defined by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), are landscapes that have
distinctive proportional patterns of soils. SCS classifies the entire District as a single soil
association—a tidal marsh having "low-lying organic and sometimes flooded soils along water-
ways." These soils are the result of 10,000 years or more of glacial action and the resultant
erosion and deposition, as described in section 3.5.2.
Soil series are soils that share substantially the same profile: the major soil horizons are similar in
thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics. Soil series are divided into
"phases," which vary as to slope, surface layer texture, and other characteristics that affect the
prospective use of the land. Soil phases are usually, but not always, equivalent to the mapping
units, which are the soil areas shown on soil survey maps.
The characteristic soil series in the District include Udorthents Ub, Uc and Ud, which are all
found on low-lying marine and estuarine deposits. Individual soil units are irregular in shape.
Included in mapped areas are poorly draining mineral soils: sulfaquents and sulfihemists.
Slopes for the soil types listed in Table 3-15 range from 0 to 5 feet.
The soil descriptions in Table 3-15 are drawn from the SCS Soil Survey of Bergen County. The
companion soils maps are the basis for the soil distribution analysis. The Hudson County
section of the District was not surveyed by the SCS, but judging from aerial photography, the
distribution of the predominant udorthent, urban land and tidal marsh soils in the Hudson
County portion of the District is comparable to that of the Bergen County portion.
The areal coverage of individual soil units on the western side of the Hackensack River tend to
be larger than the more interspersed soil units of the eastern sector. The soils east of the river
have been disturbed extensively, and, as a result, lack the consistent properties of texture,
morphology, and so on, that normally correspond with soil series definition.
In sum, roughly half of the District's soils are tidal marsh soils composed of fine silts and clays
high in organic content. Such soils are relatively unsuitable for building. The udorthents and
urban land soils elsewhere are there as a result of past dredge-and-fiU activities, and support a
variety of structures. Nevertheless, many structures built on fill in the Meadowlands require
pile-supported foundations.
3.5.2	Geology
The lower Hackensack Valley, including the Hackensack Meadowlands, is situated in glacially
eroded trough formed during the late Wisconsonian glaciation (Agron, 1980). The Hackensack
Valley is part of the Newark Basin of the Newark Supergroup. The part of the Newark Basin in
the Meadowlands, formerly considered part of the Brunswick Formation, has been redefined by
Olsen as the Passaic Formation. The Passaic Formation consists chiefly of red siltstones and
3-54

-------
Table 3-14
PH MEASUREMENTS IN THE HACXENSACK RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
(SOURCE: HMDC, 1990)
LOCATION

1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Station 1
Hackensack R.
Marina
MIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.2
6.7
6.2
7.1
6.6
6.9
7.4
7.2
7.0
8.1
7.4
6.8
7.5
7.2
6.5
7.4
7.2
Station 2
Hackensack R.
Conesco
HIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.1
6.7
6.1
7.1
6.6
4.2
7.4
7.0
7.0
7.8
7.4
6.2
7.4
7.0
6.6
7.5
7.2
Station 3
Bellman's Creek
HIM
MAX
AVG

6.1
7.1
6.6
5.0
7.7
6.4
7.0
7.7
7.4
6.5
7.6
7.1
6.2
7.5
7.2
Station 4
Cranak ill Creek
MIN
MAX
AVG
5.9
7.1
6.5
5.9
7.1
6.7
4.9
7.5
6.3
7.0
7.7
7.4
6.2
7.7
7.0
6.5
7.4
7.1
Station S
Hill Creek
Lower
MIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.2
6.7
6.1
7.2
6.6
6.9
7.3
7.1
6.9
7.8
7.3
6.0
7.5
7.1
6.6
7.3
7.2
Station 6
Hill Creek
upper
MIN
MAX
AVG
S.6
7.0
6.6
5.9
7.1
6.6
5.9
7.3
6.7
7.0
7.7
7.3
6.2
7.4
7.1
6.6
7.4
7.2
Station 7
Berry'* Creek
Lower
MIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.8
6.8
5.8
7.2
6.6
6.9
7.5
7.2
7.0
8.4
7.4
6.3
7.5
7.1
6.6
7.4
7.2
Station 8
Berry's Creek
Middle
KIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
8.1
6.9
6.1
7.3
6.7
6.8
8.2
7.3
6.7
8.5
7.4
6.8
7.7
7.2
6.4
7.8
7.3
Station 9
Berry's Creek
Upper
MIN
MAX
AVG
5.0
7.8
6.7
6.0
7.2
6.7
6.8
8.8
7.4
6.7
9.0
7.5
6.9
8.0
7.3
6.6
a.8
7.4
Station 10
Hackensack R.
Erie RR
HIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.2
6.6
5.9
7.3
6.6
6.9
7.4
7.1
6.9
7.7
7.3
6.2
7.5
• .7-1
6.5
7.6
7.2
Station 11
Sawmill Creek
MIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.8
6.7
5.8
7.5
6.7
6.a
7.a
7.2
7.2
7.8
7.4
6.4
7.7
7.1
6.5
7.7
7.3
Station 12
Hack antack R.
Turnpike
MIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.2
6.6
5.9
7.3
6.6
7.6
7.0
7.7
7.3
5.8
7.6
7.0
6.4
7.6
7.2
Station 13
Koonachie Creek
HIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.9
6.9
6.1
7.6
6.7
6.8
7.4
7.2
7.0
8.4
7.5
6.4
8.0
7.3
7.0
8.6
7.7
Station 14
Lomen Slote
Lower
MIN
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.0
6.6
6.2
7.8
6.8
6.5
a.8
7.8
7.2
9.4
8.1
7.0
9.0
8.0
6.1
7.5
6.9
Station IS
Loaen Slote
tapper
MIN
MAX
AVG
5.0
7.8
6.5
6.0
7.5
6.6
5.7
7.7
6.9
7.2
8.8
7.8
6.5
8.1
7.5
6.2
7.0
6.6
Station 16
Panhorn Creek
Upper
MIN
MAX
AVG

5.7
7.1
6.5
6.9
8.6
7.4
7.1
a.8
7.6
6.9
9.1
7.6
6.9
7.9
7.1
Station 17
Penhorn Creek
Lower
MIH
MAX
AVG
6.0
7.9
6.9
5.6
7.3
6.S
6.8
7.5
7.2
7.0
8.1
7.4
7.0
7.8
7.3
6.8
7.9
7.2
Station 18 MIN
Kearny MAX
Freshwater Harsh AVG
6.0
7.6
7.0

7.1
7.B
7.3
7.0
8.2
7.5
6.9
8.4
7.7
7.0
8.1
7.7

-------
TABLE 3-15
SOIL SERIES IN THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
Series Name
Size of
Units
Composition
Current Use
Location in District
Ub - Udorthents,
Organic
Substratum
Uc - Udorthents,
(Ud)- Urban Land
Complex
Ud - Udorthents,
Refuse Substratum
Ue- Udorthents,
Wet Substratum
Uf - Udorthents,
(Ue)-Urban Land
Complex
Ur - Urban Land
Tidal Marsh
5 - 195 Filled and smoothed or otherwise extensively distrubed to a depth of 3 feet or more. Fill
acres material consists of relatively clean stone boulders and soil.
5 - 310 50% Ub, 36% Urban Land, 15% other soils. Clean filled to variable depths, smoothed and
acres partially paved. Also included are very poorly drained Carlisle and Adrian units. Subject to
daily flooding
5-410 Has been, or is being filled to a depth of 3 feet or more. Fill material generally consists of solid
acres waste, refuse, and other non-soils Limited amounts of soil material may have been added or
incorporated with the dominant fill. Presumed to have been deep, poorly drained soils in
low-lying areas.
5-180 Extensively disturbed or filled areas to a depth of 3 feet Fill material is generally dean fill of
acres soil material with variable amounts of stone.
5-20 Shares characteristics of the other udorthents
Nearly level or gently sloping. Typically cut or filled and covered with impervious surfaces
(e.g., buildings, pavement) for over 85 percent of area. Identification of soils is not feasible
because of the degree of alteration or obstruction by urban works.
Very poorly drained, having silty or mucky flats that are associated with estuarine systems,
bays and coastal rivers. Low river velocity limits sediment-bearing capacity to predominantly
fine-grained alluvial materials (day and silt), which is trapped in dense marsh water during
slack water. Together with detritus from marsh vegetation, captured material presently covers
the tidal marshes to thicknesses ranging from 4 to 20 feet Associated with microtopography,
(0 to 2 percent slope and elevations of 0 to 5 feet mean sea level). Soils are almost
continuously saturated and generally high in organic content
5-750
acres
Supports railroads
and unpaved service
roads.
Uses have been for
residential,
commercial and
low-load paved
surfaces
Used for refuse
disposal sites.
Urban uses.
Small number of areas found along river banks
and in drainage areas along raodways subject to
daily tidal flooding
Largest areas are in the Turnpike meadow south
of the Meadowlands Sports Complex. Other
smaller sites found along the banks of Berry's
Creek Canal.
Many large tracts located in the southwest
portion of the District Comprises approximately
15 percent of the District.
Occurs on upland estuarine deposits and flood
plains. Buffer area around Teterboro Airport
and other scattered recreational sites in the
northern portion of the District
Only appears on the runway at Teterboro
Airport
Covers roughly 35 percent of the District Tracts
around Carlstadt, with relatively recent
construction, comprise the largest single Ur
concentration. Remaining Ur is distributed
along major roadway corridors and along the
rim of wetland areas.
From northern extent on the west bank and
Losen Slote to the large Keamy marshes, the
tidal marsh soil series dominates the District
landscape. Covers almost half of the District
Much of the Hackensack shore forms an almost
uninterrupted swath across the District Only
isolated areas are small tracts that surround
Teterboro Airport	
Source: SCS Soil Survey of Bergen County
(ttb3-15)

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
sandstones and conglomerates, and dates from the Carmian Sinemurian (Late Triassic) age
(Olsen, 1980). The Passaic Formation reaches a maximum thickness of 6,000 meters. The
Newark Basin trends from southwest to northeast across New Jersey from Mercer County to
Bergen County at a width of 20 to 30 miles.
The Hackensack Valley is enclosed on the east by a diabase sill (the Palisades), and to the west is
edged by low hills formed of the Orange Mountain Basalt, which overlies the Passaic Formation.
During deposition of sediments of the Newark Supergroup, three periods of volcanic activity
occurred. Intrusions of basaltic rock formed a buried dike and cut weakened areas of the Passaic
Formation at high angles. The hard dense black rock formations at Little Snake Hill and Snake
Hill (Laurel Hill or "Fraternity Rock") were the result. This diabase formation consists of
plagioclase feldspar and augite mined at one time for "road metal" used in highway
construction (Carswell, 1976).
Other underlying formations include the Lockatong, a dark gray mudstone and arkosic
sandstone that underlies the Palisades diabase in a thin seam to the east of the Meadowlands.
The Lockatong Formation is only 90 feet thick underneath North Bergen, but in western New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, at the center of the Newark basin, the Lockatong is both much wider
and reaches 3,750 feet in thickness (Carswell, 1976). The Stockton Formation (maximum
thickness of 1,800 meters) consists of thick beds of buff- or cream-colored conglomerate and
sandstone, and red siltstone forming the basal formation of the Newark Basin. It underlies the
Passaic Formation which itself is believed to be 6,000 feet thick in the Newark area (Carswell,
1976). The Stockton is thus very deep.
Subsequent changes in the earth's crust faulted and tilted both the sediments (derived from
Palezoic & Precambian rock) and igneous bodies so that they now dip 15 to 20 degrees with a
strike to the northeast. Post-Triassic erosion left the diabase and basaltic formations as elevated
ridges while softer Passaic area between them was excavated into the form of a flood valley,
partly below sea level.
During the Pleistocene Epoch, the Wisconsin continental glacier (the third and last massive ice
sheet of the period) advanced to a moraine (or front) through the Hackensack region to Perth
Amboy. The glacier gouged soil and rock from the land surface, transported this material for
short distances, and deposited it as a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, pebbles and boulders
known as till.
As the Late Wisconsin glacier began to retreat from New Jersey 17,000 years ago, the resulting
water became impounded by the moraine ridge, forming Glacial Lake Hackensack. Continued
me fang o the glacier earned both eroded materials and those materials released from the
meltang glacial Settled materials took the form of varved clay (seasonal deposition) reaching
200 feet in thickness with alternating layers of coarse and fine clay.	8
As the glacier retreated northward, the enormous load on the earth's crust was reduced. The
resultant crustal rebound returned the basin to its pre-glacial elevation and increased the
velocity and gradient of local streams. The glaciolacustrine clay in the Meadowlands is overlain
3-57

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
by sand deposited by post-glacial streams along the Passaic River in Newark and in the area
lying generally north of Route 3. This sand layer is as much as 20 feet thick.
As the ice sheet melted, the water flowed to the ocean. This pattern was repeated worldwide,
resulting in a general rise in sea level. The sea rose rapidly enough to overtake any rise in the
land surface and drowned the lower Hackensack Valley.
The scours within the Passaic Formation are filled primarily with the varved silt and clay. In
some places, particularly along the westerly edge of the Meadowlands, a layer of sand and
gravel underlies the clay and rests on bedrock. The upper layer consists primarily of organic
material from the tidal marsh and man-made fill.
The Hackensack Meadowlands is characterized by microtopography. In general the range of
elevation for 95% of the area ranges from 0 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 3 feet above MSL.
Local topography in the southwest section of the District reaches 10 feet above MSL (in areas
altered by landfill operations). Sections of Secaucus that lie within the District's outer bounds
but are not included in the District (i.e., the "holes" in the District) have local elevations of over
50 feet. The only significant heights within the District are at the two diabase intrusions at
Laurel Hill (200 feet above MSL) and Little Snake Hill (100 feet above MSL). The District's east
and west boundaries coincide with the base of elevation rise from mean sea level to the 200 foot
ridge lines.
3.6 Surface Water Hydrology and Groundwater
3.6.1 Surface Water Hydrology
The Hackensack River, the primary fresh water source for the Meadowlands, originates in
Rockland County, New York, drawing its water from streams in the north Palisades. The 50
mile southward course of the Hackensack River parallels that of the nearby Hudson River to the
east. The river drains a watershed 34 miles in length with a width ranging from 4 to 7 miles.
The area of the Hackensack watershed is approximately 197 square miles, two thirds of which is
located in, Bergen and Hudson counties. Locations along the river are generally described in
terms of "Hackensack River Miles" (HRM). HRMs are measured along the mid-line of the
navigation channel, beginning at the Hackensack River's "Zero Mile" near the river's mouth at
Newark Bay.
In the Meadowlands, the major inputs of freshwater to the Hackensack River come from
Overpeck Creek in the northeast portion and the smaller streams of Berrys Creek, Chromakill
Creek, Sawmill Creek and Bellmans Creek. Table 3-16 lists the major tributaries to the
Hackensack River in the Meadowlands, and Figure 3-10 identifies the locations of major surface
water features in the District.
The Hackensack River connects with the Atlantic Ocean via two narrow passages between New
Jersey and Staten Island—the Kill van Kull and the Arthur Kill. These narrow connections
modify the tidal regime of the estuary. During extreme high tide, water from Raritan Bay surges
through the two Kills and floods the Hackensack basin. The Kills also restrict outflow from the
Hackensack, extending the flood water high slack to 3 hours. The local mean tidal
3-58

-------
TABLE 3-16
HACKENSACK RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
IN THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
Stream
Drainage
Area
(Sq. Mile)
Mean Annual Estimated
Freshwater Mean Tidal
Discharge Discharge
(cfs)'	(cfs)
Position
of
Mouth Water Control
(HRM)b Method
•Hackensack River	197.0
Penhorn Creek	3.8
Kearny Marsh	1.6
Drainageway
Sawmill Creek0	1.6
Kingsland Ditchc
Kingsland Creek	2.5
Berrys Creekd
Mile 112 Ditchd
Berrys Creek	12.1
Canald
Bashes Creek	0.6
Moonachie Creek	0.9
Mill Creek	0.9
Cromakill Creek	5.1
Bellmans Creek	3.8
Overpeck Creek	17.0
170.0
N/A
2.5
2.4
3.9
24,000
N/A
10.0
0.9
1.4
0.5
N/A
N/A
13.5
1,900
1,700
112.5
1,030
18
980
2
20
0.5
N/A
N/A
13.5
4.1
N/A
5.9
6.7
7.8
8.6
9.9
10.1
10.4
10.6
11.2
13.8
Dam
Tidegate/RR
Embankments
Dikes/Tidegate
Culverts
Tidegate
2 Tidegates/ Culverts
Dam/Tidegate
Notes:
•cfs = cubic feet per second
bHRM=Hackensack River Mile
"Considered as one outlet to the Hackensack.
Considered as one outlet to the Hackensack.
The rivers are in order of distance from 0.0 HRM in Newark Bay.
Source: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., John J. Kasner & Co., Inc.
(nb3-16J

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
range is 5.10 feet (Secaucus) at an elevation of 2.89 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Spring high
tide generally floods to an elevation of 3.5 feet above MSL. Flood hazard areas are shown in
Figure 3-11.
The Hackensack River and its tributaries have been altered at different times to meet specific
needs. The lower miles of the river have been dredged to handle barge traffic. ACE maintains a
shipping channel at an average depth of 12 feet (river depths of 28 feet or more have been
measured). Ditches and canals have been dug in the District's watershed to control the flow of
water in the tidal marshes. Most of these alterations were made for mosquito control. At HRM
22.5, the Hackensack Water Company constructed the Oradell Dam (completed in 1922) to
supply potable water to northern New Jersey.
The Oradell Dam has separated the river into two components:
¦	Upper River. The upper section is a controlled freshwater section in which the flow is
inhibited. Water from 113 square miles of the total watershed area is impounded. During
90 to 100 days of most years, no flow at all gets beyond the Oradell Dam to the lower
reaches of the river. Flow below the dam is monitored at the gauging station at New
Milford, New Jersey. The Hackensack Water Company has constructed 7 diversions from
the Hackensack River and its tributaries retaining 84% of watershed's water supply in 4
large reservoirs.
¦	Lower River. The lower section is a brackish estuary influenced by semi-diurnal tides.
From HRM 13.8 to Newark Bay, the mainstream and its tributaries are bordered by a
broad, level area composed of approximately 8,500 acres of tidal and freshwater marshes in
the District.
In a typical estuary, the advective flux, or the freshwater flow from the upper watershed areas,
maintains a net seaward movement of water mass and of any pollutant load. The Hackensack
River with its disturbed flow regime is now essentially a trough in which its tidal waters slosh
back and forth, and from which water only slowly gets flushed to sea.
Most of the lower reaches of the river are located in the Hackensack Meadowlands District. The
Hackensack Basin in this area is divided into five major sub-basins. HMDC has further
delineated the in-District Hackensack River watershed into 27 smaller sub-basins.
Table 3-17 summarizes data for these sub-basins. Figure 3-12 shows the drainage basins and
sub-basins in the Hackensack Meadowlands District. The following is a description of the
drainage basins in the District. Drainage basins identified as "sheets" refer to areas with poorly
defined drainage and drain primarily by sheet flow. These areas have no stream channels
except for 1,000 feet of the major drainage element (i.e., the Hackensack River). The numbers in
parentheses following each drainage basin name in the following description refer to the sub-
basin numbers in Table 3-17 and on Figure 3-12.
Drainage Basin Detail
Berrys Creek (1.2-8.12.17.18V The Berrys Creek basin is made up of six of the sub-basins
delineated by HMDC, containing 6,114 acres or 29.7% of the District's total surface area. The
3-60

-------
Source: Federal Emergency Manegement Agency. 1982.	FigurO 3-11
Flood Hazard Areas
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Hackerwack Meadowlanda SAMP/EIS

-------
TABLE 3-17
DRAINAGE BASINS
Drainage Area
Sub-Basin	(acres)	(mj2)
1.	West Riser	1,016.3	1.59
2.	East Riser	971.7	1.52
3.	Little Ferry Sheet	244.3	0.38
4.	BCUA/Clay Pit Pond	98.0	0.15
5.	LosenSlote	311.1	0.49
6.	Ridgefield/Overpeck Creek	423.8	0.66
7.	Bellmans Creek	807.8	1.26
8.	Peach Island Creek	277.8	0.43
9.	Empire/Moonachie Creek	1,124.8	1.76
10.	Transco/Doctor Creek	559.4	0.87
11.	North Bergen Sheet	62.7	0.10
12.	Berrys Creek North of Rt. 3	2,163.6	3.38
13.	East Rutherford Sheet	298.4	0.47
14.	Mill Creek	548.9	0.86
15.	Paunpeck Creek	43.8	0.07
16.	Cromakill Creek	688.7	1.08
17.	Berrys Creek (Rutherford)	1,166.9	1.82
18.	Berrys Creek Canal	517.7	0.81
19.	Kingsland Creek	488.7	0.76
20.	Lyndhurst Sheet/Mary Ann Creek	87.7	0.14
21.	Sawmill Mud Flats	696.9	1.09
22.	Sawmill Creek	905.8	1.42
23.	Secaucus Sheet/Anderson Creek	2,291.7	3.58
24.	Penhorn Creek	1,787.6	2.79
25.	Penhorn Sheet/Fish Creek	45.9	0.07
26.	Kearny Marsh Drainageway	2,668.6	4.17
27.	Jersey City Sheet		256.9 	0.40
Totals	,	20,555.5 	32.12
NOTES:
All major roads excluded; based on 1987 HMDC data
(tab3-17)

-------
/V
Oralnago Bsdn Boundary

7 • Basin Numbar
/\'
HMDC Boundary
/V
Roads
/ 'v'
Surftca Wtoar
/V
Ralreada
/V
Municipal Boundartaa
Figure 3-12
Drainage Basin Areas
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
functioning of the drainage system of this area closely resembles its former functioning (before
man-made obstacles interrupted the natural water flow). From the north, the Berrys Creek basin
drains the Teterboro Airport and Moonachie area through the East and West Riser ditches. Low
lying marshland and Peach Island Creek feed Eight Day Swamp and beyond with a minor
gradient and therefore with low velocity flow.
The narrower northern portion of Berrys Creek widens in a downstream direction from 80 to 200
feet, adjacent to Walden Swamp. At this point, the creek is diverted through culverts at the
Route 3 crossing, constricting any significant upland drainage to the Hackensack River. The
southern portion of Berrys Creek drains much of the surrounding marsh area. However, in the
lower reaches of the Berrys Creek basin and further north at the Berrys Creek Canal (also 80 to
200 feet wide), intertidal flow is more of an influence. This diurnal action comes directly from
the Hackensack River. The overall length of Berrys Creek and its tributaries in the District is 6.4
miles (HMDC, 1984).
RidgpfiPld Shpet/Overperk Creek (6). This wide creek and adjacent sheet at the northeastern
corner of the District is characterized by complex flow dynamics. Overpeck Creek is the most
hydrologically developed creek (i.e., it has a well defined, wide channel), which has riverine
qualities, in the entire Hackensack basin. The 6.6 mile long creek (of which less than 1 mile
flows through the District) is as wide as 500 feet. Water flow is severely restricted by one tide
gate and other dams. The tide gate allows freshwater out at ebb and prevents brackish river
water inflow at high tide. The natural freshwater discharge of 13.5 cubic feet per second (cfs), is
the largest of the drainage basins in the District. The PSE&G public service power plant diverts
750 million gallons per day from Overpeck Creek for cooling purposes. The heated water is
then discharged into the Hackensack River 0.9 miles downstream from Overpeck Creek's
mouth.
The Ridgefield sheet has an irregular drainage pattern that has been influenced by the extensive
CSX rail yards, the New Jersey Turnpike and its service area. Developed stream action (i.e.
channelized flow) has been virtually eliminated.
^wmill Creek (21.22). Two primary tidal streams, Sawmill Creek and Kingsland Creek flow
through and drain this basin that includes much of proposed DeKorte Park. These relatively
narrow creeks drain the shallow tidal bays and mudflats. This low salt marsh is characterized
by low topography, limited vegetation and open character that allows a relatively large tidal
flow. The far western end of this sub-basin drains an upland area formed from landfill activity.
Pfrrnmakill Creek (15.16). This drainage area is defined by the eastern spur of the Turnpike to
the west, Route 3 to the south, the Conrail tracks to the east, and a pipeline berm to the north.
Chromakill Creek has a wide meandering channel.
flpllmans Creek (7). The wide meandering channel of Bellmans Creek drains an area bounded
by the eastern spur of the Turnpike to the west, Edgewater Avenue in Ridgefield to the north,
and a pipeline berm to the south. Wolf Creek, a tributary to Bellmans Creek, drains an area in
the Palisades to the east of the District.
3-64

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
Mill Creek (14)- Mill Creek drains the areas in Secaucus west of the eastern spur of the Turnpike
and north of Route 3. This drainage area contains the western half of the Harmon Meadows
development, and sections of the upland Secaucus areas.
Kearny Marsh Dramageway (26).. The largest single sub-basin in the District (2,669 acres) is also
the most constrained by man-made features. Numerous highway and railroad embankments
transect the marsh at many angles. There is no central stream; much of the complicated water
flow is directed through interconnected culverts.
Man-made dikes and tidegates prevent any tidal influence and thereby maintain this large
freshwater marsh. Point sources of freshwater from industrial discharge contribute to the local
freshwater regime. Kearny Marsh has been experiencing rising water levels resulting in large
water cells and ponding action.
Also part of the District hydrology is Frank Creek with a length of 1.25 miles. Its headwaters
cover a 400 acre area in the southwestern corner of the District. The flow from the Frank Creek
marsh drains has been channelized into a lower stream that discharges into the Passaic River.
Penhorn Creek (24)- This 2.7 mile long creek meanders through wetlands sandwiched between
the heights west of Jersey City and the developed areas of Secaucus. Natural flow has been
altered in this creek to the extent where stream action cannot remove added waste load.
Penhorn Creek ,s impounded near its mouth by a Conrail abutment. A pumping facility
provides some outflow capacity.
Kinesland Creek (191. This elongated basin is restricted on the north by an extended landfill
berm with a 35 foot elevation, a significant height within the District. Other diking and the NT
Transit railroad emblements not only limit the extent of the basin, but also create a channeling
effect for water flow that feeds the 100 foot wide main channel. The creek has been relocated
and continues to flow towards the Hackensack River for the length of approximately one mile.
At this point, the creek s flow is inhibited by a tide gate just west of the Transco pipeline.
Lnsen Slote (5). This relatively small basin drains the Little Ferry area via its narrow
meandering creek. Losen Slote flows for one mile through residential and marshland before
emptying into the Hackensack River at HRM 12.1. Also included to this sub-basin is a strip of
the Hackensack shoreline near the BCUA plant. The plant is a point source of water flow and
contributes 68.6 million gallons of treated wastewater per day to the surface water system.
Moonachie Creek (9,10)- Moonachie Creek drains a large area in Carlstadt west of the western
spur of the Turnpike (sub-basin 9) and continues under the Turnpike to discharge to the
Hackensack River. The area between the Turnpik^and the Hackensack River (sub-basin 10) is
drained primarily by sheet flow to the Hackensack River, although some of this area drains to
the two small creeks in this area (Doctors Creek and Bushes Creek).
Mary Anne Creek (2Q)- This small drainage basin is located between the outlets of Berrvs Creek
and Kingsland Creek.	3
3-65

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
BCUA/Clav Pit Pond (4). This small area located near the BCUA transfer station site drains
inward to a 2,000 foot by 600 foot pond formed out of remnants of clay pit excavation. Water
draining into the pond has no direct access to the Hackensack. This water body and two smaller
retention ponds located near the Sports Complex are man-made and the only sizable non-
riverine water bodies in the District.
Little Ferry Sheet (31. This minor sheet (150 acres) is located in the northeast sector of District.
The area demonstrates poor surface hydrology, due to intensive residential development.
Secaucus Sheet (23.251 The second-largest single sub-basin area in the District is characterized
by interrupted marshland flow with very little indication of defined surface hydrology. The
area when combined with the similar and adjacent sheet, the Penhorn Sheet, cover 2,338 acres.
The marshland areas are drained by ditches and by three creeks, all of which flow into the
Hackensack River and vary from 1,000 to 2,000 feet in length. Anderson Creek drains a low salt
marsh west of the warehouse development in South Secaucus; Fish Creek drains the section
south of Little Snake Hill. Another creek of similar size flows west from the Secaucus station
area and is unnamed.
The disturbed hydrology of this sheet is not only due to Turnpike and rail embankments
common to the District, but also to recent expansion (since the 1960s) of the warehouse
industrial complex in Secaucus. Residential development, (i.e. Harmon Cove) on the waterfront
have encroached on the sheet's surface water.
Jersey City Sheet (27). This sheet covers a developed area located in the southeast corner of the
District area.
North Bergen Sheet (11). The small (627 acres) triangular parcel lies between the mouths of
Bellmans Creek and Chromakill Creek. Isolated from adjoining areas by the Turnpike's eastern
spur, its flow of water is irregular throughout the low-lying marshy area.
East Rutherford Sheet (13'). This parcel is crisscrossed by Routes 3 and 20, the Turnpike's
western spur, and Paterson Plank Road. Formerly known as the Turnpike Marsh, this "island
wetland" is formed by parking and access routes for the Meadowlands Sports Complex. It has
been greatly reduced in size by the expansion of the parking lot and other facilities for the
Meadowlands Arena. The Sports Complex pumps 900,000 gallons per day of water from this
area, and discharges it to Berrys Creek, just north of Route 3. The area's remaining surface
water drains irregularly into the Hackensack River, through various culverts under the
surrounding roads.
3.6.2 Groundwater
The information presented here is drawn from Carswell's report on water resource in the
Hackensack Meadowlands (1976). In aquifers underlying the District, movement and storage of
groundwater occur primarily in the network of interconnected openings formed along joints,
fractures and solution channels of the Passaic formation. Groundwater location varies from site
to site depending on the development of joint openings and their alignment. The size and
number of these openings decrease with increasing depth below ground surface.
3-66

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
As some beds within the formation contain more openings than others, the groundwater system
consists of a series of alternating tabular aquifers, permeable formations and aquicludes
(impermeable strata). These rock series are several tens of feet thick and dip to the northwest at
an angle of approximately 10 degrees. The water-bearing fractures in each aquifer are more or
less continuous, but the hydraulic connections between individual aquifers is poor. These
tabular aquifers generally extend downward for a few hundred feet, and are continuous along
strike for thousands of feet.
Estimates of the thickness of the groundwater producing zone in the Passaic Formation have
been tempered by the observation that, when a well has not found a water-bearing zone in the
first 400 feet of drilling, water is unlikely to be found by drilling deeper. The zone in the Passaic
Formation containing joints and fractures that are capable of storing and transmitting fresh
water has been variously estimated at between 200 and 600 feet thick.
The zone of fresh (non-saline) groundwater in the Hackensack River basin appears to be thinner
than 200 feet and is generally located at 400 to 500 foot depths. Typical water bearing zones in
the Passaic Formation range from 200 to 600 feet deep. Glacial scour, which reaches depths of
300 feet along the western edge of the Meadowlands, has removed some of the water-bearing
capacity of the Passaic Formation locally.
Other geologic formations underlying the District include the Stockton Formation of the Newark
Basin, diabase intrusions (e.g. Snake Hill), and various unconsolidated till, silt, clay, and fill. The
Stockton Formation is too deep under the Meadowlands to yield a significant amount of water.
Diabase, with its impermeable properties, also yields small quantities and is not an important
source of groundwater. Overlying the Passaic Formation are unconsolidated deposits consisting
mostly of till, and varved silt and clay. These materials are generally of low permeability and
thus yield limited amounts of water. The limited areas of sand and gravel deposits in the
Meadowlands are a small but valuable source of groundwater.
Well drilling in the Hackensack Meadowlands is limited by the above constraints and yields
only small to moderate supplies of groundwater. The District is primarily in a groundwater
discharge area (groundwater is .generally discharging to the Hackensack River and the Atlantic
Ocean). In discharge areas, groundwater travels for longer periods and greater distances, is
higher in dissolved solids, and tends to be in chemical equilibrium with adjacent rocks. In the
Meadowlands, the groundwater in the Passaic Formation is highly mineralized. Chemical
quality is affected by induced recharge of poor quality surface water from the Hackensack River
and Newark Bay.
Acute groundwater problems exist in the District. The Oradell Dam has effectively cut off the
headwaters and source of the Hackensack from its lower reaches thus limiting the fresh water in
the lower reaches (see Section 3.1.1). Weakened flow rate in the lower valley has exposed the
groundwater system to salt water intrusions from Newark Bay. Dredging of canals has further
exposed permeable materials, which can lead to additional leaching of the brackish river water
into the groundwater.
Within the lower Hackensack River basin, yield variation and specific capacities of wells tapping
the Passaic Formation are dependent on lithology penetrated and position of the wells within
3-67

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
the groundwater flow system. The most productive areas are located in narrow belts along the
east and west edges of the District, at a point mid-way between the divides of the basin and the
trough. The wells in the central portion of the Meadowlands only have an average specific
capacity of one gallon per minute (gpm) per foot of drawdown. The groundwater supply along
the edges of the District benefits from the pressure of hydraulic connection to the Passaic
Formation, a gentle gradient, and permeable unconsolidated deposits. The central portions of
the Meadowlands is overlain by poorly permeable lake b .ds.
Data on wells tapping the Passaic Formation in Bergen County show that in general, industrial
and municipal supply well yields are 10 times as great as domestic well yields. Industrial and
municipal supply wells are at least twice as deep and have twice the specific capacity of
domestic wells. The median industrial or municipal supply well is 260 feet deep, yields 100
gpm, and has a specific capacity of 1.5 gpm per foot of drawdown. The median domestic well is
120 feet deep, yields about 10 gpm, and has a specific capacity of about 0.7 gpm per foot of
drawdown.
Pollution from local industry, sewage, and urban area runoff prevents wellhead groundwater
recharge and reduces water quality. In addition to the summer brackish flow up from Newark
Bay, it is believed that highly influential hydraulic subsurface connections exist between the
Brunswick Formation and Newark Bay. As a consequence of heavy pumping, high chloride
water has been induced deep into the aquifer along the strike of the beds.
3.7 Land Use and Zoning
3.7.1 Land Use
Within the 19,400 acres that comprise the Hackensack Meadowlands District, land use varies in
composition, size and ownership. Based on land use mapping prepared by HMDC, major
waterways, railroads, and roads total approximately 4,000 acres. Of the remaining 15,400 acres,
vacant land (including wetlands and undeveloped uplands) and industrial uses (including
heavy and light industry, warehousing, warehousing with outlets, rail facilities and truck
terminals) are the two .most dominant land uses, with a combined total of 50% of the District
acreage. Other important uses include dedicated open space (including wetlands), solid waste
facility sites, utilities, airport facilities, and the Meadowlands Sports Complex. Land uses that
have less than 600 acres by type are residential, office, commercial, communications, park and
ride facilities, and public/quasi-public land uses. Table 3-18 shows the distribution of existing
land use in the District. The land use information is also presented for each municipality within
the District.
The District land uses follow distinctive patterns with respect to their geographic locations.
Vacant land is extensive, and the 5,560 acres of "vacant" land are supplemented by 1,690 acres of
dedicated open space and 110 acres of parkland. These extensive undeveloped areas serve as a
backdrop for the active land uses in the District. The bulk of the vacant land lies west of the
Hackensack River from Little Ferry to Lyndhurst and encompasses much of the river frontage
itself. In this analysis, vacant land is defined as having no current use and no existing
structures. Inactive solid waste sites and unprotected open space are included under this
criteria. The distribution of existing land uses is shown in Figure 3-13.
3-68

-------
TABLE 3-18
EXISTING LAND USES
(in acres)

Residential
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Airport
FadSties
Solid
Waste/
Landfills
Park 4
Ride
Open Space
Sports
Comdex
Commun-
ications
UtMy
Pubic/
Quasi-
Public
Vacant
Total
Muntrioalitv
Low
Density
Metfun
Density
High
Density
Hotel
FMaV
Comm.
Heavy
Industry
Light
Industry
Ware-
house
W-house
w/Outtet
Rail
FacHies
Truck
Terminal
Open
Space
Parkland
Caristadt
0
0
0
1
54
11
67
121
372
14
0
66
0
0
0
61
0
0
42
55
4
1,082
1,950
E. Rutherford
0
0
0
20
4
17
32
29
74
11
0
0
0
0
0
144
0
604
23
3
0
497
1,458
Jersey City
3
0
0
0
1
0
14
0
8
0
128
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
145
260
756
Kearny
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
112
7
101
0
109
73
0
475
0
519
0
0
49
95
52
1,002
2,595
Little Ferry
51
1
0
0
2
0
27
28
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
145
1
58
342
Lvndhurst
1
0
0
8
10
75
58
14
125
6
0
0
0
167
0
454
35
0
111
35
30
464
1,595
Moonachie
13
25
0
0
10
4
35
77
117
3
0
7
302
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
4
173
780
N. Aiinaton
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
262
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
135
426
N. Bergen
0
0
0
0
6
2
24
8
383
5
0
47
0
0
10
114
0
0
0
70
0
408
1,078
Ridaefield
0
0
0
0
24
2
13
79
2
0
55
34
0
0
0
83
6
0
0
119
0
254
671
Rutherford
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
15
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
328
435
Secaucus
110
78
17
46
169
93
59
31
432
298
11
22
0
65
0
306
40
0
11
31
77
859
2,756
S. Hackensack
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
12
21
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
74
Tetertxxo
0
0
0
0
8
23
0
70
18
0
0
0
343
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5 ,
1
469
Total
180
103
17
75
287
250
442
491
1,704
340
303
336
645
970
10
1,692
106
604
234
716
319
5,558
15,383
Notes:
Acreages do not include railroads, roadways or open-water (approximately 4,000 acres).
Solid Waste/Landfills includes active landfills, transfer and baler stations, composting facilities, and landfills with leachate or methane collection systems.
Vacant Land Use includes uplands, wetlands, and inactive landMs.
Source: HMDC, 1995
TAB3-1IXLS

-------
Legend
Buslnsss
Raaidsntlal
Public/Solid Wait*
Transportation/Utilities
Opan Spaca/Watar
Vacant (Including
vacant uplands, wetlands
and Inactive landfills)
HMDC Boundary
Roads
Surface Watar
Ralroada
Municipal Boundahas
Figure 3-13
Generalized Land Use
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
The second largest land use category (by area) is industrial use (including heavy and light
industry, warehousing, truck terminals, and railroad yards) covering 3,620 acres. Industrial uses
are primarily clustered in two areas. At the District's center are the industrial uses in Secaucus,
which extend for a 2-mile by 1.5-mile area and consists almost entirely of warehousing and
associated outlets. The warehouse outlets are numerous and service the consumer market in
and out of the District. The larger grouping of industrial land uses in Carlstadt, to the north, is
mostly light industrial with trucking facilities. The eastern fringe of the District, specifically
North Bergen (warehousing) and Ridgefield (light industrial/warehousing mix) is particularly
representative of this land use class. The western border of the District is also characterized by a
number of industrial/warehousing uses.
Land uses characterized as dedicated open space, which cover 1,690 acres, are represented by
public recreation and deed-restricted areas. Most open space is located in the drainage basins of
Sawmill and Chromakill Creeks. The dedicated open space near Sawmill Creek covers close to
one square mile. Other areas include the east bank of the Hackensack River from the western
spur of the Turnpike to the mouth of Mill Creek and the Berrys Creek tidal marsh, adjacent to
the Sports Complex. Other relatively small areas representing local parks and local open spaces
are scattered throughout the District.
The spatial pattern for the utilities and transportation land uses is unusual in that major
utility/transportation uses dominate each corner of the District. To the northwest is Teterboro
Airport—a large and active transportation facility. Two large public utilities, BCUA and
PSE&G—cover a large area in the northeast portion of the District. The southwest and southeast
corners of the District are predominantly used by PATH and Conrail (Croxton Yards), and serve
as major rail transportation facilities. Another important area in this class is the Transco natural
gas storage facility in the north central section of the District.
Solid waste land uses in the District consist of several areas in the southwest part of the District.
The largest facility is a disposal site in North Arlington and Kearny (the 1-E landfill). The other
solid waste land uses include a baler facility and composting facilities. Active Solid Waste land
uses constitute 970 acres of the District and include only regulated sites that are presently
handling solid waste, or are involved in methane or leachate collection (inactive sites total about
1,500 acres and are included under the vacant land use category).
The Meadowlands Sports Complex in East Rutherford covers a large area in the center of the
District, composed mainly of the three stadia and ancillary parking. Public/Quasi-Public use,
sometimes grouped with the Sports Complex, covers a very limited area. The large Post Office
Bulk Facility, the HMDC administrative offices and Environment Center, and the Secaucus high
school make up the largest part of this land use class. Remaining public use areas are primarily
small Department of Public Works sites.
As of 1988, there were 3,500 residential units on 300 acres of land in the District. Residential
properties are primarily low- to medium-density (1- to 2-family units). This housing is found,
for the most part, on the fringe of the District boundaries, including the Little Ferry/Moonachie
area to the north, and Secaucus, in the center of the District. Other residential areas are located
between the eastern spur of the Turnpike and the Secaucus warehouse area. Higher density
3-71

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
housing is represented by the Harmon Cove Complex on the Hackensack and a smaller tract
along Route 3.
Commercial land uses in the District are limited to 360 acres and are generally situated along the
Route 3 corridor. Two of the largest commercial areas are Turnpike service areas (alternatively
classifiable as Public Use). The balance of commercial land use is located in a ring around the
Secaucus area as well as in several small parcels immediately north of Secaucus.
Office use is the smallest land use class in area, but is higher in density of use than other uses.
All 250 acres of office use are located within 2,000 feet of the Route 3 corridor. The largest cluster
of the office land uses is in the Lyndhurst area just below the terminus of Route 17 south. Most
office land uses have been developed in the District during the last 20 years.
3.7.2 Current Zoning
The 14 municipalities that make up the Hackensack Meadowlands District have adopted zoning
ordinances that control the use and development of land. However, the portions of those
communities that lie within the District are subject to the zoning authority and jurisdiction of
HMDC. The NJ Legislature invested HMDC with full zoning powers. All development is
evaluated for its consistency with the HMDC Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. HMDC has
the authority to review, regulate, and approve land development and subdivision within the
District. HMDC is currently engaged in revising the Master Plan and zoning regulations, which
were originally adopted by HMDC in 1972, and subsequently amended to effectuate planning
objectives. One of the regulatory products anticipated from the SAMP is a revised Master Plan
for the District.
Currently, the District has been mapped into 16 zones and 6 Specially Planned Areas (SPAs),
each with its own standards that guide future land use and development. The intent of the first
HMDC Master Plan was to provide for the orderly and comprehensive development of the
District and to preserve an ecological balance between natural open areas and development.
The existing zoning classifications, the approximate acreage of each zone within the District and
the types of development they allow, are summarized in Table 3-19. In addition, Figure 3-14
presents a generalized zoning map of the District.
Specially Planned Area Regulations
The strategic location of large parcels of largely undeveloped land in the Hackensack
Meadowlands in the heart of the intensely-developed New York Metropolitan Area has allowed
the Commission an opportunity to require that the available land be used in a highly "efficient"
manner and in accordance with innovative planning techniques. The Specially Planned Area
(SPA) regulations are designed to promote creative design while assuring a comprehensive
treatment of environmental factors. Properties located in SPAs require approval of a
comprehensive plan for the entire SPA before any development is permitted. The six zones
listed below are designated as SPAs and are subject to special regulations (described in Table
3-19).
3-72

-------
TABLE 3-19
CURRENT HMDC ZONING
Zone
Acreage Description
Marshland
Preservation
Park and
Recreation
Planned Park and
Recreation 1
Low Density
Residential
Waterfront
Recreation
Highway
Commercial
Service Highway
Commercial
Research Park
Research
Distribution Park
1,750
1,100
80
310
70
380
70
200
590
Light Industrial A 1,960
Light Industrial B 2,550
Heavy Industrial 1,410
Airport Facilities 700
Primarily located in the Saw Mill Creek watershed. Designed to preserve and enhance
ecological values to preclude development and urbanization inconsistent with natural
environment. Activities that may impair marshland quality or interfere with the use of this
area as a habitat are prohibited.
Located in North Arlington, Kearny, and Lyndhurst at the site of the proposed DeKorte State
Park, and smaller tracts north of Secaucus and along the eastern margin of Teterboro Airport.
Purpose is to allow residential and commercial development on privately owned, non-
riparian-claimed property located within the area designated as DeKorte State Park. Permits
development that complements park uses. Among permitted uses for the zone are a maximum
of 900 residential units (townhouse/ multi-family) and hotel or similar development not to
exceed 500 rental units.
Primarily located in Little Ferry along the northern District boundary and in north Secaucus
along the out-of-District "islands". Most in use as low density housing. Minimum lot area:
5,000 square feet for single-family and two-family houses and 2,000 square feet per
multiple-family dwelling unit. Open space minimums for single- and two-family dwellings is
50 percent; multiple-unit dwellings is 35 percent.
limited to four small tracts on the Hackensack River in the center of the District. Allowable
uses: restaurants and hotels when included with a marina. Marinas are to be public facilities
providing launching, mooring and parking to their users. Also permits residential uses.
Environmental performance standards are stringent for source particulate emissions.
Allowable uses include: banks and businesses, medical offices, restaurants and theaters and
other accessory uses. Strip development to be avoided. Locations include the large corridor
along Route 3 (between the eastern spur and the Hackensack River) and a narrow band
adjacent to the eastern spur of the Turnpike in the southern part of the District.
Permits uses of a business and commercial nature but suggests auto-related businesses.
Located along the NJ Route 3 corridor.
Locations: area west of Penhom Creek and east of the eastern spur of the Turnpike in Jersey
City and area along Chromakill Creek in North Bergen. Designated for research and office
facilities in a park-like environment with substantial amounts of landscaped open space.
Warehouses are also allowable.
Similar to the Research Park zone, but manufacturing and incidental uses also allowed.
Located at the western side of the District in Lyndhurst and in triangle formed by the Belleville
Turnpike, the western boundary of the District and the N] Transit Mainline.
Designated for variety of industrial, distribution, commercial, and business on large lots.
Includes most of the southern half of Secaucus, the northern section of Jersey City, and most of
East Rutherford adjacent to the Sports Complex, tracts in eastern Carlstadt, and a strip between
the PATH yards and the Turnpike at the extreme southern end of the District.
Similar to Light Industrial Zone A, but allows smaller lot sizes. Locations comprise most of
Carlstadt, scattered sections along NJ Route 3 on the eastern District border, a narrow strip
running along most of North Bergen's District border, tracts located in Ridgefield along
Bellman's Creek, and in the extreme northwest corner of the District flanking Teterboro
Airport.
Accommodates industrial uses that are not appropriate in other industrial zones. In addition
to light industrial uses, permitted uses include meat packing, construction materials, cartage,
motor freight terminals, railroad yards, resource recovery systems and various automobile-
related facilities. Located primarily in the southeastern sector of the District, also along the
fringes of the District in North Bergen, Kearny, Ridgefield and Lyndhurst.
Designated for aviation uses and uses customarily associated with an airport facility.
Coincident with Teterboro Airport in the northwest corner of the District.

-------
TABLE 3-19
(continued)
Zone
Acreage Description
Sports Complex 750
Public Utilities
Commercial Park
330
60
Parkside
Residential- PR-1,
PR-2 and PR-3
810
Island Residential
- IR-1, IR-2, and
IR-3
820
Planned
Development
Center - PDC-1
500
Berry's Creek
Center (BCC)
Transportation
Center - TC-1, TC-
2, and TC-3
280
150
Provides an area for major spectator sport uses, exposition and related uses. Built under
jurisdiction of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority. Located at the center of the
District in East Rutherford.
Provides for heavy public utility uses not appropriate in any other industrial zone. Permitted
uses include electrical power generating stations, other heavy and light public utility uses,
railroad facilities and auto service stations and retail use. Located in north Ridgefield and
Jersey City (BCUA and two PSE&G sites), and smaller sites in North Arlington and Lyndhurst.
Large-lot commercial mixed-use developments. Inter-related so that there is a less peak-hour
traffic than from individual commercial uses of equivalent size. Permitted uses: office
buildings, hotels, restaurants, and waterfront development (including river access and a
marina). At least 5 percent of floor area of offices for employee-oriented uses. Covers a limited
area of the District along the east side of the Hackensack River south of N] Route 3, and in
Lyndhurst.
Designated for residential uses in a setting of large areas of open and recreational space.
Unified planning and large-scale projects to provide amenities and services to resident^.
Residential restricted to multi-family (between 35 and 40 units per acre), and less than fifteen
stories. Commercial development to meet the day-to-day requirements of the residents. No
strip development is permitted. Common open space of at least 35 percent. Transportation
system for internal District circulation and connection with regional systems rather than for
circulation within PR zones. Coordination with regional and local mass-transit systems is
encouraged. Located on the Hackensack River at the mouth of Berry's Creek and across from
Saw Mill Creek.
Designated for relatively dense residential uses clustered on man-made islands, surrounded by
substantial areas of marshland open space. Residential development restricted to multi-family
(between 20 and 25 units per acre). No more than 40 percent of dwelling units in structures
over 15 stories. Commercial development to meet everyday needs of residents. One shopping
center per neighborhood. At least 50 percent of the residential/commercial land area to be
used for inter-neighborhood common open space. All locations are contiguous with the
Hackensack River, including Harmon Cove in Secaucus (IR-1), Hartz properties along Mill
Creek (IR-2), and the section north of the Transco properties (IR-3).
Designed to accommodate a mix of uses including residential, office, commercial/retail, and
hotel and may be accompanied by public facilities, transportation facilities, parking structures,
and open space. Development is permitted pursuant to approved general, development, and
implementation plans for the entire zoning area. 40 dwelling units per acre, with 10% each for
low and moderate income. Non-residential development limited to a floor area ratio (FAR) of
1.0, and a height of 20 stories. Undeveloped wetland open space of at least 45 percent (at least
30 percent of residential 15 percent of the non-residential areas). Bordered by the western spur
of the NJ Turnpike, Commerce Avenue, Paterson Plant Road, and the Hackensack River.
Designed to be the focal point of the District, containing business, shopping, civic, cultural and
transportation centers, intermingling all types of development. Retail and services approach to
meet the regional needs. Office facilities for a major regional commercial center are
encouraged. Between 3,800 and 4,200 multi-familty dwelling units. Staged development and
consistent densities. 35 percent intermingled common open space. Located south of NJ Route
3 in the west end of the District, around Berry's Creek Canal.
Designed to accommodate major commuter transfer centers and office buildings, by
developing sufficient facilities to efficiently handle transit by rail, bus, or airplane.
Coordinates existing and proposed transportation systems. Office, retail and service uses are
required. Floor area limitated to 500,000 square feet. Common open space of at least 15
percent. Located at southwest corner of Teterboro (TC-1, to link air passengers with District
systems), the extreme southwest corner of the District (TC-2) and at Allied Junction (TC-3, to
assist rail transfers to other rail lines and non-rail modes of travel).

-------
TABLE 3-19
(continued)
Zone	Acreage Description
Special Use- SU-1, 1,010 Designed for land uses of regional importance not otherwise provided for. Among uses are
SU-2, and SU-3	sport stadiums, major educational and health institutions, large cultural facilities and other
large scale developments. Permitted uses not specifically stated, as specific uses not predicted.
Open space requirements of at least 40 percent. Potential for a Park-and-Ride facility at SU-2
(intersection of Turnpike eastern spur and NJ Route 3). No predicted use at SU1 (Kearny) or
SU-3 (in Kearny Meadows).
Source: Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission "District Zoning Regulations" current through July, 1988.
(tab3-19)

-------
Legend
V/A Industrial
SXSNN Commercial
1	1 Office
Residential
rXXi Recreation
ttHia Special Uui
1 1 Water & Rlghta-of-Way
HMDC Boundary
/V Roadt
- Surface Water
/V Rallroade
/V Municipal Boundariaa
Figure 3-14
Generalized Zoning
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
¦	Parkside Residential—PR-1, PR-2 and PR-3
¦	Island Residential—IR-1, IR-2, and IR-3
¦	Planned Development Center—PDC-1
¦	Berrys Creek Center—BCC
¦	Transportation Center—TC-l,-TC-2, and TC-3
¦	Special Use—SU-1 and SU-2
3.8 Financing of Local Government Services
HMDC uses an intermunicipal tax-sharing system to redistribute tax revenues between
municipalities. Tax-sharing was developed to recognize that both the development and
preservation of land have costs and benefits that extend beyond the boundaries of individual
municipalities. A tax-sharing formula redistributes tax revenues from each of the 14
municipalities that comprise the District through a system of liabilities and credits.
The tax-sharing formula is based on the following factors: the percent of the District's land in
each municipality, the tax rate in each municipality, the number of school children residing in
the District, and the true valuation of all the property of each municipality in both the base year
(1970) and a comparison year. The base year represents the aggregate assessed valuations for
the calendar year 1970. The comparison year represents the current ratable base of the
municipalities. The comparison year is always two years prior to the current year. The
difference between the base and comparison years depicts the change in assessed value that has
occurred since the creation of HMDC.
The tax revenue computed by HMDC for each municipality is dependent on the true value of
land and improvements in the municipality and the effective municipal tax rate. An
apportionment rate is used to determine the revenue available from the municipalities to the
tax-sharing system. It is determined by multiplying the effective tax rate of each municipality by
the respective proportion of their budget that is not paid to the counties. For example,
Carlstadt's apportionment rate of 1.17 percent for the 1993 comparison year is derived by
multiplying their effective tax rate of 1.40 percent by the proportion of their budget for non-
county related items, which is 84 percent.
The apportionment rate is multiplied by the difference between the aggregate true assessed
valuations of the base year and the comparison year to yield the revenue available to the HMDC
tax-sharing system. For example, for the 1993 comparison year, Carlstadt's $812 million increase
in true assessed valuation between 1970 and 1993 is multiplied by the apportionment rate of 1.17
percent to yield $9.5 million ($61.8 million = District total). Carlstadt retains 60 percent of this
revenue, or $5.7 million. The remaining 40 percent, or $3.8 million, is Carlstadt's liability to the
tax-sharing pool. The total amount of the pool (minus $2 million in school service payments),
$22.7 million, is redistributed back to the municipalities. The actual adjustment payments for
calendar year 1995 amount to $10.9 million.
The municipalities are credited tax-sharing funds based on their land area in the District and for
increases in the number of students in their school system over the base year. Carlstadt
comprises 12 percent of the total land area of the District and has fewer students now than it did
in 1970. Therefore, it is credited 12 percent of the total tax-sharing funds ($22.7 million), or $2.7
3-77

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
million. Development or use of land is not considered in the distribution of tax-sharing funds,
only the total number of acres which each municipality has in the District.
Adjustment payments to/from municipalities are calculated by subtracting the total tax-sharing
funds of each municipality from the credits due to it. Subtracting Carlstadt's credits due of $2.7
million from its tax-sharing contribution of $3.8 million results in a required adjustment
payment from Carlstadt of approximately $1.1 million in 1995. While Carlstadt must pay an
adjustment payment, other municipalities receive adjustment payments. Municipalities which
receive payments have less assessed value per acre than other municipalities in the District, and
thus they are compensated for maintaining land in undeveloped status. This form of tax-
sharing is an important element in achieving area-wide planning.
3.9 Utility Infrastructure
The utilities of regional importance included in this study are sewerage, water, electric power,
and natural gas. The user base in the District for these services is approximately 72,000
employees and 15,000 residents. Public utilities are described below.
3.9.1 Wastewater Treatment
An important service present in the District is the collection and treatment of wastewater via the
sewage collection network and treatment plants. Four separate authorities operate this
infrastructure. The locations of these treatment plant discharges were presented in Figure 3-9.
The Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA) operates the largest wastewater treatment
facility in the District. BCUA treats an average of approximately 70 million gallons per day
(mgd) of wastewater collected from the residences and businesses in the towns of Ridgefield,
Little Ferry, Moonachie, South Hackensack, Teterboro, Carlstadt, and East Rutherford. This
plant has exceeded its 85% design capacity and has experienced problems with inflow (storm
water). Wastewater undergoes secondary treatment and is discharged into the Hackensack
River at River Mile 12.2. Since 1990, BCUA has received an additional 3.6 MGD flow from the
Tri-Boro Joint Meeting pumping station in East Rutherford.
North Bergen is served by the North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA) central
treatment plant located at the eastern boundary of the District. Currently, its daily flow is about
50% of its 10.0 MGD capacity, enabling it to provide advanced levels of treatment (although not
tertiary). It discharges into nearby Chromakill Creek.
The third sewage treatment plant in the District is the Secaucus Municipal Utilities Authority
(SMUA) Koelle Boulevard facility located in the north Secaucus area. This plant has recently
been upgraded from 2.8 to 5.1 MGD. The plant provides secondary level wastewater treatment
and discharges into Mill Creek. Now that the plant has become fully operational, the
Meadowlands Parkway Plant, which received approximately 0.6 mgd of wastewater, has been
decommissioned, and the wastewater that previously flowed to the Meadowlands Parkway
Plant has been redirected to the Koelle Boulevard facility.
Until very recently, in-District portions of Kearny, Jersey City, North Arlington, Rutherford, and
Lyndhurst provided their own sewage treatment. These municipalities operated plants that
3-78

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
were designed to provide primary treatment, but failed to achieve design treatment levels.
Rather than improve or construct their own facilities, these municipalities now pump their
wastewater out of the District. The wastewater is treated at the 330 mgd capacity plant operated
in Newark by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC).
The recent activities in sewage treatment in the District indicate a policy of consolidation by
eliminating smaller, inefficient treatment facilities and rerouting wastewater via pumping
stations to upgraded and expanded regional facilities. NJDEP actions with respect to the BCUA
NJPDES permit have indicated that the State has set a priority on improving the water quality in
the lower Hackensack (by relocating the BCUA outfall to the Hudson, by advanced treatment, or
by other methods).
Sewage collection networks typically begin with the lateral or collector mains (8", 10", and 12"
sizes) that follow local street systems. Residential sections of Little Ferry and Secaucus as well
as areas of industrial Carlstadt are served by such local collection systems.
Certain other areas of the District have limited collection systems which are serviced by one
central collector. Teterboro and Ridgefield, which have low-density uses such as an airport and
a public utility, have a sewage collection system that matches their comparatively small
requirements. East Rutherford's sewerage infrastructure is based on the centralized collection
system of the Sports Complex. North Bergen's in-District area is a narrow industrial corridor
that is serviced by one linear collection system. The greater share of its infrastructure is a system
of trunk/interceptor pipelines that transfer wastewater to larger regional facilities such as PVSC.
In-District Jersey City is predominantly characterized by heavy industry and transportation and
does not require an intensive local collection system. Wastewater service areas are shown in
Figure 3-15.
The wastewater collection infrastructure for the remainder of the District is insignificant in
extent. Unserved areas are characterized by absence of development or have uses that do not
produce substantial quantities of wastewater. Specific areas that meet this description include
the Kearny Marsh and vacant land uses in the southwest sections of the District. Very few
sewer lines are present in the District south of Berrys Creek and west of the Hackensack River
(the limited existing development in this area is located at the periphery of the District, and is
served by the sewer lines that are located near the periphery).
The most important element of the wastewater infrastructure are the trunk/interceptor mains
(48", 60", and 96" sizes) that bring the wastewater along Moonachie Avenue and across the
Hackensack River from the Ridgefield area to BCUA.
In general, the flow of wastewater in the system is by gravity. However, force mains and
pumping stations are used to convey wastewater upgradient to treatment sites in the elevated
areas of Secaucus and Little Ferry. The existing collection system of four subsystems correspond
to the four treatment facilities described above. They are distinctly separate from one another.
3-79

-------
Figure 3-15
Sewer Service Areas
CDM Pamp Dresser & McKee	Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
3.9.2	Water Supply
Water supply in the District is primarily provided by the Hackensack Water Company (HWC).
Its supply is drawn from the impounded northern waters of the Hackensack River. Stored in
four large reservoirs in northern New Jersey and Rockland County, New York, the water is
piped to the northern communities of the District. Among the HWC-supplied municipalities are
Carlstadt, East Rutherford, Little Ferry, Moonachie, South Hackensack, Teterboro, Ridgefield,
North Bergen, Secaucus, and Rutherford. In the western area of the District, the residents of
North Arlington receive their water from the Passaic Valley Water Commission. The Kearny
Municipal Utilities Authority (KMUA) provides water to the in-District portion of Kearny.
KMUA purchases treated water from the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission,
whose primary source is the Wanaque Reservoir. Water service areas are shown in Figure 3-16.
The Jersey City Department of Water provides water for users in Jersey City and Lyndhurst.
Water is delivered via Jersey City Aqueduct's two 72" steel mains. The aqueduct is supplied
with water from the Rockaway River watershed in Morris County, which drains to the Boonton
Reservoir, owned by Jersey City. In 1986, the average daily supply provided by the aqueduct
was 52 million gallons. This is the largest water transmitting infrastructure element in the
District.
Another set of large water mains (48-inch, 42-inch, and 36-inch sizes) follow the Belleville
Turnpike, also providing water to the Jersey City area. Secaucus is supplied with water through
24" pipes that follow NJ Routes 20 and 3. Other major water mains include the 30" lines that
feed North Ridgefield and the 24" Carlstadt main. Little Ferry and Carlstadt have an extensive
water distribution system, that uses 8" and 12" mains to serve local neighborhoods.
3.9.3	Electric Power
Electrical energy needs in the District are met, for the most part, by PSE&G's one in-District
facility and two powerplants and associated substations that are just south of the District. These
facilities transmit electricity over 138 kilovolt lines. The municipalities of North Bergen,
Secaucus and Jersey City receive their electrical energy from a coal burning generating plant
located at the southern end of Meadows Yards on the west bank of the Hackensack River.
The East Rutherford, Rutherford, and Lyndhurst sections of the District are serviced by the
Essex power plant in Newark. The Ridgefield facility on the Overpeck Creek at the northern
end of the District provides power for the municipalities of Carlstadt, Little Ferry, Moonachie,
South Hackensack, Teterboro and Ridgefield. The Kearny generating station on the lower
Passaic provide service to the in-District municipalities of Kearny and North Arlington.
3.9.4	Natural Gas
The Transcontinental Pipeline Corporation has two major pipelines in the District that run from
north to south along the western spur of the NJ Turnpike, from the gas storage facility site on
the Hackensack River to points west and outside of the District. These lines are part of a larger
network that spans the Atlantic seaboard (linking petroleum reserve in the Gulf of Mexico with
the New England area).
3-81

-------
Figure 3-16
Water Service Areas
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS

-------
TABLE 3-20
DEMOGRAPHICS AND EMPLOYMENT DATA FOR BERGEN AND HUDSON COUNTIES
AND THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT


Population




Location
Census
1970
Percent
Change
Census
1980
Percent
Change
Census
(990
Percent
Change
Projected
2010
Bergen County
Hudson County
Bergen & Hudson
Counties
897,147
607,839
1,504,986
-5.8%
-8,4%
-6.8%
845,385
5 56,97 2
1,402,357
-2.4%
-0.7%
-1.7%
825,380
553,099
1,378,479
8.60%
0.70%
5.43%
896.400
556,972
J,453,372
HMDC (a)
not available

13,340
13.6%
15,154


HMDC as a percentage
of Bergen and Hudson
Counties


0.95%

1.10%





Households




Area
Census
1970
Percent
Change
Census
1980
Percent
Change
Census
1990


Bergen County
Total Households
283,575
5,9%
300,410
2.8®
308,880


|Hudson County
ITotal Households
214,665
-3.2%
207,857
0.4%
208,739





Employment




Area
1911
Percent
Change
1980
Percent
Change
1986
Peicent
Change
Projected
2000
Bergen County
370,400
6.6%
394,900
12.1%
442,700
23.4%
546,500
Manufacturing
Nonmanufacturing
107,600
262,800
3.6%
7.8%
111,500
283,400
-10.89b
23.1<&
99.500
343,200
-0.7%
30.4%
98,800
447,700
Hudson County
231,800
-1.7%
227,800
4.0%
236,900
17.0%
277,200
Manufacturing
Nonmanufacturing
72,100
159,700
-5.0%
-0.3%
68,500
159,300
•23.6%
15.9%
52,300
184,600
-14.7%
26.0%
44,600
232,600
(a) estimated based on land use survey of housing prepared by HMDC
Sources: 1990 Census of Population and Housing, US Department of Commerce
1980 Census of Population and Housing, US Department of Commerce
NI Department of Labor, Votume III: Industry Outlook for Counties of New Jersey
[file; TAB3-20.XLS]

-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
A major gas pipeline runs from east to west along Paterson Plank Road and across the
Hackensack River to Secaucus. Secaucus has an extensive local distribution network with pipe
sizes ranging from 2 inches to 8 inches. Residential areas of Harmon Cove and Little Fellre
serviced by a gas distribution system. Carlstadt and the lower sections of Jersey City have a gas
line infrastructure that follows the local road network.	ty nave a gas
3.10 Population and Employment Profile
Recent information on population, housing, and employment have been evaluated for Bergen
County, Hudson County, and for the Meadowlands District. Since 1980, these locations havT
grown, indicating the strong pressures for economic development in this area. The general
demographic and economic characteristics are described below. Population and employment
data for the period from 1970 to 1990 is presented in Table 3-20.
3.10.1 Population
At present, the Meadowlands District does not contain a large residential population, which is
unusual given its proxmuty to employment opportunities in New York City and higi demity
residential areas m norftern New Jersey. The 1988 estimated population for the DistrictZL
on a land use survey of housing units prepared by HMDC) is 15,154 persons. Thus, about 10
Th n w t L T ("Ik n°PU of Bergen an
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
trend does not imply a decline in personal wealth or in housing demand; in fact, increasing
housing costs have created the appearance of lessened housing demand in many areas although
there is substantial unfulfilled demand for affordable housing.
The number of households in Bergen and Hudson Counties increased during the 1970s and
1980s as the population declined. From the 1980 Census to 1990 estimates, a total of 9,300 new
households were added in both counties, an increase of about 2.0 percent.
The population growth in the Meadowlands estimated between 1980 and 1988 may be
attributable to the greater inventory of vacant land in the District than in most other parts of
Hudson and Bergen Counties, and hence, greater availability of land for residential growth. The
data also suggest that the population increase in the Meadowlands may be an advance
indication of a larger pattern in which the population decline in Bergen and Hudson Counties
will stabilize and perhaps shift toward a moderate growth trend, as projected by the NJ
Department of Labor.
Based on NJ Department of Labor (NJDOL) forecasts, Bergen and Hudson Counties are both
expected to increase in population in the future, reversing recent population losses. NJDOL
forecasts indicate a population increase in Bergen County of 8.5 percent, from 825,380 in 1990 to
896,000 in 2010. The population of Hudson County is projected to increase 7.5 percent in the
same period, from 533,099 in 1990 to 573,000 in 2010 (NJDOL, 6/89). The population of the
District is expected to increase at a faster rate than the two counties overall, based on the recent
growth trends in the District compared with moderate decline in Bergen and Hudson Counties.
3.10.2	Households
In Bergen County the number of households increased from 1970 to 1990, as shown in Table
3-20. In Hudson County the number of households decreased from 1970 to 1980, and increased
slightly from 1980 to 1990. From 1970 to 1980, total households increased 5.94 percent in Bergen
County from 283,575 to 300,410 and increased 2.8 percent from 1980 to 1990, to 308,880. From
1970 to 1980, total households decreased 3.17 percent in Hudson County from 214,665 to 207,857,
and increased by 0.4 percent from 1980 to 1990, to 208,739.
Vacant housing uruts constituted approximately 5 percent of all housing units in Bergen County
and 9.1 percent of all housing units in Hudson County, in 1990.
3.10.3	Employment
Employment data by industry sector for 1986, with projections to the year 2000, has been
prepared by the NJ Department of Labor. Employment information for Hudson and Bergen
Counties is shown in Table 3-20. Specific data for the District are not available.
The manufacturing sector is expected to decline in both counties, but much more sharply in
Hudson County, which has an older industrial base and possibly a larger concentration of
declining manufacturing subsectors than more suburban Bergen County. The trend toward
decreasing numbers of manufacturing jobs and stability or increases in other sectors is similar to
that exhibited throughout the state of New Jersey and the United States. Overall employment is
3-85
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
expected to grow by 23 percent between 1986 and the year 2000 in Bergen County and by 17
percent in Hudson County
3 11 Community Facilities
This section describes existing community facilities that serve the District, including recreational,
educational, health care, and religious facilities Police and fire protection services are also
described Because community facilities are commonly located in residential areas, many of the
facilities cited below are not located within the District, but instead in the residential areas
outside the District boundaries
3 111 Recreation and Aesthetic Facilities (Parks and Preserves)
For purposes of this discussion, recreational and aesthetic facilities in and around the District are
divided mto two categories (1) Existing and proposed facilities within the District (shown on
Figure 3-17) and (2) Existing facilities outside District boundaries, but within municipalities that
he partially within District boundaries There are fewer parks in the first category—within the
District—than in the second However, many of the latter are located near the District's
perimeter
The Hackensack River is the central open space corridor of the District Its banks accommodate
both active and passive recreation, including trails, mannas, and waterfront parks
The HMDC Environment Center, one of the major providers of recreational and educational
opportunities m the District, is located at the center of Richard W DeKorte Park Overlooking
the Kingsland Creek impoundment and Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area wetlands,
the Center conducts various programs and educational seminars on estuanne ecology, solid
waste management, and other environmental programs Hiking, bird watching, and canoeing
trips are also offered by the Center Other park elements completed at DeKorte Park include
Shoreline Park and Kingsland Overlook, landfill reclamation projects with views of the
impoundment and the New York skyline, Marsh Discovery Trail, connecting a string of islands
through the impoundment, Transco Trail, a unique public/private project that converted a gas
pipeline utility roadway mto a public nature trail, and Lyndhurst Nature Reserve, a landfill
reclamation effort that turned an island of residential garbage into a lushly planted nature study
area with spectacular vistas
The Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area, a wetland and wildlife preserve, is located
across the border of North Arlington and Kearny The Wildlife Management Area is 720 acres m
size, and is under the jurisdiction of the State
The Meadowlands Sports Complex is the largest recreation facility within the District Serving
the New York Metropolitan Region, the complex includes a racetrack that features both horse
and harness racing, Giants stadium, a professional football stadium, and the Brendon Byrne
arena, where professional hockey and basketball are played, and where musical events and
expositions are scheduled
3-86
-------


Legend

Major Community

Facllttaa
/\'
HMDC Boundary
/V
Boada
/ V
Surfaca Wttar
/V
Ralrotda
/V
Municipal Boundirtai
Figure 3-17
Major Community Facilities
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee	Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
Snipes Park in Secaucus has recently been added to the inventory of District parks. This park is
a 18-acre facility along the Hackensack River that includes a pedestrian trail and picnicking
areas.
The Losen Slote Park, in Little Ferry, has also recently been completed. This facility is a 22-acre
park that includes a nature preserve as well as active recreational facilities such as a roller rink
and a tot lot.
Since 1986, the number of in-District parks and recreational facilities has increased from 9 to 12
in number and the land area has increased from 700 acres to 825 acres. Additional detail on
existing parks within and near the District are shown in Table 3-21. With the exception of the
Meadowlands Sports Complex and DeKorte Park, the majority of completed existing
recreational facilities within the District are in Secaucus.
3.11.2	Educational Facilities
A number of educational facilities are located in and adjacent to the District. In East Rutherford
the Regional High School (grades 9-12) is located on Paterson Avenue and Cornelia Street.
Lincoln Elementary School (grades K-4) is on Vreeland Avenue. In Secaucus, Clarendon
Elementary School (grades K-6) is on 5th Street, Secaucus Middle-Secondary School (grades 7-
12) is on Millridge Road, and Secaucus High School (grades 7-12) is located on Mill Ridge Road.
In Woodridge (which is out of, but adjacent to the District), the Woodridge High School (grades
7-12) and Ostrobsky Middle School (grades 5-6) are both located on Hackensack Street. In Little
Ferry, Washington School (grades K-2) and Memorial School (grades 3-8) are both located on
Liberty Street. In Moonachie, Robert L. Craig School (grades K-8) is on West Park Street. The
Grant School (grades K-6) is located on the corner of Teaneck Road and Henry Street in
Ridgefield Park. In Carlstadt, the Lincoln School (grades K-4) is located on 7th Street. In North
Arlington, there is the Wilson School (grades K-7) on Argyle Street, and the Roosevelt School
(grades K-7) on Second Street.
Day care centers and nursery schools in or adjacent to the Meadowlands District include the
Learning Tree on Second Street and St. Matthews on Roosevelt and Paterson Plank Roads in
Secaucus, and Holy Trinity Lutheran on Liberty Avenue in North Bergen. These facilities have
groups of 35-70 children ranging in age from 2.5 to 6 years. There is also a YMCA on Orient
Way in Rutherford. Employers in the District may also offer day care arrangements within their
facilities.
3.11.3	Health Care Facilities
Three hospitals are located in or adjacent to the District. These are the Meadowlands Hospital
and Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center (200-bed facility) on the Meadowlands Parkway,
and Meadowview County Hospital (400-bed facility) on County Avenue. Both these facilities
are in Secaucus. In addition to these two facilities inside the District, the West Hudson Hospital
(250-bed facility) is located on Bergen Avenue in Kearny, outside of the District.
There are two senior citizen centers in or near the District. The Southwest Bergen Regional
Senior Citizen Center is a multi-purpose health and recreation center on Hackensack Street in
3-88
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
East Rutherford. It currently has about 160 members. The South Hackensack Senior Center,
with 127 members, is located on Phillips Avenue in South Hackensack.
3.11.4	Religious Facilities
Places of worship in or adjacent to the District include: St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church at
Hackensack Street and Hoboken Road in East Rutherford; English Neighborhood Reformed
Church at Edgewater Avenue and Church Place in Ridgefield; Good News Bible Mission on
Dales Avenue in Jersey City; New Durham Baptist on Tonnelle Avenue, Holy Trinity Lutheran
on Liberty Avenue, and Grove Reformed Church on 46th Street, all in North Bergen; the Church
of Our Savior on 191 Street and Highway #153, St Matthew's Lutheran on Roosevelt Avenue &
Paterson Plank Road, First Reformed Church of Secaucus on Center Avenue, and Immaculate
Conception on Paterson Plank Road—all in Secaucus.
3.11.5	Police Protection
Because most residents of District municipalities actually live outside the District's boundaries,
the local police stations are also outside the District. The number of officers per thousand
residents ranges from 1.8 in North Bergen to 8.1 in South Hackensack; most of the municipalities
are in the range of 2.5 to 4.0 officers per thousand residents. However, it should be noted that
while residences are limited within the District, the substantial employment also requires police
protection. Thus, standard per resident ratios are not sufficient to describe the need for police
protection in the District.
3.11.6	Fire Protection
All the municipalities within the District have volunteer fire departments except Jersey City,
Kearny, and North Bergen, which have paid departments. Teterboro contracts with the
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights for fire protection. As noted for police protection, the significant
number of businesses in the District require fire protection, in addition to the more limited
number of residences. Only one fire station is located within the District, on County Avenue in
Secaucus.
3.12 Transportation
The District is located in the middle of one of the most densely populated and heavily traveled
areas in the United States. Not only is the District surrounded by New Jersey's most populous
cities, it also serves as a gateway to New York City. Highways—including the eastern and
western spurs of the New Jersey Turnpike, US Route 1 and 9, and NJ Route 3—crisscross the
District, bringing cars and trucks to and from New York City. Trucking companies have used
the concentration of highways, and the proximity of markets, to locate major terminal facilities
within the District, increasing the amount of truck traffic experienced on local roadways.
Rail lines also crisscross the District, bringing commuters to and from Manhattan, and freight to
and from the major freight terminals serving the metropolitan area. Rail operations facilities,
such as switching and maintenance yards are located in several parts of the District. Passenger
rail lines that pass through the District include the Northeast Corridor, which serves both
AMTRAK intercity trains and NJ Transit's Northeast Corridor and North Jersey Coast Line
3-91
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
trains, and four other commuter lines operated by the Hoboken Division of NJ Transit: the
Boonton Line, the Bergen Line, the Main Line, and the Pascack Valley Line. Freight lines include
Conrad's Kingsland Branch, Northern Branch, and West Shore Line; the South Intermodal
Yards; and the New York, Susquehana and Western Railroad.
3.12.1 Existing Highway System
The District is served by a variety of major roadways including limited access facilities such as
the New Jersey Turnpike, major state highways such as US Routes 3 and 17, and other local
distributor and collector facilities (see Figure 3-18). The following sections briefly describe the
physical characteristics of important highway facilities in and around the District.
New Tersev Turnpike/Interstate Route 95. The New Jersey Turnpike is a north-south limited
access toll road with a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph). The Turnpike passes
through the center of the District, and serves both through traffic and Meadowlands-related
traffic. Just to the south of the District, it consists of a twelve lane roadway, with three lanes
each way dedicated to cars only. Between Interchanges 14 and 15E (still to the south of the
District), it divides into two separate roadways. Within the District, the eastern spur is a six-lane
roadway with two interchanges in the Secaucus area (16E and 17E), which serve State Route 3,
US Route 1 and 9, and Interstate Route 495, with access to Manhattan via the Lincoln Tunnel.
The western spur consists of a six-lane roadway from interchange 15E through interchanges
15W (1-280), 16W (State Route 3), and 18W (Meadowlands Sports Complex). North of
interchange 18W, the western spur becomes a four-lane roadway. The eastern and western
alignments of the Turnpike then merge together to form a ten-lane roadway in Ridgefield, just
south of interchange 18E. North of interchange 18E (serving US Route 46), the roadway reduces
to six lanes and becomes Interstate Route 95, which merges with Interstate Route 80, and crosses
the George Washington Bridge into Manhattan.
state Route 3. State Route 3 is a six- to eight-lane roadway that runs east-west through the
middle of the District, with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Within the District, the highway
serves both through traffic between New Jersey and New York City, and local Meadowlands
traffic, by providing access to the Sports Complex, major office complexes, and other commercial
and residential developments such as the Mill Creek Mall and the Secaucus Shopping district, as
well as the North Bergen Park and Ride facility at Route 1-495. In Secaucus, the eastbound and
westbound service roads provide two additional lanes in each direction parallel to Route 3.
These service roads are signed for 45 mph and serve predominantly local trips.
qfate Route 120. The southern terminus of Route 120 is located at Route 3 in East Rutherford,
where it is a six-lane north-south roadway with a posted speed of 50 mph. At Washington
Avenue, north of the Sports Complex, Route 120 becomes an east-west arterial known as
Paterson Plank Road.
fttate Route 17. Route 17 is a north-south roadway which runs parallel to the western boundary
of the District. Along the western border of the District, most of the roadway north of Route 3 is
a six-lane facility with a 50 mph speed limit and commercial developments along both sides of
the roadway. The segment of Route 17 south of Route 3, also known as Ridge Road, is a two-
lane facility passing through a mostly residential area and having a posted speed limit of 30
3-92
-------
TABLE 3-21
(continued)
NAME & LOCATION'
ACRES
FACILITIES
Bergen County - Municipal - So. Hackensark
Veteran's - Phillips Avenue
Bergen County - Municipal - Tptprhnm
one park less than 2 acres
Hudson County - Regional
Liberty State Park
Hudson Cnuntv - County
Lincoln - Jersey City (Duncan Ave &
Lincoln Highway)
Washington - Jersey City/Union
(Paterson Plank Road)
West Hudson - Keamy Harrison
(Duke St/ Schuyler Ave.)
Hudson County - Municipal - Jersey City
Leonard Gordon - Kennedy Blvd.
Pershing Field - Central/Manhattan Aves.
Hudson County - Municipal - Keamy
Fairlawn Manor - Jefferson & Bennet Aves.
Gunnell Oval - Schuyler/Oakwood Aves.
Harvey Field -Schuul, Berg & Garfield Aves.
Kearny H.S. - King St./Garfield/Devon St.
Riverbank Park - Passaic Ave. & River
Veteran's Memorial Field - Belgrove Dr./
Bergen Ave.
Veteran's Playground - Hickory/Oakway/
Spruce Street
Twelve parks less than 2 acres
Hudson County - Municipal - North Bergen
46th Street -46th St.
64th & Kilkenny Field
Seven parks less than 2 acres
Hudson County - Municipal - Secaucus
••Buchmuller - the Plaza
"Kane Stadium - Dorigo Lane/Win«or Dr.
••Mill Ridge Field • Mill Ridge Road
••Shetik Field - County & Jefferson Avej.
"Snipes Park
Four playgrounds (unknown acreage)
base/softbail, basketball, bocci, picnic, playground
250	viewing, hiking
500	passive recreation
39	football, soccer, base/softball, basketball, bocci, golf course,
trace cross county course, tennis, handball, street hockey
243	passive recreation
8	football, soccer, base/softball, basketball, bocci, tennis
13	passive recreation
5	football, soccer, base/softball, basketball, bocci, tennis
5 basketball, handball, playground, tennis
14 base /Softball, tennis, basketball, bocci, ice skating, playground
track
2	football, base/softball, basketball, playground
23 football, soccer, base/softball, basketball, handball, playground
tennis
7 soccer
3	football, track
16 ice skating, playground, tennis
13 football, soccer, base/softball, basketball
2 street hockey, basketball, playground
4 base/softball
10 football, base/softball
5	base/softball, basketball, ice skating, playground, tennis
5	base/softball, street hockey
2	base/softball
3	base/softball, street hockey
18	passive recreation
'••Bold text and asterisk* indicate that the park is located within Hackensack Meadowlands District.
Sources: HMDC Master Plan, Environmental Operations, Emgineering Staffs, 1991.
Open Space Plan Report
TAB3-21.XLS
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
mph. The southern terminus of Route 17 is at State Route 7 in North Arlington. Route 17
primarily serves through traffic between the major highways that it crosses, but also serves as a
collector and distributor roadway for local trips.
US Route 46. Route 46 is a four- to six-lane east-west roadway located just north of the District.
The posted speed limit ranges from 40 to 50 mph. Route 46 provides local access to all
commercial establishments along the facility and, at the same time, serves the through traffic to
major routes such as Route 17,1-95/NJ Turnpike, and Route 1 and 9.
US Route 1 & 9. Route 1 and 9 is a north-south roadway that runs parallel to the eastern
boundary of the District. At the southeastern corner of the District, at the Tonnelle Avenue
Circle, the roadway divides into Route 1 and 9 (Tonnelle Avenue), which runs parallel to the
District boundary, and Route 1 and 9 Business, which connects with the Holland Tunnel. The
posted speed limit on the mostly four-lane Tonnelle Avenue ranges from 40 to 45 mph.
Interstate Route 495. Route 1-495 is a six-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. Its
eastern terminus is located at the Lincoln Tunnel and its western terminus is at the New Jersey
Turnpike in Secaucus. The highway mainly serves through traffic and provides access between
New Jersey and midtown Manhattan.
Interstate Route 28Q- The eastern terminus of Route 1-280 is located in the southwestern corner
of the District at Turnpike interchange 15W. The roadway is mostly a six-lane limited access
facility with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. It serves the regional traffic between Hudson
County and central Morris County through Essex County, and provides access for
Meadowlands traffic to Essex County and other regional facilities such as Routes 1-287 and 1-80.
It also provides a connecting route for traffic headed to and from the Holland Tunnel and
downtown Manhattan.
Collector/Local Facilities
A list of important collector and local facilities in and around the District and their features is
presented in Table 3-22.
Existing Public Transit System
Bus service is the primary mode of public transportation within the Meadowlands. While
commuter rail lines do operate through the Meadowlands, at the present time orvly the Bergen
Line, stopping at Harmon Cove, and the Pascack Valley Line, stopping in Teterboro and in
Wood-Ridge, provide stops in the Meadowlands area. In contrast, eighteen public bus routes
and six private routes served in the District in 1988. New Jersey Transit provides service on the
public routes, while private companies offering routes in the Meadowlands include DeCamp
Hudson Bus Company, Friendly Bus Company, Bergen-Passaic Bus Company, and Sansoria
Transportation Services, Inc. Table 3-23 lists available information regarding bus route number
and the origins and distributions of all bus operations.
3-93
-------
Table 3-22
VIDEO INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING HIGHWAY SYSTEM IN THE HACKENSACK-MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
ROADWAY
COUNTY
MUNICIPALITY
NO. OF LANES
PER DIRECTION
SPEED
(MPH)
AREA
CHARACTERISTICS
1) Meadowlands
Parkway
Hudson
Secaucus
1	(No. of Rt. 3)
3 (Rt. 3 to Amer. Way)
2	(Amer.Way to Harmon Cove)
1 (South of Harmon Cove)
40
offices, warehouses, outlets,
Riverside Hospital, Harmon
Towers, Hess facilities at
North end
2) New County Road
Hudson
Secaucus
2
25
industrial and warehouses
RR Crossings
3) County Avenue
Hudson
Secaucus
1	(south of NJ Tpk Ramp)
2	(north of NJ Tpk Ramp)
40 (so. of
Secaucus Rd.)
25 (no. of
Secaucus Rd.)
industrial, residential-office,
outlets
4) Secaucus Road
Hudson
Secaucus, Jersey City
Union City
2 (west of Enterprise Ave.)
1 (east of Enterprise Ave.)
30
outlets, warehouses,
industrial. Undeveloped
land east of NJ Turnpike
5) Enterprise Avenue
Hudson
Secaucus
1 NB, 2 SB (no. of Secaucus Rd.)
1 in each direction (so. of Secaucus
Rd.)
25
warehouses, offices, outlets
6) Metro Way
Hudson
Secaucus
1
25
warehouses, offices, outlets
7) County Road
Hudson
Secaucus/Union City
1
25
industrial, Croxton Train
yard, Postal facility
8) 10th Street
Hudson
Secaucus
1
25
residential, some office
9) Route 153 (Old Rt. 3)
Hudson
Secaucus
1
25
residential
10) Harmon Meadow
Boulevard
Hudson
Secaucus
2
30
Harmon Meadow Mail
11) Plaza Drive
Hudson
Secaucus
2
30
office
12) Park Place
Hudson
Secaucus
2
30
office
-------
Table 3-22
VIDEO INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING HIGHWAY SYSTEM IN THE HACKENSACK-MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
(CONTINUED)
ROADWAY
COUNTY
MUNICIPALITY
NO. OF LANES
PER DIRECTION
SPEED
(MPH)
AREA
CHARACTERISTICS
13) Patcrson Plank Rd.
Hudson
Secaucus (from
Hackensack River to
West Side Ave.)
2
25 (H. River
to Rt. 153) 35
(Rt. 153 to Rt
3 WB Service
Rd) 30 (Rt. 3
WB Service
Rd. to West
Side Ave.)
industrial, commercial,
offices, some wetlands
north of Rt. 3
14) Union Turnpike
Hudson
Secaucus
2
30
industrial, warehouses
15) West Side Avenue
Hudson
North Bergen
2
35
industrial, warehouse,
office, undeveloped land
16) Poiito Avenue
Bergen
Lyndhurst
1
25
office
17) Valley Brook Avenue
Bergen
Lyndhurst
1 (wide)
25
industrial, offices,
warehouses, landfill, Poor H
road conditions
18)	Chubb Ave.
19)	West Wall St
20)	Clay Ave.
Bergen
Lyndhurst
1
25
offices, wetlands
21) Washington Avenue
Bergen
Carlstadt
2 + center turn lane
40
offices, warehouses, small
commercial
22) Washington Avenue
Bergen
Little Ferry
1
30
residential, spot commercial
23) Veterans Boulevard
Bergen
Carlstadt
1
35
offices, warehouses parking
on both sides |
-------
Table 3-22
VIDEO INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING HIGHWAY SYSTEM IN THE HACKENSACK-MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
(CONTINUED)
ROADWAY
COUNTY
MUNICIPALITY
NO. OF LANES
PER DIRECTION
SPEED
(MPH)
AREA
CHARACTERISTICS
24) Gotham Parkway/
Commercial Ave.
Bergen
Carlstadt
1 (wide)
35
offices, warehouses,
parking on both sides
25) Commerce Road
Bergen
Carlstadt
1
35
industrial, warehouses
26) West Commercial
Ave./Commercial
Ave. Extension
Bergen
Moonachie
1 (wide)
35
offices, warehouses
parking on both sides
27) Moonachie Road
Bergen
Moonachie
1
35
residential, light
commercial
28) Moonachie Avenue
Bergen
Moonachie
1 + center turn lane
40 (E. of
commercial
Ave.) 30 (W.
of Commercial
Avenue)
industrial, warehouses,
Teterboro airport.
Commercial & residential
west of Route 17
1 29) Industrial Avenue
Bergen
Teterboro, Hasborouck,
Heights
1
35
industrial, Teterboro
airport
| 30) Murray Hill Parkway
Bergen
East Rutherford
2
35
industrial, warehouses,
wetlands
| 31) Paterson Plank
1 Road/Route 20
Bergen
Carlstadt East
Rutherford
(from Rt 17 to the
Hackensack River)
2 (west of Washington Ave.)
1 (east of Washington Ave.)
40
industrial, commercial
| 32) East Union Avenue
Bergen
East Rutherford
2
35
commercial, offices
33) Red Neck Avenue
Bergen
Moonachie
1
40
residential with some
warehouses
SOURCE: Technical Memorandum #4: Inventory of Existing Conditions, Sept. 1988; Ebasco Services Inc.
-------
TABLE 3-23
EXISTING BUS ROUTE SYTEM
Route No.
(NJ Transit
unless noted
otherwise)
Origin
Destination
322	Meadowlands Park & Ride
321	Vince Lombardi Park & Ride
320	Lincoln Tunnel Park & Ride
101/192/193	Pompton Lakes, Willowbrook, Packanack Lake, Clifton
195	Willowbrook
165	Westwood
164	Midland Park
163/164	Hackensack/Hasbrouk Heights
163	Ridgewood
161/162	Paterson-Passaic
160	Elmwood Park
121	North Bergen/Union City
85	Jersey City
78	Newark
40	Kearney
76	Hackensack
P3	Paterson
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
PABT, NYC
Secaucus
Secaucus
Port Newark
Newark
E. Rutherford
Note: PABT = Port Authority Bus Terminal
(tab3-23)
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
3.12.2 Transportation Conditions
This section is a description of the transportation network serving the Hackensack
Meadowlands District and an assessment of its existing condition. The data used to perform
this analysis are based on work performed during and prior to 1988 and use 1988 as the base
year of the analysis. In addition, outputs from the existing Meadowlands Transportation Model
have been used to generate vehicle and travel data that will be used as inputs to the estimation
of mobile source emissions for the air quality assessment.
The intensity and diversity of development within and adjacent to the Hackensack
Meadowlands (and the larger region within which it is located) has provided an interesting and
complex transportation network providing for local and through travel for goods, services and
people. The various subsections of this transportation assessment describe the highway and
transit networks; traffic and travel statistics; and some outputs from the Meadowlands
Transportation Model that describe the existing transportation conditions.
The existing highway network functions include District circulation and distribution of trips
from outside the District; trips that begin in the District and end outside; trips that both begin
and end outside the District (through trips); and trips that both begin and end within the
District. These functions (or trip origin and destination combinations) will likely require
expansion in the future as the region continues to develop. Figure 3-18 shows the basic freeway,
turnpike, highway and street network that serves the study area and portions of the
surrounding region. Table 3-22 provides an inventory and area characteristics of many of the
segments of the District's highway system, which totals over 2,000 miles.
Traffic and Travel Statistics. Traffic counts (from the period 1983 to 1987) and origin/destination
surveys (from 1988) indicate current traffic conditions and travel requirements and patterns that
define the baseline condition. Available traffic counts for the peak hour are shown for important
roads in Table 3-24.
An origin/destination (O/D) survey was conducted by HMDC in 1988. The survey was
directed to employees at 223 companies in the area and resulted in a return of 11,336 surveys for
a response rate of 41 percent. With respect to the origins of Meadowlands employees, 72
percent came from the four-county surrounding area of Hudson, Bergen, Essex and Passaic.
Another 19 percent came from other New Jersey locations. New York City and other New York
State origins accounted for 7.5 percent while the remaining 1.5 percent come from "other areas".
Destination statistics also provided significant insights to travel behavior. A key finding that
influenced the formulation of the travel demand model was that different employment sectors
had different destination patterns. The large diversity in types of employment in the
Meadowlands area resulted in a more complex model than might otherwise have been
developed and applied. Destination employment types included the following:
3-98
-------
Table 3-24
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON MAJOR
ROADWAYS IN THE MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT AREA
ROADWAY
SECTION
DIRECTION
A.M.
P.M.
DIRECTION
A.M.
P.M.
Route 3
Btn Route 17 & NJTPK (West)
EB
5600
4300
WB
4800
5250
Route 3
Btn NJTPK (West) & NJPTK (East)
EB
4600
4600
WB
4600
4300
Route 3
Btn NJTPK (East) & Route 1/9
EB
3300
3500
WB
4100
3200
NJTPK
Btn Exits 15W & 16W
NB
5300
5000
SB
5200
4900
NJTPK
Btn Exits 16W & 18W
NB
4000
3800
SB
3900
3800
NJTPK
Btn Exits 15E & 16E
NB
5200
4900
SB
4800
5100
NJTPK
Btn Exits 16E & 18E
NB
3200
3600
SB
3800
3200
Route 17
Btn Route 7 & Route 3
NB
550
630
SB
450
760
Route 17
Btn Route 3 & Paterson Plank Road
NB
2800
2150
SB
2500
2750
Route 7
Btn Route 21 and NJ TPK
EB
800
420
WB
520
750
Route 46
Btn Route 17 and NJ TPK
EB
2350
2650
WB
3320
2550
Route 1/9
Btn Route 18 & 495
NB
1250
1560
SB
1530
1300
Route 1/9
Btn Route 495 & 46
NB
1000
1360
SB
1380
1150
-------
Table 3-24 (continued)
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON MAJOR
ROADWAYS IN THE MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT AREA
ROADWAY
SECTION
DIRECTION
A.M.
P.M.
DIRECTION
A.M.
P.M.
Route 20
Btn Route 3 & 17
NB
1860
1900
SB
1850
1870
Meadowlands
Parkway
Btn Route 3 & Secaucus Road
NB
750
2850
SB
3000
800
Se caucus Rd.
Btn Madowlands Parkway & County Avenue
EB
400
1850
WB
1450
750
County Ave.
Btn Secaucus Road & County Road
NB
800
850
SB
500
400
Terrace Rd.
Btn Hoboken Road & Passaic Avenue
NB
380
750
SB
300
380
Moonachie Rd.
Btn Paterson Plank Road & Route 46
NB
520
970
SB
1000
520
SOURCE: Technical Memorandum #4: Inventory of Existing Conditions, Sept. 1988; Ebasco Services Inc.
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
¦	manufacturing
¦	wholesale
¦	warehouse
¦	unclassified/other
¦	office
¦	mixed use (office/warehouse)
¦	retail
¦	sports complex
Other pertinent travel characteristics were also noted. Use of transit (7.6 percent), as presented
in Table 3-25, is quite high for this type of area and is also high given that rail transit service is
not provided in much of the area. Also, there is an indication that an even larger percentage of
employees could legitimately be considered potential transit users because 15.7 percent of
Meadowlands employees do not have an automobile available to them.
Another important aspect of travel statistics is accident data. Table 3-26 presents accident rates
for major area roads compared to average rates for similar roadway types in New Jersey. Table
3-27 lists seven high accident locations in the area. These data will be useful in assessing the
impacts of future traffic patterns and how they may affect these and other high volume
intersections.
Transportation Model and Outputs. When revisions to the HMDC Master Plan were beine
considered, HMDC contracted for the preparation of a Hackensack Meadowlands
Transportation Model This model, which was developed in advance of the SAMP/EIS
proves a framework for the evaluation of the impacts of alternative development scenarios on
he transportation network, particularly highways. Because of the large number of land uses in
the area and the results of the Origin/Destination Survey (hat showed high correlation between
land use, employment sector, and both trip generation and distribution, the model was
configured to allow 30 di ferent land use types, ranging from landfill, to high school, to sports
complex, wenty-one different tap distribution patterns are applied to describe the dispersion
of trips to and from the District based on employment sectors.
The District is divided into 52 transportation analysis areas, or zones. The number of these
transportation zones used in the model totals 135 to account for travel that originated and
travels to zones outside the District. The highway network used in the model includes 1 511
links (highway segments) and 545 nodes (highway intersections or locations where the physical
characteristics of the highway segments change). The zonal map is shown in Figure 3-19 and the
highway network is shownin Figure 3-18. For analysis purposes, the highway network has also
been aggregated into 32 different link types for flexibility in describing highway travel
characteristics.
Baseline transportation conditions (1988) have been modeled for the District and results are
provided m Table 3-28. This modeling provides a simulation of existing traffic flows, and will
be used to evaluate existing conditions against the impact of the SAMP alternatives. These
summary statistics in Table 3-28 are particularly appropriate for characterizing the highway
network efficiency (average speed and capacities). This information is also used in the
3-101
-------
Table 3-25
MEADOWLANDS EMPLOYEE SURVEY
CAR AVAILABILITY BY EMPLOYMENT TIME
EMPLOYMENT
TYPE
TRANSIT
%
% OF TOTAL
EMPLOYEES
WITH NO CAR
AVAILABLE
% OF TOTAL
TRANSIT
USERS WITH
NO CAR
AVAILABLE
% OF TOTAL
NON-
TRANSIT*
USERS WITH
NO CAR
AVAILABLE
Manufacturing
5.1
12.7
88.0
7.6
Warehouse
6.5
21.0
94.0
14.5
Office
4.8
5.8
71.0
1.0
Retail
8.7
18.0
90.0
9.3
Wholesale
6.2
11.6
71.0
5.4
Other
11.7
21.0
94.0
9.3
Combined
11.4
21.2
94.0
9.8
Mixed
(Office/Warehouse)
7.0
25.2
95.0
18.2
Sports Complex
0.4
18.0
100.0
17.6
Average
(Meadowlands
District)
7.6
15.7
88.0
10.3
Non-Transit Users get to work by car/vanpooling or other modes of transportation.
-------
Table 3-26
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL ACCIDENT RATE (YRS. 1984-1987)
TO AVERAGE OF 1984 AND 1985 STATE RATES
ROAD
ACTUAL
RATE*
AVERAGE
STATE
RATE FOR
SIMILAR
ROADWAY
TYPE*
DIFFERENCE
1. Moonachie Avenue
8.3
8.62
-0.32
2. Washington Avenue
7.9
7.72
+ 0.18
3. Moonachie Road
7.82
7.00
+ 0.82
4. County Avenue
7.03
7.31
-0.28
5. Secaucus Road
1.26
5.60
-4.34
6. New County Road
2.09
9.22
-7.13
7. Patarson Plank Road
6.10
8.90
-2.80
8. Newark - J.C. Pike
3.31
8.14
-4.83
9. Redneck Avenue
2.17
4.93
-2.76
10. Orient Way
17.30
7.00
+ 10.30
11. Main Street
9.24
7.00
+ 2.24
12. S.R. 17
4.73
3.70
+ 1.03
13. S.R. 46
9.78
4.14
+ 5.64
14. S.R. 1/9
9.50
5.88
+ 3.62
15. S.R. 7
6.70
6.20
+ 0.50
16. S.R. 3
2.99
1.77
+ 1.22
17. S.R. 20
4.26
4.27
-0.01
I1	I [
15 Rate unit is accidents/million vehicle mile
Source of State Rates: New Jersey Department of Transportation
-------
Table 3-27
HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS ON MAJOR ROADWAYS IN THE HMD AREA
INTERSECTION
LOCATION
NO. OF ACCIDENTS
(1984-1987)
1) State Rt. 46 &
Bergen Turnpike
Little Ferry
172
2) State Rt. 3 &
State Rt. 495
North Bergen
98
3) State Rt. 17 &
Franklin Avenue
Hasbrouck Heights
98
4) State Rt. 7 &
Whittpen Bridge
Kearny
88
5) State Rt. 1/9 &
76th Street
North Bergen
81
6) County Avenue &
Secaucus Avenue
Secaucus
42
7) County Avenue &
Patterson Plank
Road
Secaucus
42
Intersections 1-5 are the highest awident locations for the state roadways while intersections
6 and 7 are the county level HALs.
-------
USTINC or	mm AREA 2DHES
104
105
1 oc
10)
101
>13
in
lis
lie
ii?
LOCATIOH
Taterboro
Airport
c«r}it«de mti
{eland Rea i
-------
Table 3-28
HIGHWAY NETWORK PERFORMANCE STATISTICS
LINK
VEHICLE
—
TYPE
COUNT
TOTAL
AVE
LINK
DISTANCE
HOURS
HOURS
% UTIL-


DIST
SPEED
CAPACITY
travelled
TRAVELLED
OF
DELAY
IZATION
1
25
2155
3149
116265.
96312.
2965.
1213.
82.84
2
20
3.60
27.81
10890.
3971.
143.
55.
36.46
3
14
4.20
23.78
8880.
4353.
183.
59.
49.02
4
49
99.40
4039
885820.
589742.
14602.
4773.
66.58
5
4
1.20
7.15
11400.
14313.
2002.
1684.
125.55
6
6
4.40
3336
23320.
11344.
340.
56.
48.64
7
12
14.20
19.78
16680.
12220.
618.
312.
73.26
8
28
15.40
2354
33020.
24160.
1027.
423.
73.17
9
4
9.80
35.09
49880.
23870.
680.
150.
47.85
10
2
1.00
23.86
2400.
1674.
70.
22.
69.73
11
18
7.10
29.67
13120.
2971.
100.
15.
22.64
12
30
31.20
25.80
126820.
103408.
4008.
1423.
81.54
13
14
10.40
16.49
8320.
5498.
333.
176.
66.08
14
28
730
16.28
9600.
3370.
207.
95.
35.10
15
26
26.30
23.62
70480.
35544.
1505.
489.
50.43
16
8
3.80
1232
3400.
1338.
109.
70.
39.35
17
16
9.20
29.24
24580.
9864.
337.
56.
40.13
18
38
35.30
33.98
131250.
98944.
2912.
933.
75.39
19
26
32.20
30.77
90240.
73774.
2397.
922.
81.75
20
6
2.40
13.66
5360.
5015.
367.
242.
93.57
21
80
347.80
38.09
2010180.
1419828.
37272.
11457.
70.63
22
4
3.80
36.08
4560.
2570.
71.
14.
56.37
23
44
13 32
3.90
13728.
3170.
812.
685.
23.09
24
42
17.80
11.92
16240.
8552.
718.
473.
52.66
25
54
12.82
11.46
13636.
4402.
384.
237.
32.28
26
44
17.82
22.83
23960.
11495.
504.
216.
47.98
27
166
82.00
8.25
64080.
40819.
4945.
3312.
63.70
28
102
51.40
18.89
49880.
23970.
1269.
470.
48.05
29
156
111.20
15.61
116700.
79196.
5073.
2810.
67.86
30
85
74.64
27.14
105761.
61319.
2259.
726.
57.98
31
4
8.00
32.69
6720.
4842.
148.
41.
72.05
32
356
82238
24.88
8223800.
67074.
2696.
13.
0.82

1511
1902.93
31.29
12290970.
2848921.
91055.
33622.
23.18
SUM OF ONE WAY LINKS IN THE NETWORK -	1511
NUMBER OF DUMMY LINKS IN THE NETWORK (DISTANCE *0) -	0
NUMBER OF LINKS INCLUDED IN ABOVE SUMMARY -	1511
NUMBER OF LINKS AT FREE-FLOW STATE -	482
NUMBER OF LINKS BETWEEN FREE-FLOW AND CAPACITY -	888
NUMBER OF LINKS AT OR OVER CAPACITY -	141
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
characterization of air quality in the District (vehicle miles traveled—VMT, vehicle hours
traveled—VHT, and congestion—hours of delay).
The percent utilization column in Table 3-28 is equivalent to a Volume/Capacity ratio (V/C
Ratio) times 100 and reflects the relationship between how many vehicles a section of highway
carries and the number of vehicles the highway was designed to carry. The lower the number,
the better, in terms of an ability to handle additional vehicles effectively. Also, the hours of
delay for a link type may be large while the percent utilization is low. This can occur where
many vehicles use the roadway and, while individual vehicle delay is small, the total delay
becomes large. It is interesting to note that nearly 10 percent of the total network links are at or
over capacity while over 50 percent are between free flow and capacity conditions.
3.13 Air Quality
The Hackensack Meadowlands District is located in the heart of a regional transportation
network and, in addition, contains a range of industrial activities that affect air quality. Since the
original Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, significant improvements in air quality have been
achieved within the District. Levels of carbon monoxide have decreased 49% during the past 20
years; however, carbon monoxide continues to be a persistent problem. Over the same time
period, ambient levels of particulates, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead have decreased
58 /o, 30 /o, 71 /o and 90 /«> respectively. Ozone levels also appear to have improved but long term
trends for ozone are less apparent (1993 NJ Air Quality Report).
3.13.1	Criteria and Categories
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six pollutants
(criteria pollutants), all of which are monitored by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) as part of the maintenance and reporting requirements of the State
Implementation Plan. The criteria air pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
particulates (PM10), lead, carbon monoxide and ozone. The NAAQS have been established for
the purpose of protecting the public health and welfare, and are divided into primary and
secondary standards. The primary standards are intended to protect public health with an
ample margin of safety. Secondary standards are intended to protect the public welfare from
known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Air basins or regions are classified as attainment or nonattainment areas for the criteria
pollutants depending upon whether the NAAQS have been exceeded. Ozone attainment areas
are further classified as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme depending upon the
degree of exceedance of the ozone standard. Particulate (PM10) and carbon monoxide
nonattainment areas may be designated as either moderate or serious.
3.13.2	Sources of Emissions Within the District
Both transportation and stationary source emissions contribute to air quality impacts in the
Hackensack Meadowlands District. Major north-south highway routes that act as linear sources
of air pollution emissions include the New Jersey Turnpike at the center of the District; and State
Route 17 and US Route 1 & 9 at the western and eastern district boundary, respectively. The
3-107
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
major east-west travel routes include State Route 3 which travels through the middle of the
District; US Route 46 and Interstate Route 80 located north of the District; the Pulaski Skyway
(US 1 & 9); and Route Interstate 280 at the southern end of the District. An emissions source
inventory of major industrial sites within a 10 km radius of the approximate center of the
Hackensack Meadowlands District has been obtained from NJDEP.
A review of the NJDEP stationary sources inventory for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions
identified thirteen sites within the search radius with CO emissions greater than 50 tons/year.
Six of the thirteen sites were located within, or near, the District boundary. All in-District sites
would have the potential to generate greater than 100 tons/year of CO emissions. Total
emissions reported for CO ranged from approximately 735 to 2,900 tons/year, for an estimated
total emissions of 6,500 tons/year. During peak hour traffic conditions, the six in-District sites
would have the potential to contribute in excess of 2,000 lbs/hour of CO, while those sites
located outside of the District boundary would have the potential to contribute an additional
62,000 lbs/hour of CO emissions.
A review of the NJDEP stationary sources inventory for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions
identified 31 sites within the search radius with NOX emissions greater than 50 tons/year. Of
the thirty-one sites, twelve sites were located within, or near, the District boundary. Emissions
of NOX for sites located within the District ranged from approximately 52 to 46,000 tons/year,
for an estimated total of 75,000 tons/year NOX emissions. Sites outside the District would have
the potential to contribute an additional 21,000 tons/year to the in-District total. During peak
hour traffic conditions, in-District sites would have the potential to contribute approximate NOX
emissions of 24,000 lbs/hour, while those sites located outside the District boundary would have
the potential to contribute another 6,000 lbs/hour of NOX emissions.
3.13.3 Existing Air Quality
The Hackensack Meadowlands District is located in an air basin (the NY, NJ, CT Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Area) classified as "high Moderate 2" for carbon monoxide
nonattainment. The air basin, as a whole, must demonstrate attainment with air quality
standards by December 31,1995. (However, because of recent violations, the area may obtain a
one-year extension. Up to two one-year extensions are permissible. Alternatively, the area may
be elevated to the highest classification for carbon monoxide—"Serious"—which has a
December 31, 2000 attainment date.) The New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions,
which are intended to plan for the achievement of the NAAQS, were due to be submitted to
EPA November 15, 1992, in accordance with the timetable established in Title I of the Clean Air
Act of 1990. Some of the tools NJDEP may use in achieving attainment throughout New Jersey
include having the SIP contain provisions for reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), supplying
oxygenated gasoline, and producing economic incentives to reduce stationary source carbon
monoxide emissions by 5% per year until attainment occurs.
The air basin containing the District is classified as "Severe 2" for ozone nonattainment and must
demonstrate attainment by November 15,2007. Two primary precursors exist for ozone
formation, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, whose emission reductions
throughout all of New Jersey will have to be addressed in the SIP revisions. A reduction of
emissions from both transportation and stationary sources is likely to be required for ozone in
3-108
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
the air basin. Transportation-related reduction techniques may include motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance programs, Stage II vapor recovery at gasoline dispensing facilities, "clean"
fuels, vehicle based vapor recovery, Employer Trip Reduction programs, and enforceable
transportation control measures to reduce VMT. Generally, the Clean Air Act of 1990 provides
for granting offsets (bankable credits granted to a facility for reducing its emissions below
emission limits) of up to 30 percent for stationary source reduction techniques for modifications
and retrofit of reasonable available control technology on existing sources, to achieve at least
15% reduction of regional emissions.
Portions of the District (including Jersey City and all of Hudson County) are in a total
suspended particulate (TSP) nonattainment area. The state TSP standard is enforced, but the
federal standard is in the process of being phased out. The 12-month geometric mean secondary
standard of 60 micrograms per cubic meter is violated periodically at special-purpose
monitoring sites and lead monitoring sites.
The District, and surrounding areas, are classified as attainment for particulates (PM10),
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead.
The quantitative description of existing air quality conditions is based upon the 1993 Air Quality
Eepfllt published by NJDEP, Division of Environmental Quality, dated May 1994.The report is
a summary of New Jersey air quality data compiled for 1993 from the statewide monitoring
station network. The North Bergen air quality monitoring station is located at the eastern
boundary of the District. This station monitors ambient air quality for carbon monoxide. The
Cliffside Park location monitors for ozone, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, and the Union
City location monitors for Total Suspended Particulates (TSP), inhalable particulates (PM10) and
lead. The four monitoring locations in Jersey City monitor for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
inhalable particulates, total suspended particulates and lead. Figure 3-20 presents the
monitoring locations throughout northeastern New Jersey. Table 3-29 lists the pollutant
concentrations measured at each monitoring station within and near the District during 1993.
Measured data is also compared with the National and New Jersey Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
The 1993 air quality report for monitoring stations near the District indicates that several criteria
pollutants are approaching or have exceeded the applicable New Jersey or National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. When comparing the 1993 maximum pollutant concentrations to the
standards, all the pollutants are below their respective primary (health-based) standard.
However, the 1993 maximum concentration for ozone at Cliffside Park (0.115 ppm) is very close
to the primary standard for ozone (0.12 ppm). In addition, while the 1993 maximum
concentration for carbon monoxide was lower than the primary standard, unpublished data for
1994 provided by NJDEP indicates that the maximum eight-hour concentration of carbon
monoxide at the North Bergen monitoring station was 11.6 ppm (the primary standard for this
averaging period is 9 ppm).
Since the air basin's baseline air quality exceeded the NAAQS for ozone and carbon monoxide
proposed development alternatives within the District, as well as those throughout the
remainder of New Jersey, will have to demonstrate a reduction in air quality impacts for these
pollutants. Proposed transportation alternatives will have to result in lower VMT, vehicle hours
3-109
-------
Paterson
Cliftoi
East Orange
Newark
Elizabeth
Ha
-------
TABLE 3-29
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
EXISTING AIR QUALITY
Pollutant
Monitoring
Station
Site
Code
Averaging
Period
1993 Maximum
Concentration
New Jersey and
Air Qualify
Primary
National Ambient
/ Standards
Carbon Monoxide
No. Bergen
S
1-hour
8-hour
12.9 ppm
11.6 ppm"
35 ppm
9 ppm
35 ppm
9 pom
Jersey City1
N
1-hour
8-hour
8.2 ppm
5.9 ppm
35 ppm
9 ppm
35 ppm
9 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Cliffside Park
S
3-hour
24-hour
12-month
0.075 ppm
0.031 ppm
0.010 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.03 ppm
0.5 ppm
0.10 ppm
0.02 ppm
Jersey City1
N
3-hour
24-hour
12-month
0.071 ppm
0.040 ppm
0.012 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.03 ppm
0.5 ppm
0.10 ppm
0.02 ppm
Inhalable Particulates
(PM10)
Ozone
Union City
S
Annual
24-Hour
26.4 ug/m3
64 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
150 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
150 uu/m3
Jersey City2
N
Annual
24-Hour
34.4 ug/m3
93 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
150 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
150 u$»/m3
Jersey City3
S
Annual
24-Hour
23.9 ug/m3
62 ug/m3
250 ug/m3
350 ug/m1
250 ug/m3
350 ug/m3
Jersey City3
Cliffside Park
SPM
S
Annual
24-Hour
1-hour
25.1 ug/m3
64 ug/m3
0.115 ppm
450 ug/m3
550 ug/m3
0.12 ppm
450 ug/m3
550 ug/m3
0.08 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
Total Suspended
Particulates
Cliffside Park
Union City
S
SPM
annual
12-month
24-hour
0.029 ppm
50.5 ug/m3
129 ug/m3
0.053 ppm
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
0.053 ppm
60ug/m3
150 ug/m3

Jersey City2
SPM
12-month
24-hour
55.4 ug/m3
144 ug/m3
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
60ug/m3
150 ug/m3

Jersey City4
SPM
12-month
24-hour
43 ug/m3
113 ug/m3
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
60ug/m'
150 ug/m3
Lead
Jersey City2
N
3-month
0.053 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
" nnniihlkhp.rl 1994 rlafa nr
Union City
nvirfp/1 hv MTF\C
S
'D
3-month
0.035 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
Monitoring Stations
Jersey City1
Jersey City2
Jersey City3
Jersey City4
Union City
Cliffside Park
North Bergen
2828 Kennedy Blvd.
355 Newark Ave.
555 Duncan Ave.
Erie and Bay Streets
714 31" St.
Accomando Place & Cedar St.
3401 Tonnele Ave.
Site Codes:
S - State and Local Air Monitoring Sites (SLAMS1 - fulfill f,«Woi		 ¦
.... . . „.	luitill federal monitoring requirements for the Statp
N - National A r Monitoring Sites (NAMS) - subset of <51 a ms	. , .	'
) sunset or SLAMS which must comply with stricter siting criteria
and reporting requirements.
SPM - Special Purpose Monitors - fulfill special needs or purposes which are not federally required.
Souififi: 1993 Air Quality Report, NJDEP Bureau of Air Monitoring, May 1994
[file: TAB3-29.XLS]
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
traveled and congestion. Proposed stationary and area source alternatives will have to
demonstrate a net reduction in emissions of carbon monoxide and ozone precursors (i.e., volatile
organic compounds and nitrogen oxides).
3.14 Noise
This section presents background information on current environmental sound levels in the
District. Refer to Appendix H for an explanation of how noise is measured and a description of
relevant noise regulations, standards and guidelines that would apply to development in the
Hackensack Meadowlands.
A fundamental purpose of any noise impact analysis lies in exploring the potential cause-and-
effect relationships between impact generators and impact receivers (especially sensitive
receptors). Usually, the noise impact analysis assumes that the potential for causing impact
resides in the proposed project, and that the impact, if any, will be borne by the project's
neighbors. Background environmental sound level data provides information useful in
determining whether existing noise generators could have adverse noise impacts on any of the
prospective uses outlined in the SAMP alternatives. As such, background environmental sound
levels may be used in making decisions about appropriate land use siting and configuration.
3.14.1 Background Environmental Sound Levels
Representative ambient sound levels in the District have been determined from review of noise
monitoring data from the Environmental Impact Statement for the widening of the New Jersey
Turnpike project and from noise monitoring conducted for the SAMP EIS. Typical sound levels
associated with the major land uses in the District, residential, commercial, transportation, and
open space, have been assessed. The following presents the results of this assessment.
Five locations in the District were modeled in 1984 for peak hour traffic 1-hour sound levels
attributable to Turnpike traffic. These locations are shown in Figure 3-21. Table 3-30 presents
the results of this monitoring, as conducted for the 1986 Turnpike Widening proposal.
To complement the sound level data shown in Table 3-30, environmental noise monitoring was
conducted on October 9,1991 at the following four locations in the District. The locations are
also shown in Figure 3-21.
Location 1. Behind the HMDC Environment Center in Lyndhurst; this location was selected to
represent a typical natural, open space environment in the District.
Location 2. Off Chubb Avenue in Lyndhurst; this location represents a typical
commercial/industrial area found in the District.
Location 3. At the east end of Avenue A in Carlstadt at the boundary of the Empire site;
representative of the background sound level at the Empire site.
Location 4. At the end of Castle Road at the boundary of the Allied Junction site;
representative of the background sound level at the Allied Junction site.
3-112
-------
Legend
~
1984/1987 Note* Monitoring

Location
•
1991 Noif* Monitoring

location
A/
HMDC Boundary
/V
Roads
A '
Surfaca WMar
/V
Railroads
A/
Municipal Boundaries
Source:
Louis Beraer & Associates
-	technical Study Vol V,
Air Quality & Noise, 1986.
-	Turnpike Widening Study, 1985-1989.
CDM, 1991.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Figure 3-21
Noise Monitoring Locations
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS
-------
TABLE 3-30
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
PEAK HOUR SOUND LEVELS ATTRIBUTABLE TO NJ TURNPIKE TRAFFIC
Peak Hour L^
Location	 (dBA)
A - Meadowlands Hospital, Secaucus 58
B - Hilton Hotel Pedestrian Path, Secaucus 61
C - Hagen Place, Secaucus 64
D - River Road, Secaucus 55
E - Edgewater Drive, Ridge field	 71
Source: New Jersey Turnpike 1985-90 Widening; Final Environmental Impact Statement, New
Jersey Turnpike Authority, September 1987.
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
The October 9,1991 monitoring covered up to six distinct 15 to 20-minute periods during the
day and evening at each of the four locations in order to define representative existing ambient
sound levels throughout the day and evening. Noise measurements were made using a Gen
Rad Model 1988 precision (type 1) integrating sound level meter.
The lowest and highest measured daytime Leq sound levels and the estimated nighttime Leq
sound levels at each location are shown in Table 3-31. Also shown are the morning and evening
peak hour Leq sound levels and the day-night average sound level (Ldn).
As shown in the tables, Ldn levels and peak hour sound levels are, with one exception, in
compliance with the HUD 65 dBA Ldn criterion and the FHWA 67 dBA Leq criterion respectively
for residential areas although the margin of compliance is small in some cases because of the
high background sound levels in the District. Existing ambient sound levels in the District
typically exceed the performance standards for noise established in the District zoning
regulations for residential areas.
The October 1991 data when considered with the earlier data indicate a relatively noisy
environment in the District. Major causes of these high levels are motor vehicle traffic and
overhead aircraft. The high volume of air traffic over portions of the District elevates sound
levels even in areas at some distance from motor vehicle traffic. This is illustrated by the noise
studies conducted for the NJ Turnpike widening project which showed that overhead aircraft
raised peak hour ambient sound levels by as much as 9 dBA over a one-hour period. This was
also particularly the case at monitoring location No. 1 which was significantly influenced by
aircraft noise.
3.15 Cultural Resources
The following description of the known and suspected cultural, archaeological, and historical
resources of the District is excerpted from Phase 1 of the Stage 1A Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation of the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey, prepared by Grossman and
Associates, Inc. for the SAMP/EIS (see Appendix I for the full Stage 1A report). Four maps from
the Stage 1A report are included here as Figures 3-22, 3-23, 3-24 and 3-25. Phase 1 of the Stage
1A study was restricted in scope and detail to a general basin-wide (as opposed to parcel-
specific) sensitivity evaluation of the historical and archaeological resource potential of the
District, focusing on the results of previous Cultural Resource Survey Evaluations, documentary
treatments and institutional records for the District. Based on the basin-wide results of the
Phase 1 study, a more detailed and parcels-specific study was conducted (as Phase 2 of the Stage
1A evaluation), and is discussed in Section 5.16 of this EIS.
3.15.1 Extent of Coverage and Findings of Previously Conducted Cultural
Resource Surveys in the District
Although portions of the Hackensack Meadowlands have been subjected to various levels of
archaeological and historical evaluations in the past, for the most part these studies have been
restricted in both scope and area to relatively small parcels, or segments of larger areas of
development. In addition, many of the previous studies have been burdened by vestiges of 19th
century assumptions and attitudes concerning the nature and antiquity of the Meadowlands,
3-115
-------
TABLE 3-31
ENERGY-EQUIVALENT AND DAY-NIGHT ENERGY
EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVELS AT NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS
IN THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
(October 9,1991)

Energy-equivalent levels (L^,)
AM
PM
Day-night

Lowest Highest

peak hour
U.
peak hour
Lea
energy
equivalent
Monitoring
Location
Daytime Daytime
(dBA) (dBA)
Nighttime
(dBA)
(dBA)
sound level
(dBA)
1
62 68
51
65
66
64
2
61 72
52
61
63
65
3
55 63
49
63
58
58
4
56 66
50
66
58
59
(tab3-3l)
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
viewing it as a static environment in need of reclamation and as inhospitable by "modern" living
standards. Based upon previous investigations, numerous resources have been identified which
are relevant to this study and have been integrated into the maps included later in this section.
Several of the more informative cultural resource surveys and their findings are outlined in the
full Stage 1A report (Appendix I).
3.15.2 Prehistoric Resources in the Hackensack Meadowlands
Although limited in number by the general lack of previous systematic survey and testing
programs, and by biases and outmoded assumptions concerning presumed static nature and
archaeological potential of the drainage, the archaeological sensitivity of the now inundated
tidal marsh is clearly indicated by two major lines of evidence. The first line of evidence derives
from earlier written accounts of former Native American occupations on and around areas of
high ground such as the Secaucus Ridge and the phalanges of Laurel (formerly Snake) Hill to
the south (see Figure 3-22). In addition, an unverified report in the New Jersey State Museum
files also indicates that some prehistoric materials had been found in the low-land marsh
environment along Penhorn Creek. In addition to these limited, and as yet unverified secondary
references, to the presence of archaeological sites within the basin, the presence of Native
American populations during and prior to the advent of European settlement in the 17th
century is clearly mdicated by a number of early references to land purchases or grants of land
from former Indian holdings and from a series of historic references. What later became the
town of Secaucus was initially transferred in a grant to Peter Stuyvesant in 1658. Further up the
dramage in 1656 the Dutch also built a small trading post near the confluence of Hackensack
River and Overpeck Creek which was also purported to have been situated near a main village
of the Hackensack Lenape. Located immediately north of Meadowlands HMDC boundary this
confluence area is also reported to contain the remains of a contact period fortified Native
American fort which came to be known as "Castle Hill." These limited secondary references
contain little to help pinpoint the precise locations of these contact period settlements, but do
suggest strongly that the Hackensack drainage was well populated by Native American
residents in the 17th century, if not long before.
The second line of evidence derives from the recently revised characterization of the
environmental history of the drainage, and from various sources pertaining to regionally specific
models of marine transgression. As recent cases of the inundation of historic structures, and the
rising water table corroborate, the scientific literature has been explicit in projecting a regional
rate of sea level rise of between ca. 1 and 1.5 meters per millennium over at least the last two to
three thousand years. This increase in shoreline high water marks and associated inland
intrusions have, as was highlighted above, resulted in the inundation of formerly habitable land
along the banks of the Hackensack River during the period of well documented prehistoric
Native American occupation in the region.
fri addition, the study of dated pollen cores in the peat of the Meadowlands has established that
it was a constantly changing environment, that the modern marsh grasses are only several
hundred years old in the area, that cedar stands first appeared and then receded between 800 to
500 years before present (B.P.), and that prior to that, the Meadowlands appear to have consisted
of dryer conditions with mixed hardwood forests bordering fresh water streams between 1500
and 2,000 years B.P. This evidence of coastal marine transgression combined
3-117
-------
Figure 3-22
fo)
E
fi?
E
Ł
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
MAP A - PREHISTORIC AND 17TH C.
RESOURCES IN PR NFAR THE H.M.D.
•• HMDC Boundary (CDM 1991)
Faslland Edge (Vermeule 1087)
hb Waterline (Vermeule 1887)
5^ Cedar Swamp (Vermeule 1887)
HISTORIC
Native American Village ~
NftHwrhnrst Trnriinq Post «
17th r. Klnosland alulce ante •
English Neighborhood
(Gimigliano, et al. 1979:pp. 29,
32. and 37,)
I 1656 Dutch Fort ~
I Village of •A^hlnkeshokv' «
I 'Indian Cantle or Fort'
(Kardos tc Larabee 1975:p.1.)
~ Various authors
PREHISTORIC
Reported Prehistoric sito
(Artemel 1979, item 94»
Rutsch 1978 13-njh 2)
Reported Prehistoric site
(Artemel 1979, item 96-NJH 4]
Prehistoric Potential
GROSSMAN * ASSOCIATES, INC.
	 FEBRUARY, 1983	
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
with the pollen data provides a viable, if not tentative, basis for projecting the potential survival
and preservation of former prehistoric occupation sites along the banks of the primary
tributaries of the Hackensack Drainage. Based on these lines of environmental evidence and in
addition to the specific localities of previously reported archaeological finds on points of high
ground near Secaucus and Laurel Hill, two environmental zones can now be highlighted as
potentially archaeologically sensitive: 1) areas of high ground within the Meadowland today,
and 2) bands of now inundated, but formerly dry land along the banks and the confluences of
the primary stream tributaries.
3.15.3	Historic Settlement, Land Use, and Archaeology in the Hackensack
Meadowlands
In addition to the review of available primary and secondary documentary sources, the
treatment of the historic archaeological potential of the Hackensack Meadowlands focused on
the evaluation of available 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century cartographic sources for the region.
The reliability of this data set was tempered by two major limitations in the available record.
Area specific coverage was not uniform, or comparable in resolution, for either each period or
for each particular county, borough, locality, etc., within the HMDC project boundary.
Additionally, due to the scale and resolution of most of the map sources, and the extent of the
District itself, it is difficult to get beyond general locational definitions for resources that are
identified on historic maps, but are not extant or have not already been archaeologically located.
Essentially, the settlement and land use history of the Hackensack Meadowlands has centered
on the two interrelated themes of 1) economic exploitation through resource extraction, and 2)
the development of transportation networks. From the seventeenth century to the present, the
Hackensack Meadowlands have served as a source of raw materials, including salt hay, copper,
cedar, water power, and plant and animal foods, for the people of the neighboring towns and
industrial centers. At the same time, the Meadowlands have been a significant part of major
transportation networks that brought resources from America's interior to the international
ports lining New York Harbor. Beginning with the early turnpikes and railroads which led to
ferries on the Hudson River, and continuing with the interstate highways of today leading to
international airports and through tunnels to New York City, the culture history of the
Hackensack Meadowlands has been intimately tied to developments in local and regional
transportation systems.
3.15.4	Seventeenth Century Settlement and Land Use
During the seventeenth century, the Hackensack Meadowlands appear to have remained mostly
undisturbed by the early Dutch and English settlements which were most strongly concentrated
along the Hudson River to the east, and Newark Bay and the Raritan River to the south. Figure
3-22 shows approximate locations for the important 17th century resources identified. The first
areas of settlement in the immediate vicinity of the District were Bergen and Paulus Hook (now
both part of Jersey City), which were colonized in the 1620's and 1630's. During the next two
decades, however, conflicts between the Native Americans and the European settlers resulted in
the destruction of some Dutch settlements, and harsh reprisals against the Native Americans.
As a result of these Dutch and Indian wars, the fortified Town of Bergen was settled in 1655 and
incorporated in 1668. The citizens of this small and easily defensible town are believed to have
3-119
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
had control over huge plantations that extended into the meadows, which were the beginnings
of a long history of attempts to agriculturally exploit the land within the District. Furthermore,
Hammond's 1947 depiction of historic property lines in the Town and Township of Bergen show
several 17th century divisions along the east shore of the Hackensack River, south of Penhorn
Creek. Notations on the map suggest that this land was used for maize, grazing, and wood.
European settlement also occurred near Little Ferry in 1641, when the Dutch patron VederHorst
placed a trading post at the convergence of several Indian paths on the west bank of the
Hackensack River, just south of the confluence with Overpeck Creek. This trading post was
destroyed, however, in 1643, due to the Dutch and Indian raids mentioned above. Despite the
warfare, trade was still continued in the "Achter Col" region (the name given to the area near
the confluence of the Hackensack River and Overpeck Creek), which remained without a
trading post until 1656, when "Achinkeshaky" (Hackensack) fort was built. Although
undoubtedly located near the creek and the river, its specific location is not known. The initial
European settlements and contact period Native American villages along the Hackensack River,
appear to have been clustered in the 17th century to the north of the project boundary, possibly
at the edge of the then current tidal fresh water/salt water buffer zone; but this is only
speculation (see Figure 3-22).
The Hackensack Meadowlands were originally part of several land patents. Among these were
the New Barbadoes Patent, purchased by William Sanford in 1668, which included 10,000 acres
of meadow, and the current towns of Kearny, Lyndhurst, North Arlington and Rutherford; the
Berry Patent, which was purchased in 1669 and included the areas of East Rutherford, Carlstadt,
Moonachie, and Little Ferry; and the Secaucus Patent, purchased in 1663 by Governor
Stuyvesant. Settlement began to occur in the higher ground surrounding the Hackensack River
basin when these early patents were subdivided in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. These
early towns included Bergen (Jersey City), Hackensack, Newark and Acquackanonk (Passaic),
and were settled primarily by Dutch from Manhattan and Long Island, with the exception of
Newark, which was settled by English from Connecticut.
The earliest form of transportation employed by the European settlers in the vicinity of the
Hackensack Meadowlands was likely to have been primarily by boat, due to the location of the
early settlements along the major rivers and the difficulty in crossing the meadows. However,
before the development of roads, overland routes were provided by improved Indian trails.
The analysis of the seventeenth century historic maps, in particular, was hampered by their
large scale and lack of detail, with the exception of Hammond's (1947) depiction of 17th century
property lines in the Town and Township of Bergen. In addition, aside from generalized
references to the economic exploitation of local resources such as salt hay by the early Dutch
settlers, no specific 17th century activity areas or specific zones of economic exploitation could
be identified from documentary and cartographic sources within the District.
3.15.5 Eighteenth Century Settlement and Land Use
Contemporary with the late 17th and 18th century growth of a number of small towns on the
ridges bordering the Hackensack Meadows, was the exploitation of the natural resources in the
valley below them, by the shores of the Hackensack River. This growth is represented by a
3-120
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
continued series of land grants and subdivisions which extended from the earlier lots near
Penhorn Creek north to Chromakill Creek, along the eastern edge of the District (see Figure
3-23). The development suggests that this now inundated area was both open for settlement
and comprised of arable land as late as the 18th century. The economic activities which are
likely to have been conducted in the Hackensack Meadowlands included fishing, hunting,
harvesting of salt hay and cedar trees, and using some of the area for pasture. Righter (1978)
stated that,
"During the late 1600's, throughout the 1700's, and into the late 1800's,
small scale wetland industries were operated in the vicinity of Secaucus.
Living trees of white cedar and submerged logs were used in ship
building, to construct plank roads, and for the manufacture of lumber and
shingles; cattails and large marsh grasses were collected for thatch and to
make chairmats and other items; and meadow cordgrass was mowed
frequently to provide bedding for animals and insulation for ice that was
cut during the winter."
'1 ^ ^"n8'0n- °n the Wuffs 10 the west ofHackensack Meadowlands and just outside
of the HMDC project area, eighteenth century economic activity was centered around Arent
Schuyler s Copper Mine (see Figure 3-23. No. 1). Schuyler's Mine, which is shown on Robert
S f.V01C!nary era maP °'the area< was reported to have been discovered prior to
1719 by a Negro slave on the Schuyler plantation."
As of the writing of The V/PA Guide to 1930S New Jersey, the ruins of these mines were reportedly
in the face of a cliff along Schuyler Ave. 0.2 miles north of Belleville Pike. Much loose earth had
reportedly fallen into the mine's two entrances, and exploration was considered dangerous.
Below the mines, and also on the cliff, were the remains of a pump house that had been used to
work the mine.
The first roads in the area were also laid out in the eighteenth century to transport the people
and resources from the towns in the interior of New Jersey, across the marsh and meadows, to
the ports along the Hudson River which provided ferry service to the port of New York. In
1768, John Schuyler built a cedar log road along the route of the current Belleville Pike, from his
copper mine in North Arlington, to Bergen. Other sources suggest that the turnpike, which was
originally called Schuyler Rd., "was built by sailors from the British fleet anchored in New York
harbor during the Revolution in order to furnish an outlet for the copper needed in the
manufacture of munitions. However, aside from two skirmishes between British troops and
patriots at Secaucus in 1780, most sources suggest that Revolutionary War era activity in the
Hackensack Meadowlands was limited primarily to the use of the roads and the raiding of farms
by both sides.
The early road network crossing and bordering the Hackensack Meadowlands is shown on
Robert Erskine s 1776 map of the area. This included a road from Powles (Paulus) Hook on the
Hudson River to Bergen (Jersey City), which then continued in three directions. One road
extended north from Bergen through the "Bergen Woods" to "3 Pidgeons", where it connected
with another road from "Hobuck Ferry" and "Wharsk Ferry" and then continued north along
3-121
-------
Figure 3-23
MAP R - 1BTH CENTURY RESOURCES
IN OR NFAR THE H M D.
HMDC Boundory (COM 1991)
Roads (Hammond 1947)
Cedar Swomp (Erskine 1776)
17th and 18th century Lot
Divisions from the early (1600's)
land patents (Hammond 1947)
0 Schuyler Copper Mine (NJHSI:
1625.*;Vermeule 1887)
@ Belleville Pike Former plank
road known as Schuyler's
road to the river, (NJHSI:
1625.1)
® Douw's Ferrv. House ond
landings (Rutsch 19 79:p. 200)
0 Hockcnsock River bridgc(?)
(Rutsch 1979:pp. 53, 200;
@ Tavern (Hommond 1947)
(fi) 'Indian Spring' (Hommond 1947)
wc-
I
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
the eastern edge of the marsh. The road running north from Bergen is in the general alignment
of the later historic Hackensack or Bergen Road, and US Route 1 and 9. A "Tavern" is indicated
on the east side of the road to Hackensack, at "Three Pidgeons", on Hammond's 1947 map of
historic Bergen property lines (see Figure 3-23). Another unnamed road, presumably Schuyler's
Road (now Belleville Tpke.), headed slightly northwest across the Hackensack River, through
the "Salt Meadows" and the "Cedar Swamp", past Schuyler's copper mine, and then turned
north along the Passaic River. A third road, probably Douw's Ferry Road, later called Newark
Turnpike, stretched south from Bergen, and then turned west across the Hackensack River,
through the "Salt Meadows", across the Passaic River, and continued to Newark where it
connected with roads to "Aquacknunck" (Passaic) to the north, to Elizabethtown to the south,
and to Chattam to the west.
At the point where the roads to Newark and to Schuyler's mine crossed the Hackensack River
and meadows, ferry crossings were established. Douw's Ferry ran from the Hackensack River
crossing near Schuyler's dock, and was superseded by the Hackensack River Bridge in 1794 (see
Figure 3-23). A 1785 diary entry by a Robert Hunter Jr., described traveling along what appears
to have been the road to Newark, on his way from New York to Philadelphia. "We were just a
quarter of an hour crossing the North [Hudson] River to Paulus Hook, in the state of New
Jersey, where we found the coach ready to set off with us immediately... About four miles on we
ferried the Hackensack River, which is half a mile across and empties itself into the sea near
Newark. Half a mile further on we crossed the Passaic River (in a scow)..."
The available 18th century maps were comparatively more extensive and highly detailed than
the 17th century maps. However, despite this enhanced resolution and level of coverage, clearly
definable 18th century settlement activities within the HMDC project area appear to be relatively
limited both in number and scope.
3.15.6 Nineteenth Century Settlement and Land Use
As depicted on Figure 3-24,19th century development was demarcated by the introduction of
road and rail networks across the Meadowlands, by the establishment of historic settlements on
high ground, mills and clay mines, as well as land "reclamation" efforts in the form of early
dikes, sluiceways, and networks of drainage ditches throughout the District. While a few of
these 19th century historic resources have been surveyed as part of New Jersey State or
Federally mandated cultural resource investigations, most notably along rail and highway
corridors, the majority of these localities are known only through secondary references, with few
having been systematically studied and/or documented according to current state or federal
standards.
In addition to the nineteenth century cultural resources identified in earlier surveys, this report
highlights what appears to have been a previously undocumented series of early to mid-19th
century mills, which were situated beside the upland headwaters of both major and minor
tributaries of the Hackensack River (see Figure 3-24, Nos.4,13-15).
Some of the earliest nineteenth century residential settlement within the District is indicated on
Hopkins' (1861) Civil War era map. A series of houses and a school are shown along the
western side of what is now Washington Avenue, from the Paterson Plank Road to Moonachie
3-123
-------
Figure 3-24
UNION
CITY
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
MAP C - 19TH CENTURY RFSOURCFS
--- HMDC Boundary (CDU 1991)
--- Railroads (Vormeule 1887)
Dikes (Vormeule 1887)
— Roods (Vsrmsuls 1887)
EZ) Historic Bldgs. (Hopkins 1861)
G) R.R. Lift brides (M«™i 1#7«. ii»m
93 - Rutsch 1978, 31 - NJH 1)
® R.R. fertdas (Artamsl 1979, -flS'-NJH 3)
ff)R R. Tunnel (Artsmsi 1979, '97'-NJH 5)
©C. 1W mill 111* (H. M. I 1978:p. xl-8)
(t) Hot.I. onrt ntonk rond (RAM l»B»)
(l) Abandons c.m.t.r. (Rutsch 197»,'12")
® Snflka_dll) (Rutsch 1978,'13,;RAU 1989)
© Outmlir CtmtUm (NJOOT 1987)
©Uttlf Firm clay nits (Gimlgliono 1978)
	* historic hide. (RAM 1989)
(!7)LQt. 19th-2Qth c. hldos. (RAM <989)
©Maanachls orso bidai. (Hopkins 1881)
©Mill (Hopkins 1861)
©Mill (Hopkins 1801)
 Mill «lth oond (Cordon 1828)
4 Dock outllnss (Vsrmsuls 1887)
y>Mln«. Of workings (Vsrmsuls 1887)
rONE QUARRY
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
Avenue. The post-1753 Outwater Family Cemetery, which was partially investigated in 1987 by
Deborah Fimbel, and a post-1829 "Halfway House" on the northeast corner of the intersection of
the Paterson Plank Rd. and Washington Ave., are included in this area. Several houses are also
depicted along Moonachie Avenue, and on the Paterson Plank Road to the east of Washington
Avenue (see Figure 3-24). Although no specific site or structure locations could be established
on modern maps due to the earlier map's scale and low resolution, it may be possible to do so
using cadastral records or through a "deed search". For this SAMP/EIS, the historic
archaeological potential of the area has been graphically indicated by the application of a zone
bordering these historic roadways (see Figure 3-24).
In the latter half of the 19th century, increased settlement also occurred along the roadways on
the ridges that form the eastern and western boundaries of the Hackensack Meadowlands, just
outside of the District. This included what are now the townships of Ridgefield (English
Neighborhood) and Fairview to the east, and Carlstadt, East Rutherford (Boiling Springs),
Rutherford, Lyndhurst and North Arlington to the west. The town of Little Ferry, located on a
ridge to the north of the District, also grew during this period, although much of the
development appears to have occurred just outside of the District boundary.
The town of Little Ferry initially developed in the 18th century as a ferry crossing, along the
route from Hackensack to Bergen, which passed through the English Neighborhood. With the
construction of the Bergen Turnpike in 1804, and a bridge to replace the ferry crossing in 1828,
the area continued to grow. As shown on Hyde's 1886 map of northern New Jersey, there were
several structures along the shores of the Hackensack River and Overpeck Creek, in the vicinity
of Little Ferry and Ridgefield, which lie within the District. These include the Mehrhoff
Brothers' clay pits and brick yards to the south of Little Ferry on the west shore of the
Hackensack River, several residences in the vicinity which were inventoried during the 1980-1
Bergen County Historic Sites Survey of Little Ferry, and two structures associated with the
"Little Ferry Farm" located on the east shore of the Hackensack River and the south shore of
Overpeck Creek. Robinson's 1902 map of the area also shows a number of hotels along the
Bergen Turnpike as it passed through Little Ferry and Ridgefield Park, which may have lain
within the District.
Much of the historic development that has occurred in the Hackensack Meadowlands has been a
product of the construction of turnpikes in the first quarter of the 19th century. The roads to
Schuyler's mine and to Newark were improved during this time and became the Belleville and
Newark Turnpikes, respectively, and the Paterson Plank Road was laid across the marsh,
providing a direct route from Paterson to Jersey City via Aquacknonk. The Paterson Plank Road
was considered a product of the "plank road fever" of the mid 19th century. These roads
consisted of oak planks about 3 inches thick, that were laid side-by-side to a width of about 8 or
9 feet. The "plank road fever" was eventually quieted by high maintenance costs, and
competition from more cost efficient canals and railroads.
Soon after the development of the turnpikes, and the early collapse of many of the turnpike
companies, the transportation of people and resources from the interior of New Jersey to the
ports along the Hudson River was facilitated by the construction of canals and railroads. In
1831, the Morris Canal opened, providing a transportation route from the Delaware River to the
Passaic River. By 1836, the canal was extended to the Hudson River. In the vicinity of the
3-125
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
Hackensack Meadowlands, the canal followed the course of the Newark Turnpike across the
marsh at what is now the town of Kearny, and headed south, after crossing the Hackensack
River, around Bergen Hill and back north to Powles (Paulus) Hook.
The earliest railroads in the area also crossed the Hackensack Meadowlands. By 1821, "we hear
of enthusiastic berry pickers whisked by rail to the Meadows ... in huckleberry season." These
early railroads included the Paterson and Hudson Railroad, and the New Jersey Railroad The
Paterson and Hudson Railroad stretched from Paterson, through "Aquacknonk", across the
Hackensack Meadowlands, to the ports along the Hudson River. The New Jersey Railroad also
traversed the marsh, just to the north of the Morris Canal.
The increasing industrialization of the second half of the 19th century is reflected in the growing
number of railroads which crossed through the area. As shown in an 1870's railroad map, as
many as six different rail lines crossed the Hackensack Meadowlands, and soon freight yards
were constructed in the marsh. By the end of the 19th century no new roads crossed the
meadows, however, the road networks of the growing cities bordering the District began to
spread into the unoccupied marsh areas. Additionally, by 1896, a trolley line was constructed
along the Paterson Plank Road.
The nineteenth century also brought considerable development to Secaucus, and particularly its
southern terminus, Snake Hill. Snake Hill was originally part of the Pinhorne Plantation which
was the center of the small village of Secaucus from about 1680, into the nineteenth century. In
the mid 1800's, large tracts of the Pinhorne estate were bought by the county authorities for the
location of a poor house, or almshouse, whose construction was completed in 1863. In 1870 a
penitentiary was added to the property on Snake Hill, and in 1873 an asylum for the mentally ill
was also opened. The Interstate Map Company's Map of Hudson County, shows that in 1910 a
"New Alms House" and a "School" stood upon Snake Hill, along with the earlier buildings.
Righter (1978) notes that "during the first half of the twentieth century, a tuberculosis ward, a
camp for boys, two churches, a fire station, and a storage building were added to the complex of
public facilities." However, as early as 1873 quarrying for trap rock, or diabase, had begun at
Snake Hill, and had continued until at least 1978. The county buildings were razed earlier in this
century, and few surface remains are visible today. The potential survival of possible subsurface
remains of this historic complex could be evaluated through scaled map and air photo based
comparisons to establish the extent of recent mining operations relative to the former structure
locations.
Much of the rock that was quarried from Snake Hill was used to form the embankments of the
railroads that ran through the Meadowlands. These early attempts to create an artificial or
altered surface, foreshadowed the massive efforts at land filling and reclamation which would
become characteristic of the 20th century. The earliest recorded attempt to "reclaim" the
Meadowlands actually dates back to the end of the 17th century, when Major Nathaniel
Kingsland drained part of the marshlands in the vicinity of Kearny and Harrison, by means of a
sluice gate presumably placed across the mouth of Kingsland Creek, to produce land for grazing
(see Figure 3-24). Although this and other attempts to reclaim land, primarily for agricultural
use, were made by individuals prior to the 19th century, it was not until 1816, with the
formation of the Hackensack and Passaic Meadows Company by the Swartwout brothers that
large-scale attempts at draining the meadows were conducted. Between 1816 and 1819 120
3-126
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
miles of drainage ditches and 7.5 miles of dikes were built, resulting in 1,300 acres producing
vegetables, flax and hemp. Damage from high tides and muskrat burrowing soon resulted in
the flooding of the reclaimed land, and despite several attempts over the next twenty years to
gain support and to reorganize the company, the venture failed.
Another attempt at draining the Meadowlands was made by Spencer Driggs and Samuel Pike
who formed the New Jersey Land Reclamation Company in the late 1860's. Driggs planned to
build stronger iron-cored or plated dikes to prevent damage from the tides and the muskrat
population. Several miles of these dikes were built in the meadows, including along Sawmill
and Kingsland Creeks. Although the project was successful in diking nearly 4,000 acres, the
crops that were grown on the land reportedly failed, and financial support dried up following
Pike's death, in part as a result of an agricultural depression in the 1870's. The dikes remained
in place, however, and were later used by the Bergen County Mosquito Commission, and as late
as 1950, it was reported that portions of Driggs' iron dikes still existed.
Toward the close of the 19th century, C.C. Vermeule, the New Jersey State Geologist, published
new plans for draining and reclaiming the Hackensack Meadowlands. Unlike those who failed
in earlier attempts at reclamation for agricultural use, Vermeule recognized that the land could
much more profitably serve industry and commerce. Although his plans were never directly
implemented, they set the stage for the landfilling and industrial development that occurred in
the 20th century.
3.15.7 Twentieth Century Settlement and Land Use
The Hackensack Meadowlands were significantly impacted again in the 20th century by
developments in transportation. The continued growth of the railroad industry followed by the
rise of the trucking and automobile industries resulted in the construction of even more
roadbeds, maintenance and storage facilities in the marsh. The artificial embankments that were
formed to support these road and rail systems resulted in the continued destruction of
numerous acres of marshlands. Important 20th century features are shown on Figure 3-25.
The most notable of the road networks that impacted the area was the New Jersey Turnpike,
which stretches the length of the District along two corridors on either side of the Hackensack
River. Several other state highways also now stretch across the Hackensack Meadowlands,
including the east-west Route 3 and the north-south Route 1 and 9. Additionally, the Pulaski
Skyway (1930-32), a raised roadway which extends across the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers
and into Jersey City, cuts through the southeast corner of the District. The Skyway was
recommended as eligible for the National Register in a 1983 State Historic Preservation Office
Opinion.
The twentieth century also impacted the Meadowlands through rejuvenated land reclamation
efforts for industrial use and mosquito control. In 1912, attempts to improve the public health
through the maintenance of the mosquito population became law, resulting in the formation of
Mosquito Control Commissions in Hudson County in 1913, and in Bergen County in 1914.
Through these commissions, science and industry worked hand in hand digging, filling,
pumping and diking to make the Meadowlands unsuitable for mosquitoes, and suitable for
investment. By 1919, over 17,000 acres of marsh in the meadowlands region had been drained
3-127
-------
Figure 3-25
m

HAnKFNSACK MFADOWLANDS
MAP D — 2QTH r.FNTURY FEATURES
FROM U.S.C.S. Il C.D.M.
---HMDC Boundary (CDM 1991)
E23 Pre-1970 Solid Landfill
Areas (CDM 1991)
t22 Current Sanitary Landfill
Areos (CDM 1991)
	Railroads (USGS)
Waterline (USGS)
¦¦¦ 'Apparent Limits' of marshland
(USGS digital line graph)
Grossman 4 Associates, Inc.
February. 1002
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
by the Mosquito Extermination Commissions of Hudson and Bergen Counties; a task that was
accomplished by cutting nearly 300 miles of ditches. In the 1930's, the work was continued by
the men of the Civilian Conservation Corps who cut an additional 21 miles of ditches through
the marsh. The Meadowlands were also effected in 1922, when Oradell Dam was constructed
upstream. The freshwater runoff from approximately 60% of the Hackensack River watershed is
now collected in a reservoir behind the dam, which has undoubtedly had a significant impact on
the estuarine environment.
As a result of the reclamation of land in the Hackensack Meadowlands, through the efforts of
the Mosquito Control Commissions and other interests, the landscape of the area has been
significantly transformed. Many areas that had been used for grazing and the harvesting of salt
hay from the time of the first Dutch settlers to the early twentieth century, have now become
islands of industrial and suburban growth, transportation corridors, and extensive landfills (see
Figure 3-25). Nevertheless, this 20th century development has left a variety of cultural resources
in the Hackensack Meadowlands, which for the most recent period these include early to mid
20th century factories, houses, bridges, roadways, and dikes.
3.16 Solid Waste
This section summarizes the existing state of solid waste management in the District and
describes potential future developments based on current solid waste management planning.
The description of current conditions is divided into two parts—one addressing the role of the
District in current and future regional solid waste management, and a second addressing the
reclamation of existing inactive landfills within the District. In addition, this section contains
brief introductory descriptions of the historical and statutory background for the current
conditions.
3.16.1 Historical Background
Prior to the creation of the HMDC in 1968, the Meadowlands had a long history as a disposal
area for solid waste. The solid waste management facilities prior to 1970 are shown in Figure
3-26. Most landfilling occurred at privately operated facilities with little or no regulatory
guidance, resulting in the haphazard filling of wetlands. Recognition of the loss of development
and environmental values caused by unregulated landfilling contributed to legislative support
for creation of the HMDC.
By 1968 solid waste from more than 100 municipalities was being disposed of in the District.
The Zurn report prepared in 1970 indicated that by 1969 there were 50 locations in the District
where landfilling had occurred. Twenty-seven of these sites were still active in 1970, including
eight major landfills (see "Landfill Reclamation" below).
Since 1970 substantial progress has been made in the regulation of solid waste disposal in the
District. Landfilling has ceased at twenty-six of the twenty-seven landfill sites that were active
in 1970. The remaining active disposal site is controlled by the HMDC.
3-129
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
3.16.2	Statutory Background
New Jersey law both authorizes and directs HMDC to participate in solid waste management.
The Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act (HMRDA), the statute that
created HMDC and the Meadowlands District in 1968, authorized HMDC to regulate solid
waste disposal within the District (NJSA 13:17-1 et seq.). New Jersey courts have affirmed this
power (Municipal Sanitary Landfill Authority v. HMDC, 120 NJ Super. 118 (1972); Town of
Kearny v. Jersey City Incinerator Authority, 140 NJ Super. 279 (1976).
The 1976 NJ Solid Waste Management Act made the Meadowlands District a solid waste
management district with the same powers and duties assigned to the counties (NJSA 13:1E-1 et
seq.). While the HMRDA had directed the District to guarantee that disposal facilities would be
available for the quantity of waste treated or disposed of within the District as of the effective
date of the Act, the designation of the Meadowlands District as a solid waste management
district provided a basis for agreements with other management districts, providing for phased
reductions in the quantity of waste disposed of within the Meadowlands.
HMDC has entered into consent agreements with Hudson County, Essex County, Passaic
County, and Bergen County that have led to discontinuation of the landfilling of solid waste
from these counties within the District.
3.16.3	Regional Solid Waste Management
Though landfilling in the District has been greatly reduced since establishment of HMDC, the
District continues to play an important role in regional solid waste management. The low
population density of the District makes it attractive to municipal and county officials
responsible for waste management, because opposition from local residents is one of the major
barriers to implementation of solid waste facilities.
Specific aspects of the role of the District in regional solid waste management are described in
the paragraphs that follow. Current solid waste facilities are shown in Figure 3-27.
Baling and T .andfilling Operations. HMDC operates a baling and landfilling operation on 33
acres of the Kearny and North Arlington portions of the 1-E landfill (see "Landfill Reclamation"
below). The baling/landfilling area is bordered on the west by the Kingsland rail line and on
the east by the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area. The baler currently handles all
unrecycled municipal solid waste from Hudson County—approximately 1,800 tons of waste per
day. The density achieved by the baler is substantially greater than the in-place density
normally achieved when unbaled municipal solid waste is landfilled. Therefore, the baler
substantially increases the life of the landfill.
Under the terms of an agreement among NJDEP, HMDC, and Hudson County, baling and
landfilling are expected to cease when the height of the remaining active area reaches 150 feet,
equal to the height of the inactive portions of the 1-E landfill. This is expected to occur by 1997,
using current recycling and compaction rates. The agreement calls for maximizing site life by
diversion of certain materials, increased recycling, increased use of the baler, and possible
redirection of Hudson County waste out of state. In accordance with the agreement, Hudson
County adopted a solid waste management plan amendment that provides, in the near future,
3-130
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
for disposal of bulky waste and dry industrial waste at a permitted out-of-state disposal facility
(currently, the Empire Landfill in Taylor, PA). Municipal solid waste from Hudson County may
continue to be received at the 1-E landfill, baled as feasible, until that facility reaches the final
elevation of 150 feet specified in the agreement.
Transfer Station. The Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA) maintains a transfer station in
Lyndhurst (just outside trhe District boundary), adjacent to the BCUA's inactive Kingsland
landfill near the end of Valley Brook Avenue. This facility processes approximately 1,000 tons of
Bergen County waste per day. A portion of this waste is currently shipped to the Union County
resource recovery facility, and the remainder goes to a landfill in Virginia.
Composting Facilities. Seven leaf composting facilities are located in the District. By far the
largest is the facility operated by the BCUA atop the Kingsland landfill. This facility serves 33
Bergen County municipalities. HMDC operates a composting facility in North Arlington,
accessible from Schuyler Avenue. The other five leaf composting facilities are operated by the
public works departments of Lyndhurst (on Valley Brook Avenue), Secaucus (on Koelle
Boulevard), Ridgefield (on Pleasant View Avenue), Little Ferry (on Merhoff Avenue), and
Rutherford (on Veteran's Boulevard).
The leaf composting facilities in the District, in accordance with the State ban on acceptance of
leaves at disposal facilities, reduce the quantity of solid waste that must be disposed of through
landfilling or incineration.
In 1992, HMDC started a regional yard waste composting facility at the 1-E landfill. The facility,
which will accept grass clippings as well as leaves, is planned to handle approximately 70,000
cubic yards of yard waste a year.
Recycling Facilities. Five municipalities maintain facilities in the District for consolidation of
recyclable materials collected at curbside: Carlstadt, Little Ferry, North Arlington, Ridgefield,
and Secaucus. The materials handled by these facilities include glass containers, aluminum
cans, newspaper, high-grade office paper, and corrugated cardboard.
Potential Future Facilites. The Hudson County Improvement Authority (HCIA) has proposed a
resource recovery facility to be built in Kearny on the 150-acre tract known as the Koppers Coke
site. Access to the site would be provided by improvements to the Belleville Turnpike and the
Newark-Jersey City Turnpike. Approximately 465 truck trips and 100 employee-related trips
per day are anticipated. Ash residue and bypass waste from the Hudson County facility would
be landfilled adjacent to the resource recovery facility or out of state. The HCIA is currently
assessing the need for construction of the resource recovery facility. Options under
consideration include use of a combustion facility in another county or composting.
The HMDC is currently planning the construction of a regional non-processible landfill and
demolition waste recycling facility. This facility would be located on an abandoned landfill in
Kearny (the Keegan Landfill), and the tipping fees would be used to properly close the landfill.
3-131
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
3.16.4 Landfill Reclamation
The Hackensack Meadowlands District contains more than four square miles of landfills. Of this
total area, half has been developed into other uses. The object of current landfill reclamation
activity is the half that remains undeveloped. These landfill areas require the implementation of
environmental controls such as methane recovery, leachate collection and/or containment, and
proper capping. Implementation of measures such as these to minimize the environmental
impact of an inactive landfill is called "closure."
Approximately 90 percent of the undeveloped landfill acreage is contained in eight sites. These
major sites are described in the two following sections. The first section describes those sites
where reclamation activities are underway, while the second section describes the sites where
reclamation work has not yet begun.
Major Landfills at Which Reclamation is Underway. The 1-A landfill, also known as Kearny II,
comprises 50 acres in Kearny between the Belleville Turnpike and the Newark-Jersey City
Turnpike. Before landfilling operations ceased in 1984, this site was receiving approximately
5,400 tons of waste per day. The landfill is 95 feet high and has a slope ratio of 3:1 or less.
Leachate from this site is collected and trucked to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
treatment plant in Newark. Capping of the landfill was completed in 1990 and methane gas is
being collected at this site.
The BCUA Kingsland landfill encompasses approximately 150 acres near the end of Valley
Brook Avenue in Lyndhurst. Landfilling at this site ceased in 1988. Like the 1-A landfill, the
Kingsland landfill has a slope ratio of 3:1 or less. Also like the 1-A landfill, closure measures
taken at this site include a cutoff wall to limit leachate migration and a leachate collection system
that directs the leachate to the BCUA wastewater treatment plant in Little Ferry. In addition, a
6-acre portion of the landfill has been capped by the HMDC and used for an experimental park.
The remainder of the site still requires capping.
The 1-D landfill (Kearny I) is 94 acres in size and 85 feet in height with a slope ratio of 3:1 or less.
Its location is defined by Interstate 280, the western spur of the New Jersey Turnpike, and the
New Jersey Transit/PATH rail lines. Though landfilling at this site ceased in 1982, no capping
or leachate control has been implemented. However, a methane recovery facility has been
constructed at the foot of the landfill. This facility will collect methane for 20 years from the 1-A
and 1-D landfills and a portion of the 1-E site. This will reduce methane emissions from the
landfill. Recovery of 6 million cubic feet of methane per day is projected—enough to supply
10,000 homes with gas. This will reduce the amount of natural gas required from other sources.
The 1-E landfill (Kearny IV and V and North Arlington I and II) is 150 feet in height and has a
slope of approximately 4:1. It is bordered on the west by the Kingsland rail line and on the east
by the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area. The Kearny portion of the site comprises 212
acres, the North Arlington portion 195 acres. The Kearny portion ceased operations in 1987.
The North Arlington portion of the 1-E landfill includes the 33-acre active baling and landfilling
site that receives waste from Hudson County.
3-132
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
A cut-off wall around the 1-E landfill and a leachate collection system were constructed in 1994,
and methane gas is being recovered from a portion of the site. Work on providing gas recovery
to the remainder of the 1-E landfill is expected in the near future.
Major Landfills at Which Reclamation Has Not Yet Begun. The Keegan landfill (Kearny III) was
accepting about 1,000 tons of waste per week prior to closing. The site covers approximately 49
acres bordered on the west by Kingsland rail line, on the south by Bergen Avenue, and on the
east by the freshwater Kearny Marsh. The landfill has no environmental controls and has
regular underground fires.
Though it has been inactive since 1968, the Rutherford municipal landfill also has no
environmental improvements. The site covers 100 acres on both sides of the western spur of the
New Jersey Turnpike adjacent to Berrys Creek and the Hackensack River. It is also bordered by
the New Jersey Transit Bergen line and the wetlands of Berrys Creek.
The Malanka landfill covers 65 acres on both sides of the Boonton rail line in Secaucus. One
parcel borders the Hackensack River and is surrounded by wetlands. It is about 70 feet high.
The other parcel, about 50 feet high, lies between the wetlands of Penhorn Creek and the eastern
spur of the New Jersey Turnpike. Landfilling operations at the Malanka sites ceased in 1979, but
proper closure has not been implemented. At one time this facility was receiving 3,500 tons of
refuse per week, and drums and chemical deposits were found on the site.
The Lyndhurst landfill (including the Avon landfill) comprises 335 acres but is only 10 to 35 feet
high. This site at the end of Valley Brook Avenue at one time received approximately 4,400 tons
of refuse per week. Though the site has not received waste since 1979, no closure activities have
been initiated.
The Erie landfill covers approximately 34 acres in North Arlington, and is approximately 10 feet
high. This landfill was closed in the early 1970s, and no closure activities have been initiated.
Future Needs. With respect to the inactive landfills in the District, the greatest need is for funds
to implement proper closure. The HMDC has collected fees to be applied to the closure of the 1-
A, and 1-E landfills, and the BCUA is responsible for closure of the Kingsland landfill. How-
ever, no funds are available for closure of the Lyndhurst, Keegan, and Malanka sites, which are
privately owned, or for closure of the 1-D site, which is owned by the Town of Kearny.
3.17 Hazardous Waste Remediation
Past industrial and dumping activities have made soil and water contamination an important
environmental issue in the lower Hackensack River Basin. A preliminary inventory of Federal
and State toxic/hazardous waste programs indicates 208 known sites within the District which
fall under one of these programs. They include: 107 RCRA sites registrations; 76ISRA sites; 22
CERCLA sites; and 3 Superfund sites. Among these sites are 15 locations where chromium-
tainted soil has been used to fill land in the Hudson County portion of the District. Significant
portions of Berrys Creek are contaminated with mercury, and chromium contamination also has
been identified along a portion of Penhorn Creek and in the Kearny industrial area.
3-133
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
The known hazardous waste sites in the District include the following (see Figure 3-28):
¦	Burrough's Corp. This site consists of a one-story 14,000 square-foot building situated on 2
acres of land in Carlstadt, bordering on Peach Island Creek. Operations at this site
consisted of the production of solvent based inks, used in the coating of carbon paper and
data processing ribbons. The site contains four underground storage tanks and a septic
field, and was constructed on fill contaminated with polycyclic hydrocarbons. Soils on site
are contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and metals. There is the potential
for base neutrals groundwater contamination in the septic field. This site came to the
attention of ISRA due to the cessation of operations and sale of the property. As of June
1987, the underground storage tanks were removed, the soil excavated and backfilled. The
other contaminated soils on site were also excavated and backfilled. When the site is
remediated, 85 percent of the site will be paved to encapsulate the soil contamination.
¦	Scientific Chemical Processine. The site covers 6 acres located in a light industrial area of
Carlstadt. The site is a former waste processing facility that accepted various chemicals
and waste solvents for recovery and recycling. About 375,000 gallons of hazardous
substances were stored onsite in tanks, drums, and tank trailers. The site operations were
shut down in 1980 in response to a court order, and the site is now largely vacant. Onsite
groundwater and soil contamination consists of VOCs including benzene, chloroform, and
trichloroethylene; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs),
and heavy metals. The site has contaminated adjacent surface water in Peach Island Creek
and threatens to contaminate coastal wetlands. The property owner removed 55 tanks and
one tank trailer (approximately 350,000 gallons) under NJDEP supervision in 1985 and
1986. A remedial investigation was conducted in 1985, and an investigation of off-site
contamination was begun in 1988. The potentially responsible parties are conducting
further investigations leading to the selection of final remedies for onsite and off-site
contamination.
¦	Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division^ This 85-acre site is located along Route 17 in
East Rutherford, bordering Berrys Creek. Various chemicals were manufactured from
1932 until 1979, when the company ceased operations and dismantled the plant.
Approximately 4.5 million gallons of waste solvents and solid chemical wastes were
discharged into two unlined lagoons, resulting in contamination of the soil, surface water,
and groundwater. Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs including benzenes,
trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and toluene; PCBs, lead, and arsenic. Sediments and soil
are also contaminated with these substances as well as chromium and mercury. Universal
Oil Products began removing contaminated materials from the lagoon areas of the site in
April, 1990, and is conducting a study of the contamination. Site cleanup may be divided
into multiple long-term response actions, based on the results of the study.
¦	Ventron /Velsicol. This 19-acre site in Woodridge operated as a chemical processing plant
from 1953 until 1974. Approximately 160 tons of process waste were buried onsite during
this period. Contaminants are suspected of migrating off site in groundwater and air.
Groundwater and sediments are contaminated with mercury. Off-site sediments are also
contaminated with mercury and zinc. Soils and surface water contain various heavy
metals. Off-site migration of contaminants threatens nearby wetlands. Subject to a
3-134
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Section 3
Description of the Affected Environment
cooperative agreement made in 1984 between EPA, the State, and the potentially
responsible parties, EPA commenced investigations into the site contamination and the
most effective cleanup methods. An initial study concerning the amount and the effects of
mercury accumulation in fish and other food chain organisms of the affected area was
completed in 1988.
Diamond Shamrock. This site is located on 28 acres of land in Kearny, between Belleville
Turnpike and the Hackensack River. A chromate manufacturing plant began operations
on this site in 1916. Diamond Shamrock purchased the site in 1949, and the plant was
demolished in 1976. It is estimated that 390,000 tons of chromate waste were landfilled on
the property. Approximately 380,000 tons of waste were transported offsite and used as
fill material at various sites. This material can leach hexavalent chromium, which is a
known respiratory carcinogen. Groundwater, surface water, and sediments are known to
be contaminated.
Chromate Contamination Sites. The chromium contamination at the numerous sites
throughout Hudson County has apparently originated from the use of chromate waste
from local chromate processing industries. This waste was apparently used as
construction fill throughout the area. It is estimated that approximately 1,850,000 cubic
yards of this alkaline waste residue, containing between 2 and 5 percent chromate, have
been used as fill in what are now commercial, industrial, and residential areas of Hudson
County. Thirteen of these sites have been identified as being located in the District, with
ten in Kearny and three in Jersey City.
Koppers Coke. This site covers approximately 155 acres of Fish House Road in Kearny,
adjacent to the Hackensack River. It is the location of a former facility which manufactured
coke, coal tar, coal gas, sulfuric acid, cyanide compounds, and light oils. The facility
ceased operations in the early 1970's, and by 1979 all structures had been demolished
except for one tank and two buildings. Sampling has indicated the presence of
contaminated soil and groundwater. Contaminants of concern include polycyclic
hydrocarbons, tars, cyanide compounds and acids. Organic material has been observed
leaching into the Hackensack River from the site.
Standard Chlorine Chemical Company. Standard chlorine currently uses this 25 acre site
on the Hackensack River for manufacturing "chlorobene", a drain cleaner made from
orthodichlorobenzene. The site was previously used by Koppers Coke in the 1950s, for
refining crude naphthalene. Dioxin contamination was identified on three locations on site
in two lagoons and at the batch distillation pot. Additionally, the site is covered with
between 5 and 10 feet of chromium slug. Two of the underground storage tanks have been
removed, and the surrounding soils were excavated.
3-135
-------
Section
Four
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
4.1 Introduction
As discussed in Section 1: Purpose and Need, the overall project purpose is the development of
a SAMP for the Meadowlands District. The SAMP is a comprehensive plan that provides for
natural resource protection and reasonable economic growth. It contains a comprehensive
statement of policies and criteria to guide uses of lands and waters in the District, and
mechanisms to effectuate those policies.1 This section of the EIS evaluates reasonable
alternatives for growth and environmental management in the District.
The analysis of alternatives as part of the EIS for the SAMP derives from the need to examine
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (including the no action alternative and
alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency), as described in the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations on Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)2. In addition, the SAMP MOU specifically provides for the consideration of
out-of-District alternatives in the EIS.
A complex mosaic of federal and state regulations and related guidance documents and
memorandums expand and alter the way in which an alternatives analysis (under NEPA) is
conducted for the SAMP/EIS. These regulations and guidance documents include:
¦	404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230 et seq.)
¦	Interagency Memorandum of Understanding for the Hackensack Meadowlands District
SAMP (August 26,1988)
¦	ACE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Determination of Mitigation
(February 7,1990)
¦	ACE Public Interest Review (33 CFR 320.4, pursuant to NEPA)
¦	ACE Regulatory Guidance Letter Number 86-10 (October 2,1986)
¦	Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act (NJ Statute 13:17-1)
The alternatives analysis addresses three groups of alternatives that must be assessed to
understand possible alternatives to the SAMP. Each group of alternatives consists of a number
of specific alternatives that have been analyzed.
1	SAMP Memorandum of Understanding (August 26,1988)
2	CEQ Regulations on Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508)
4-1
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
1.	Out-of-District alternatives. This analysis evaluates the degree to which alternative
locations—presumed to have lesser environmental impacts—outside the District
boundaries may be available that would accommodate the growth anticipated in the
District, and allow achievement of SAMP goals. The potential to redirect market forces for
development that are present in the District to out-of-District upland locations in a six-
county metropolitan region is assessed.
2.	In-District alternatives. This analysis assesses the comparative environmental effects of
five representative land management scenarios within the District, and a no action
scenario, and concludes with the creation of a hybrid alternative for growth and
environmental management. The hybrid alternative combines growth elements from the
five representative land management scenarios {so as to minimize impacts to wetlands and
aquatic resources), and includes transportation improvements in the District. The No
Action alternative is also defined and reviewed. The No Action alternative is defined as a
"No SAMP" alternative. In other words, if a SAMP and new Master Plan are not
implemented for the District, the growth pressures and patterns traditionally present in
the District are projected to continue, per the zoning created under the 1970 District Master
Plan.
3.	Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) alternatives. The EIP is a key element of the
SAMP, and provides (1) for the coordination of environmental remediation and
enhancement actions in the District, and (2) for the implementation of a full range of
specific environmental improvements. Alternatives to the EIP are considered, specifically
(a) no action, and (b) partial implementation.
Theoretically, a large number of alternative locations (and combinations of sites) are potentially
available to accommodate growth in the region. However, it is not useful, nor is it effective, to
analyze the impacts of growth at each of the many alternate locations dispersed throughout the
region. The availability of alternative sites, both within and outside the District, is better
measured, given the programmatic nature of the EIS, by assessing representative locations that
exhibit high potential to function as alternative locations for growth. Sites have been selected for
review that are representative of the forms of growth and the scale of growth anticipated to
occur in the District, and that address project needs.
This alternatives analyses is guided by several relevant regulations, specifically: the Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines, the US Army Corps of Engineers Public Interest Review, and NEPA. The
approaches to alternatives analysis are typically based on the details of a specific project, at the
time the applicant is applying for a permit. In this project, the approach to alternatives analysis
provides for comparison of alternative regional land use and environmental management plans,
at a programmatic analytical level. As explained in Section 6.0, this alternatives analysis will
allow projects that are consistent with the SAMP to be eligible for streamlined permitting
processes, in part because alternatives for projects consistent with the SAMP will have been
addressed by the analyses conducted for the SAMP/EIS.
4-2
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
To meet the requirements of federal regulations and the MOU, the EIS has assessed practicable
alternatives, following the guidance at 40 CFR 230.10(a) [Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines], An
alternative is practicable under Section 404(b)(1) if it is available to the project proponent and
capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in
light of the overall project purpose. Practicable alternatives with less adverse impacts are
presumed to exist if: (1) the discharge occurs to a special aquatic site—such as wetlands; or (2)
the project is not water-dependent. This presumption is explicitly acknowledged to be
rebuttable in the regulations.
The 404(b)(1) practicable alternatives analysis drives federal decision-making toward an
alternative that is preferable from the standpoint of protection of the aquatic ecosystem. A
central principle of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines is that:
No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does
not have other significant adverse environmental consequences.
Note, however, that non-aquatic environmental impacts are also taken into account. If an
alternative that is less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem would have other significant adverse
environmental consequences, then the Section 404 discharge may be allowed despite the
existence of a practicable alternative. These other significant adverse environmental
consequences of alternatives are of particular importance in the Meadowlands, because of the
need to repair the extensive damage to the natural environment that has occurred in the District
as a result of historical land use and waste disposal practices, and the need to implement
environmental controls to reduce discharges of pollutants (such as landfill leachates) to the
District s waters from historical waste disposal practices.
The pollution and environmental degradation, together with the hydrologic alteration, have
compromised the quality of the extensive wetland environments present in the District. More
importantly, many of these sources of pollution will continue to degrade the aquatic ecosystem,
aquatic food web, and possibly human health if they remain unaddressed. Substantial
environmental improvements are proposed in the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP,
see Sections 2,4.4, and 6.1.6, and Appendix C) to offset the significant pollution, environmental
degradation, and hydrologic alteration that has resulted from past land use practices.
Consequently, any alternative that does not include mechanisms to implement these
components of the EIP would not meet the environmental needs of the District, and would
result in continued, cumulative degradation of the environment.
Inability to substantively implement the EIP would result in net environmental loss, because
leachate and pollutants will continue to contaminate the District's wetlands and waterways, as
well as the air, soils, and wildlife. Consequently, alternatives that do not allow implementation
of these critical components of the EIP, or alternatives that reduce EIP funding for these
components are likely to have other significant adverse environmental consequences in the
District, resulting in greater impacts than actions proposed under the SAMP.
4-3
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
The analysis of practicable alternatives is extended by the ACE/EPA Memorandum of
Agreement Concerning the Determination of Mitigation (MOA). Section II.C of the MOA states:
In evaluating standard Section 404 permit applications, as a practical matter, information on all
facets of a project, including potential mitigation, is typically gathered and reviewed at the same
time. ACE, except as indicated below, first makes a determination that potential impacts have
been avoided to the maximum extent practicable; remaining unavoidable impacts will then be
mitigated to the extent appropriate and practicable by requiring steps to minimize impacts and,
finally compensate for aquatic resource values. This sequence is considered satisfied where the
proposed mitigation is in accordance with specific provisions of ACE and EPA approved
comprehensive plan that ensures compliance with the compensation requirements of the Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines (examples of such comprehensive plans may include Special Area
Management Plans, Advance Identification areas (Section 230.80), and State Coastal Zone
Management Plans).
4.2 Out-of-District Alternatives Analysis
4.2.1 Method of Analysis
Methodologies for analysis of out-of-District alternatives have been applied that are appropriate
at the regional scale, and that are appropriate for supporting "program-level" decisions, in this
case involving selection of land management plans, environmental management plans, and
regulatory enhancements for the District that best meet the goals of the SAMP and MOU.3 The
out-of-District alternatives analysis is conceptually equivalent to a "no build" alternative for the
District, because meeting social, economic, and environmental needs outside the District would
replace the need for such activities in the District. Toward that end, the following criteria have
been applied in selecting locations for review:
¦	Out-of-District locations selected for review should be representative of opportunities that
conform with good planning and resource protection principles,
¦	Out-of-District locations preferred and selected for review are sites that can achieve
planning objectives outlined in the New Jersey Development and Redevelopment Plan,
¦	Out-of-District si^es should generally have the ability to fulfill goals for environmental
improvement, economic development, and to meet social needs—equivalent to the goals
and needs identified by HMDC.
The approach used in the evaluation of out-of-District alternatives consists of the following
major steps:
¦	Identify potential out-of-District locations in the project alternatives study area—defined as
a six-county metropolitan area in northern New Jersey, to include Union, Essex, Hudson,
3 Additional information on the out-of-District alternatives analysis is presented in Appendix J.
4-4
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Bergen, Passaic, and northern Middlesex County. The out-of-District locations to be
considered should have sites that can accommodate projects of scale, function, and density
similar to HMDC's Planning Areas, to evaluate achievement of comparable project
purposes4 at alternative locations. The identification of potentially available and
representative out-of-District locations was made using data from three sources:
1.	Data was assembled from municipal tax records to indicate vacant tracts of land in the
study region,
2.	County and selected municipal planning staffs were contacted and interviewed to
identify available development and redevelopment locations,
3.	Listings of available lands (obtained from the PSE&G Area Development Program's
site locator system) were reviewed to identify potential locations.
¦	The analysis of out-of-District alternatives focuses on sites outside the District that are
comparable to those in the HMDC-identified Planning Areas, because (1) many small
parcels of land are theoretically available in the six-county out-of-District study region and
preparing individual reviews of each small parcel is inefficient, and because (2) the EIS is
programmatic (regional) in nature. Representative out-of-District locations were selected
for additional consideration based on a site's potential to accommodate growth, its ability
to accommodate projects of comparable scale, and the general availability of infrastructure
and transportation/transit systems.
¦	Based on the review of potential out-of-District sites, four representative out-of-District
locations were selected for additional analysis, involving sites in Jersey City, Newark,
Wayne, and Mahwah. The current environmental conditions and potential environmental
impacts of site development at each location were generally assessed.
4 Relevant federal regulations emphasize the importance of project purpose:
An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after
taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes (40 CFR 230.10(a)(2)).
We consider it implicit that, to be practicable, an alternative must be capable of
achieving the basic purpose of the proposed activity (45 P.R. 85339, Dec. 24,1980).
In order for an "external" alternative to be practicable, it must be reasonably
available or obtainable (45 F.R. 85339, Dec. 24,1980).
4-5
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
¦ The feasibility of meeting SAMP goals and regulatory requirements using locations outside
the District was then assessed, and an out-of-District alternative was proposed to test the
rate at which some in-District growth5 might be redirected to an out-of-District location.
4.2.2 Urbanization Patterns in the Alternatives Study Area
Satellite photography (1990,1 inch = 2.3 miles) of the out-of-District six-county study area was
obtained to study the urbanization patterns of the SAMP region, distinguishing the patterns by
county. The satellite photo shows a pattern of intense land uses throughout the inner portions
of the region, including the area surrounding the Hackensack Meadowlands District.
Hudson County is developed at urban densities typical of the period between the Civil War and
World War II. The only area of undeveloped land noticeable in the photograph is the former
industrial and railroad land along the Hudson River in Jersey City, the largest component of
which is now Liberty State Park.
In Bergen County, the photograph reveals a continuous grid of suburban residential land use,
with intermittent concentrations of commercial and other non-residential uses. Much of Bergen
County appears "saturated," that is, developed everywhere as allowed by the zoning in effect
The development patterns in southern Bergen County, much of which was developed prior to
World War II, resemble those of Hudson County. Northern and western Bergen County are less
densely developed, but the even fabric of suburban streets and houses clearly indicates
development saturation (although at lower zoned densities) over much of this area. Some new
development can occur in saturated areas, but it usually involves redevelopment of
underutilized land where the zoning allows higher densities. Such redevelopment is extremely
rare in suburban areas.
The development patterns in Bergen County, as illustrated by the satellite photograph, provide
a classic illustration of urban sprawl: it shows how real estate market forces working within
typically suburban zoning densities can, given sufficient demand over time, eventually leave an
entire county with little open space other than that deliberately set aside as public parks,
institutional campuses, country clubs, and the like. (The alternative model of urbanization,
common outside the metropolitan areas of North America, allows areas of woodland and '
farmland to survive between spatially confined towns and cities, often known as greenbelts.
Typically, the residents of those towns and cities live and work in densities higher than those
prevailing in Bergen County or most other North American suburban areas.)
Passaic County is divided into two sections of sharply contrasting density. The southern
section, dominated by cities like Paterson and Passaic, is developed at pre-World War II
densities like those of Hudson County. West of Paterson, Passaic County exhibits near
saturation at typically suburban densities, with areas of apparent commercial and industrial use
5 The growth projections for the District are summarized in Section 1 of the EIS and are
discussed in EIS Appendix D, entitled "Need for Growth and Environmental Improvement in
the Hackensack Meadowlands District.	r
4-6
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
scattered widely among areas of apparent residential use. The northern section of the county
exhibits some development but remains largely vacant and forested, because constraints to
development are posed by the steeply sloped lands, and because of the presence of extensive
lands in watershed use.
The land use patterns of lissex County indicate saturation, although the density declines as the
distance west of Newark increases. Union County, like Kssex, has a dense urban core in
Elizabeth and Linden, and saturated suburban development west of the core area. In both
counties, the density of development is lower west of the First Watchung Mountain, with some
larger tracts of undeveloped parkland and other public open space evident in Essex County.
In western Union County, the fabric of urbanization visible in the satellite photograph is woven
at a small, consistent scale, reflecting predominantly residential land uses. In contrast, the
uneven patterns of urbanization evident in northern Middlesex County indicates irregular land
use patterns, in which areas of monolithic commercial and industrial use are interspersed widely
among residential uses. The residential areas in Middlesex County show more diversity in
density and scale than the single-family residential patterns of Union County. Like Union
County, however, Middlesex County north of the Raritan River appears to be at or close to
saturation.
The satellite imagery strikingly illustrates the development saturation in the SAMP
out-of-District study region. In most of the region, the undeveloped areas that compare in size
to the open lands within the District are principally parks or other open space uses. Other than
at the outer fringes of the region, the satellite photograph indicates very limited undeveloped
land that would be comparable to the Planning Areas conceptualized by HMDC inside the
District.
4.2.3 Screening Criteria, for Out-of-District Alternatives
The criteria used to select representative out-of-District sites for analysis reflect the concepts
advanced in the State Plan, which are intended to steer New Jersey toward less sprawling forms
of development. The State Plan advocates that growth be directed to "centers" that have high
levels of accessibility, provide a diversity of land uses and varying intensities of land use,
enhance the efficient delivery of public services, and contribute to a perceived sense of place In
this analysis, preference is given to sites that share with in-District locations the ability to
accommodate both housing and employment, providing adequate and affordable housing
sufficiently adjacent to places of employment to minimize travel needs.
Specifically, the criteria for selecting representative sites for analysis favor:
¦	Sites where mixed land use combining residential, commercial, and office
development—is permitted.
¦	Sites that are commensurate with in-District development sites in their development
potential. Generally, a suitable site would require about 25 to 100 acres, and allow for
4-7
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
relatively high land use densities. Smaller sites may also be suitable, particularly in urban
locations;
¦	Proximity to public transportation and to major highways;
¦	Locations that can realistically attract high-quality commercial and market residential uses;
¦	Sites that offer the potential for achieving synergistic effects in meeting a range of needs.
Mixed-use development can provide for economic activity, delivery of public services,
living space, and environmental protection, all in a coordinated way that encourages
interaction and mutual support among all these facets of the community. Such synergism
is necessary for the built environment to achieve what the state plan calls "communities of
place"--that is, communities that are dynamic, diverse, compact, and efficient;
¦	Sites that serve a market comparable to or substantially the same as the market for
in-District sites;
¦	Sites that do not exhibit the potential for significant impacts to the environment or natural
resources resulting from development activity (e.g., wetlands, water quality, terrestrial and
aquatic habitats) and future use of the site (e.g., traffic/air quality, stormwater runoff).
¦	Sites that were not known to have significant ECRA/ISRA compliance obstacles.
4.2.4 Preliminary Out-of-District Site Selection
Conceptually, an out-of-District alternative site should offer the opportunity for mixed-use
development, accommodating: about 500 to 1,000 units of housing or more, ranging from
affordable to luxury, at densities of 20 to 40 dwelling units per acre; and about one million
square feet of office/commercial space, consisting of various classes of office space with retail
support services. Given the saturated patterns of development outside the District, this analysis
does consider sites that are smaller, and more limited than the in-District alternatives, in their
potential to accommodate the conceptual project outlined above. However, the analysis does
not consider the numerous out-of-District sites that are too small and scattered to offer any
comparable opportunities for mixing densities and land uses, because they are not comparable
in function nor do they meet planning goals of focusing growth in centers.
The sources of information used to identify out-of-District alternatives included: county land
use planners in Bergen, Passaic, and Union Counties; the Office of State Planning; a number of
municipal planning and economic development officials throughout the six-county study
region; an inventory of available commercial/industrial sites maintained by Public Service
Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G), and color-enhanced satellite photography.
Preliminary THpntifiration of Urban Development Sites
During the preliminary site screening a number of potential locations in Jersey City, Newark,
Elizabeth, and Paterson were reviewed, as discussed below.
4-8
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Tersev City. The Hudson River waterfront in Jersey City features large tracts of land once
mainly used for rail freight yards. With the disappearance of rail operations, the Hudson
waterfront has become attractive to high quality commercial and residential development. The
northern waterfront is the most attractive waterfront area for further major development
because it is closest to the Holland Tunnel and the New Jersey Turnpike, is served by PATH
trains, and has the effect of development momentum accruing from Newport, Harborside, and
the new buildings at Exchange Place. Of the two large, available development sites in this
neighborhood, Hudson Exchange (formerly known as Harsimus Cove) appears preferable for
the out-of-District alternatives analysis, as confirmed by Jersey City's Planning Director, Robert
Cotter. Hudson Exchange is not known to have ECRA complications, as is suspected for Liberty
Harbor North, which is believed to have chromium and other heavy metal contamination.
Hudson Exchange is more accessible by PATH than Liberty Harbor North.
Newark. Newark contains several privately-owned sites in the downtown/riverfront area that
are underutilized and could be developed. There are also underutilized, predominantly
residential areas outside downtown where high concentrations of city-owned land make
redevelopment possible. The City of Newark's Department of Development assisted in defining
these outlying potential redevelopment areas; the City's Engineering Department provided
information on the downtown-riverfront sites.
The City recommended for consideration five sites in the Passaic Riverfront area, near the
Performing Arts Center (which is under development), comprising, in all, 36 acres of land. The
City reports that most of the structures on these sites have already been cleared, or are in the
process of being cleared. They are the following:
1.	The area between McCarter Highway (Route 21) and the Passaic River is underutilized,
with parking lots and scattered, small commercial buildings. It features proximity to
downtown, and affords the opportunity to build on the momentum of the Performing Arts
complex. The site is in multiple private ownership.
2.	Next to the Passaic River and Penn Station, is a former power plant site owned by Public
Service Electric & Gas. The site has been cleared and fenced; it appears to be five to six
3' IhG	L*fe Parking area along Orange and Bridge Streets, between Broad
Street and McCarter Highway, includes several city blocks of employee parking partly
owned by Mutual Benefit Life. The "City Visions" renewal study of Newark recommends
housing at this location.	9
4.	North of1-280, between Broad Street and M.L. King Boulevard, next to the high-rise
Colonnades apartments, is a privately-owned site of about five acres of wooded land.
5.	A cleared site bordering the Passaic River southeast of Penn Station.
The City pointed out areas beyond downtown with high concentrations of city-owned land
where redevelopment is being considered. In particular, Newark representatives identified the
4-9
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Central Ward Redevelopment Area. A developer has prepared a block-by-block redevelopment
proposal for a 55-acre area here, which envisioned as many as 1,400 new dwelling units. The
average costs of acquisition, relocation, and clearance were estimated at approximately $500,000
per acre. The City would favor mixed commercial and residential uses in this area, with the
residential component taking the form of town house or duplex construction.
Elizabeth. A demonstration project is being implemented in the City of Elizabeth (and other
parts of Union County) to recycle abandoned urban and suburban sites. Regional Plan
Association is conducting the project, which is co-sponsored by the Union County Economic
Development Corporation. The project will develop models for site reuse and explore ways to
redevelop undervalued land assets. Phase I of the project consisted of an inventory of vacant,
contaminated, and underutilized lands in the county. Several large sites in the City of Elizabeth
were identified. Phase II of the project highlights policies for encouraging urban
redevelopment, particularly in environmentally degraded areas; and provides an example of
how such sites can be reclaimed. The Phase II activities focused on example redevelopment
initiatives for a 166 acre site in Elizabeth, in an area that is principally industrial, with some
commercial activities. A mixed use project with a residential component, similar to projects
considered in the Meadowlands District, would be difficult to implement in the locations
identified in the Phase I study.
Paterson. Michael Romanic, Acting Director of the City of Paterson Planning Department, said
there is very little land available in Paterson for major development. He mentioned a 10-acre
industrial property owned by Public Service Electric & Gas that has potentially substantial
ECRA compliance issues. The only other site is the Ward Street superblock, a two-block area in
downtown Paterson which the City has been seeking to develop for 15 years.
Preliminary Identification of Suburban Alternative Sites
During the preliminary site screening a number of potential locations in Passaic, Bergen, Union,
and Middlesex Counties were reviewed, as discussed below.
fassair County. Large-site development in the sparsely settled northern part of the county is
considered undesirable because of steep slopes, lack of infrastructure, and the presence of lands
reserved for watershed use. The Passaic County Planning Department staff indicated that there
is not space in the existing regional centers of the county to accommodate large-site
development on virgin land. The sites identified for consideration in Passaic County are as
follows:
Passaic. The City of Passaic seeks to redevelop a 22-acre industrial area devastated by a fire
about five years ago. The area is bordered by the Passaic River and is centered on Eighth Street.
The Passaic Department of Community Development said a developer has produced various
alternative plans for mixes of housing and commercial space at this location, but has
encountered some problems—likely related to site contamination. The area is under
environmental study, and is still in multiple private ownership.
4-10
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Wayne. The Willowbrook Mall area of Wayne, near the Passaic and Pompton Rivers, functions
as a highway node that includes 1-80, NJ Route 23, also a limited access highway; NJ Route 3, a
direct connection to the Lincoln Tunnel; and US Route 46. Passaic County proposes designating
this area as a regional center. PSE&G's site inventory included a 97.5-acre site at the heart of Ihis
center, which is being marketed for commercial development. The developer received
preliminary site plan approval from Wayne Township for one-million square feet of office space,
but wetlands issues have interfered with development proposals offered to date. Although
sensitive environments in the area may limit the size of a project at this site, the Toombs site was
evaluated as part of the out-of-District analysis because it is representative of the large
undeveloped sites that exist in suburban areas.
Bergen County
I centers
The Bergen County Planning Department staff have identified many potential regional i
and towns m a preliminary mapping of planning areas for the State Development and
Redevelopment Plan, but stressed that the designations are conceptual. Most of the regional
center designator are intended to guide state capital spending on infrastructure, rather than to
generate development.
i?" T frd site of 175 °« Route 17 in Mahwah, has been subdivided
and pahaliy redeveloped With hotel and office space. Staff of the Bergen County Planning
Department said that this s.te could accommodate more office or retail use, but that Mahwah
Townstap would not avor mixed residential-commeicial uses. The Ramapo Ridge corporate
park has approximately 77 acres remaining of developable land. Ramapo Ridge fs lo Jed next
to the alignment of 1-287, south of its junction with Route 17 and the New York Thruway Maior
mixed-use development could theoretically be accommodated within the remaining sites
linking the existag office space in the corporate park to the residential uses next to it. '
Residential use is not favored here, however, partly because so much relatively dense housing
has been built already in the area. This part of Mahwah is part of an area that is proposed for
designation as a regional center, and it has several ingredients of a center in having a regional
highway crossroads, a passenger rail station, and a concentration of residential and commercial
uses.
Edgewater- staff of the Bergen County Planning Board identified the Independence Harbor site
in Edgewater, along the Hudson River, which has approximately 80 developable acres Another
33 acres has been developed with condominiums built on a pier at a density of approximately 22
units per acre. The developer has proposed both housing, office, and commercial uses at this
site. However, most of the waterfront between Hoboken and Fort Lee has inadequate
transportation infrastructure to accommodate major growth. At present, the waterfront is
served only by a two-lane county highway. Bergen County Planning Board staff agreed that the
Edgewater site serves a significantly different market than Bergen County areas west of the
Palisades.
City Of Hackensack- The City indicated that it should be considered as an out-of-District
alternative. The City Planning Director indicated that Hackensack has numerous parcels of
4-11
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
15,000 to 30,000 square feet for which the city seeks residential infill redevelopment, and a
high-rise residential project that is stalled in mid-construction. Although these projects may
have merit, the scales of these sites are too small to be considered for the out-of-District
alternatives analysis.
Union County. Staff of the Union County Department of Engineering and Planning, Division of
Planning & Development, identified the Elizabeth waterfront and downtown Elizabeth urban
renewal area as potential locations for major mixed-use development in Union County.
Planning staff agreed that the Elizabeth waterfront is principally industrial in character, and not
an appropriate out-of-District site for residential uses mixed with office/commercial uses.
Elizabeth has a downtown urban renewal area, around the train station, where it seeks
redevelopment. The City recently declared the area blighted, and designated a redeveloper.
Staff of the engineering department in Berkeley Heights indicated that there are plans to build
an office building on the 52-acre former Runnells Hospital site, located at Plainfield Avenue and
Valley Road. The project has been approved by the Township, and staff indicated the Township
would not favor housing at this site.
Middlesex County. Staff of the Middlesex County Planning Department cited two possible
locations in the northern part of the county—Raritan Center, and a location next to Woodbridge
Center Mall. The owners had planned office and retail development in the lower, undeveloped
section of Raritan Center, which has not proceeded, partly because of wetlands issues. A site
consisting of two or three parcels containing a total of 15 to 20 acres has been proposed for
development by Woodbridge Township. However, although Middlesex County is economically
part of the SAMP region, the area is not close enough to the Meadowlands District to be
considered a reasonable alternative location for out-of-District development alternatives. The
Woodbridge-Edison-Piscataway area is several local markets removed from the Meadowlands,
and the area is too distant from the District for HMDC to feasibly participate in development of
an out-of-District alternative here.
Prpliminarv Site Identification Results. The preliminary screening of potential out-of-District
alternative sites reveals that within the closer-in areas of the SAMP region, cities such as Jersey
City, Newark, and Elizabeth appear to offer the most substantial space for growth and also have
the potential to promote the urban redevelopment goals of the NJ Development and
Redevelopment Plan. Given past losses of population and business, these cities have land
available for redevelopment. They actively seek creative forms of development, which the
suburbs generally do not. This is because urban centers, such as Jersey City and Newark, have
more flexible land use regulations that permit development with the desired diversity of use
and density. Also, because the major rail lines were built to serve the cities, growth in these
locations offers the greatest potential for shifting the balance in northern New Jersey toward
more public transportation and less private automobile use. These cities are also focal points of
the regional highway network, although connector routes may be congested. During the
preliminary site screening a number of potential locations in Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth, and
Paterson were reviewed, as discussed below.
4-12
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
The suburban areas, in contrast, are likely to continue to apply restrictive land use controls that
segregate land uses and discourage the SAMP objective of combining residential, office, and
commercial growth at any one location. The older suburban towns seek to maintain their
suburban character, and generally discourage further urbanization. The suburban areas
generally have not suffered industrial and population losses, and so do not have the sites
available for redevelopment that the larger cities have. Nor do large tracts of virgin land remain,
as exist in exurban areas. While the region could probably physically accommodate much of the
projected demand for growth without using the Meadowlands sites, it could only do so in
fragments, scattered over many unrelated sites in the metropolitan region. Such scattered
growth would increase the undesirable patterns of segregated land uses and sprawling
development that erode the strength of established cities, place unnecessary burdens on public
services, and lead to the loss of scarce natural areas in suburban locations. In addition, the
service infrastructure of many suburban areas does not have sufficient surplus capacity to
accommodate major new development without significant public investment.
The out-of-District screening analysis resulted in the identification of the following
representative out-of-District alternatives (for a description of these sites see Appendix J):
Potential Urban Sites
Jersey City: Newport (200 acres); Hudson Exchange (120 acres)
Newark: Passaic riverfront (36 acres); Capital Hill site; former PSE&G site; Mutual Benefit life
parking area; Central Ward redevelopment area;
Elizabeth: 166 acre industrial site adjacent to Port Newark
Paterson: PSE&G site (10 acres)
Potential Suburban Sites
Passaic County: City of Passaic (22 acre site); Wayne site at 1-80 and Rt. 23
Bergen County: Mahwah (International Crossroads site and Ramapo Ridge Corporate Park
site); Edgewater (80 acre Independence Harbor site); Fort Lee (Helmsley site)
Union County: Berkeley Heights (52 acre former Reynolds Hospital site)
Middlesex County: Edison (Raritan Center); Woodbridge (site adjacent to Woodbridge mall)
Selection of Representative Sites for Environmental RpvipW
From the sites /locations reviewed in the preliminary screening, four sites were selected for
additional analysis. They are (1) Hudson Exchange in Jersey City, (2) a cluster of sites in
Newark, (3) the Toombs site in Wayne, and (4) the Ramapo Ridge and International Crossroads
sites in Mahwah. These sites/locations were selected because they best met the previously
4-13
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
established screening criteria: mixed uses are permitted; each could accommodate growth of a
general scale that is comparable to in-District sites; each is located in a potential regional center,
and each offers potential for synergistic effects in meeting divergent social and economic needs.
The four sites/locations were then subjected to a preliminary evaluation of potential
environmental impact, conducted at a programmatic level-of-analysis.
4.2.5 Environmental Screening Analysis of Out-of-District Alternatives
The four alternative locations were qualitatively compared with respect to the environmental
effects of growth in each location, using five environmental parameters—wetlands, water
quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial ecology, and transportation (in itself, and as an indicator of
air quality effects).
Jersey City
Wetlands. The Hudson Exchange site in Jersey City consists of formerly developed urban land
lying adjacent to the Hudson River. The approximately 40-acre riparian part of this 120-acre site
would be regulated as a tidal wetland. Development at this site would have direct impacts on
the tidal wetland ecology if it involved dredging and filling to construct bulkheads or piers. The
upland portion of the site does not contain wetlands.
Major filling or decking over the water is unlikely, however. The site was proposed for
residential development that would have included a low-rise section on the then-existing piers
stepping back to a high-rise section in the upland area. ACE did not approve permit
applications to allow the developers to replace the concrete deck on the piers, in preparation for
new construction. The developers had removed the old deck because of deterioration. This
experience indicates that development in or over the water is unlikely to be permitted.
However, development largely confined to the upland acreage would still be likely to include
construction of public access areas at the shoreline, with attendant bulkhead construction and
removal of remaining pier structures. Bulkhead work at the shoreline would have minor,
short-term impacts on the adjacent littoral zone wetlands in the Hudson River.
Water Quality. The City of Jersey City plans to handle most stormwater from Hudson
Exchange, when it is developed, by a new city stormwater outfall at Second Street which is
currently in the design stage. The Second Street outfall is part of a comprehensive upgrading of
the city's storm sewerage in the waterfront development areas, planned in cooperation with
NJDEP, to prevent sewage treatment plant overflows during storm events. The city will extend
the divided, four-lane Washington Boulevard from Newport south through the eastern part of
the Hudson Exchange site, with storm and sanitary sewerage and a 30-inch water main. The
majority of the buildable area of Hudson Exchange lies west of the Washington Boulevard
alignment; stormwater from that area would be discharged to the Washington Boulevard storm
sewer which would connect to the Second Street outfall. Stormwater falling on the eastern
portion of the site would be discharged directly to the Hudson River.
4-14
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Aquatic Resources. As reported above, development of the Hudson Exchange site will be
unlikely to involve filling along the Hudson River shoreline, other than to construct bulkheads.
No land reclamation or decking is expected. Therefore, the effect on aquatic ecology would be
limited to minor, short-term construction impacts. There would be no significant long-term
effects on the aquatic ecology of the Hudson River in the area of Hudson Exchange.
Terrestrial Ecology. The Hudson Exchange site consists of land reclaimed from the Hudson
River and estuarine marshes. Formerly a railroad yard, the site is largely covered with sand and
has very little vegetation. There is unlikely to be any important ecological habitat on this site.
Transportation. Hudson Exchange is accessible by PATH and by Hudson County buses, and
many work trips at this location would be made by way of these mass transit modes. The site is
about 1,200 feet from the PATH Pavonia/Newport station and about 1,500 feet from the Grove
Street station. Access by car to downtown Jersey City is complicated by existing commuter
traffic congestion around the Holland Tunnel approaches. The state and the city both support
development on the downtown Jersey City waterfront, and have interim and long-range
transportation plans for the area. The city is currently in the design stage of an extension of
Washington Boulevard south from Newport through the Hudson Exchange site to serve
development there. NJDOT is studying a light rail line to connect the existing PATH service at
Hoboken Terminal to Port Imperial, Lincoln Harbor, and other Hudson County waterfront
development areas, terminating at the Vince Lombardi service area on the NJ Turnpike. The
light rail line is expected to be in service early in the 21st century. Although traffic would be an
important issue in developing Hudson Exchange, the existing transportation improvement
efforts are planned to provide for the traffic generated by development.
Newark
Wetlands. Newark is the location of a number of sites offered by city agencies for consideration,
including five downtown/riverfront sites and the Central Ward Redevelopment Area. Three of
the downtown/riverfront sites border the Passaic River. The riverbank in downtown Newark
consists of bulkheads along some stretches of shoreline and rock embankments elsewhere. The
embankments contain partly filled, developed or formerly developed upland areas. ACE is
participating in a bulkhead reconstruction and public walkway project for the Passaic riverfront
in downtown Newark. ACE has $5 million in place and will seek an additional $15 million to
complete the project, which is intended to enhance the redevelopment potential of the riverfront
and to provide public access to the water as a feature of the redeveloped riverfront. The
pedestrian walkway and rebuilt bulkheads will be part of the baseline environmental conditions
under which redevelopment of the three sites would be considered. Any question of
environmental impact of bulkhead work on the littoral zone wetlands in the river will have
already been resolved in ACE's project. The other two downtown sites and the Central Ward
Urban Renewal Area consist of formerly developed urban land that is not adjacent to any
wetlands.
Watpr Quality Sanitary sewage from development at any of the Newark sites would be
discharged to sewage treatment facilities. Newark requires onsite retention of stormwater to
4-15
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
prevent the sudden surges of stormwater that contribute to combined sewer overflow. New
building projects in the city use various methods to retain or detain stormwater, including
French drains, which allow much of the stormwater to infiltrate into the groundwater; and
rooftop retention, which also helps to cool buildings. The city indicated that untreated
stormwater discharges into the Passaic River would not be permitted (Sudol 1992).
All the land under consideration was once or is still developed. The water quality of stormwater
from new development is unlikely to be any lower than that of present or historic stormwater
discharges. In fact, it may be superior to that of much contemporary large-scale development:
Stormwater runoff from the extensive open air parking and loading areas typical of suburban
development collects motor oil and other leaked or spilled substances that contribute to water
pollution. The much higher densities of development in Newark would preclude most open-air
parking; thus, most of the new impervious surfaces at the site would be pedestrian areas and
rooftops that are associated with fewer pollutants in the stormwater runoff. Stormwater quality
would therefore be relatively high.
Aquatic Resources. The Passaic River comprises the important aquatic resource in proximity to
the Newark sites. As noted above, all the bulkhead construction work that might otherwise be
required to develop on the riverfront is being performed by ACE. Development at any one of
the three riverfront sites would therefore not involve additional bulkhead work or any
associated short-term impacts on aquatic resources. The city does not permit direct stormwater
discharges to the river, as noted above, so there would not be indirect long-term effects on
aquatic ecology from stormwater discharges.
Terrestrial Ecology. All the Newark sites under consideration are formerly developed areas of
urban land. The Central Ward Side Redevelopment Area includes some pavement and much
weed-covered vacant land among the remaining buildings. The five downtown/riverfront sites
are predominantly paved, either with asphalt or gravel. None of the sites would appear to
contain any important terrestrial habitat.
Transportation. Development at any one of the downtown/riverfront sites in Newark would
have certain impacts on rush hour traffic in the downtown area, particularly on McCarter
Highway (NJ Route 21) and Broad Street. McCarter Highway is now the subject of a phased
improvement project planned to enable the downtown area to accommodate the traffic
associated with the ongoing and anticipated redevelopment there. The first phase, expected to
be completed in five years, involves widening, resurfacing, and ancillary improvements. For the
second phase, NJDOT is studying a long-term option of moving the highway into a depressed
alignment to improve through traffic and open up the surface area for local traffic circulation
and other uses.
All the downtown/riverfront sites offer considerable potential for diverting work trips from
personal automobiles to mass transit modes. Two of the sites are within walking distance of
Penn Station; the other three are within walking distance of Broad Street Station. All are served
by local buses. With the planned highway improvements and the availability of useful mass
transit, the impacts of development at one or more of the downtown/riverfront sites are likely
4-16
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
to be adequately mitigated by minor, localized improvements such as additional turning lanes
and traffic signals.
The Central Ward Redevelopment Area is not as convenient to the railroad stations, but is
served by local buses. Although the area is outside downtown Newark, the Essex County
courts, University of Medicine and Dentistry, and other uses in the area already generate
substantial traffic. Major development here has the potential to cause significant traffic impacts.
Wayne
Wetlands. The wetlands on the 97.5-acre out-of-District alternative site in Wayne Township
would severely constrain development, because development here would have to be largely
confined to upland island areas. Wetlands issues have prevented the current developer,
Toombs, from proceeding with construction on its town-approved site plan. Although
large-scale development can be integrated with wetlands in a way that enhances the
development and protects wetlands values, there appears to be insufficient upland area on this
site to make intensive development feasible.
Water Quality. The site is in a low-lying, and highly flood-prone area near the Pompton and
Passaic rivers, and Great Piece Meadows, which is an extensive wetland area. Water quality is
likely to be an important issue here, because of the abundant surface water resources and the
already substantial development in the area. The Passaic River is a water supply source for the
Passaic Valley Water Commission, which takes water from the river at Little Falls and treats it
for potable use. Sanitary sewerage is available at the Wayne site. The onsite wetlands could
possibly be used to filter and even out stormwater flows from development areas of the site.
Aquatic Resources. Although construction here would not have direct impacts on surface
waters through dredging and filling, the aquatic ecology of the rivers and wetlands in the
vicinity of the site (and wetlands on the site) could be affected by development at this location.
The area is sensitive for aquatic ecology, as it is for wetlands and water quality, because the land
is low and the area is historically prone to flooding. The onsite wetlands would aid in flood
storage, but flooding may be a further constraint to development. Large-scale development at
this hitherto undeveloped site would have more potential impact than at the urban sites in
Newark and Jersey City.
Terrestrial Ecology. Although this previously undeveloped site is not known to contain any
important habitats, its naturally vegetated upland areas function to protect the ecology of its
wetland areas, and the interlinked terrestrial ecology of upland and wetland would be more
vulnerable to the effects of development than the barren sites in Newark and Jersey City.
Transportation. Located at a regional highway node, the Wayne site is accessible by car from
Interstate 80, NJ Route 23, and other roads. Nearly all work trips attributable to new
development here would be by car. This area of Wayne has been identified as a regional center,
which will make the area a focus of future investment in highway infrastructure. The road
system appears to be adequate to accommodate new development in the area at present, as
evidenced by the township's final site plan approval of the Toombs office park.
4-17
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Mahwah
Two project areas in Mahwah were assessed for environmental effects associated with potential
development. The Ramapo Ridge corporate park currently contains three undeveloped tracts of
land; one site is 45 acres, one site is 22 acres, and one site is developed but has approximately 9
acres available. While additional development of the 9 acre parcel appears to be feasible, space
available on this property is limited and a major development project could not be
accommodated within the remaining site.
The Ramapo Ridge corporate park mixes primary office and warehouse/secondary office
parcels, and currently hosts a United Parcel Service Data Center, the US corporate headquarters
for Jaguar, as well as office and/or warehouse space for Meldisco, DialAmerica Marketing, Seiko
Pulsar, and Paulist Press. The corporate park is bordered to the west by Route 287 and Ramapo
College, and the corporate park is bordered to the east by the Kilmer Woods Residential
Condominiums.
The old Ford Motor site (172 acres) is located between Route 17 and the Ramapo River. The site
has been redeveloped in the form of a high-rise hotel and office uses (International Crossroads)
on a 107 acre tract, and warehousing (Sharp International) on a 65 acre tract. Neither site is fully
developed, however, future development would be constrained by the existing uses and site
layouts. It is also appropriate to note that Mahwah officials have recommended that policies
continuing single use site development practices remain in place.
Wetlands. According to NJDEP's freshwater wetland map for the Ramsey quadrangle NE, only
a few small wetlands (Palustrine forested and scrub/shrub) are present at the three sites in
Ramapo Ridge Corporate Park and at the old Ford Motor site. Large scale development of the
sites could occur without significant wetland impact, because the majority of the sites are
identified as upland areas. The existing wetland areas could likely be protected within a site
development plan.
Watpr Quality. Based on area topography, development of the Ramapo Ridge Corporate Park
sites would result in discharge of urban runoff to Darlington Brook and/or the Ramapo River.
Development of the Crossroads International site would also contribute urban runoff to the
Ramapo River. The Ramapo River, from the NJ/NY border to the Pompton River, has a surface
water quality classification of FW2-NT (non-trout). The water quality effects of development at
these sites would consist of short-term construction-related impacts such as soil erosion and
sedimentation effects, and long-term effects associated with runoff from parking areas, roads,
and buildings. The stormwater discharge impacts are slightly more significant here than at
other sites because of the reliance on the downstream Ramapo River as a public water supply
source, and because of the existing downstream flooding problems along the Ramapo River.
Aquatic Resources. Aquatic biology of Darlington Brook and/or the Ramapo River would likely
experience the minor effects of additional non-point source pollutants contributed by site runoff
from both project areas. The relatively high quality waters present in these waterways suggests
4-18
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
a greater potential relative impact to receiving water and biology than would occur in a river
already stressed, such as the Passaic River in Newark.
Terrestrial Ecology. The three available sites in the Ramapo Ridge Corporate Park are
previously undeveloped and covered with dense vegetation/forest. The sites provide habitat
for terrestrial wildlife and refuge from the surrounding development and loss of habitat. If
these parcels are developed the remaining existing terrestrial ecosystems in this area would be
lost. The ecosystem interactions among the Ramapo Ridge corporate park sites and the County
Park (surrounding the Darlington Lake) and other preserved open spaces in Mahwah would
likely be adversely affected by loss of habitat from development of the 22-acre site in the
Ramapo Ridge Corporate Center.
The International Crossroads and Sharp International sites were previously industrially
developed (Ford Motor Co.) and have been partially redeveloped with hotel and office space.
Although the site was previously industrial, the reuse of this site resulted in notable
environmental improvement. Further redevelopment of the remaining vacant land results in
minor loss of existing terrestrial habitat.
Transportation. All of the sites identified in Mahwah are currently accessible via Route 202,
Route 17, and Route 287. New development at these sites would significantly increase the
number of vehicles in the area, would add to congestion on the local roads serving Ramapo
Ridge corporate park, and would increase the generation of mobile source air pollutants. Mass
transit to these sites is theoretically feasible, using the train station in downtown Mahwah, and
in the form of bus service. However, the low land use densities and semi-rural residential
character preclude efficient bus service from dispersed residential locations in the region to
potential office and commercial activities at the Mahwah sites. The development sites are in
excess of one mile from the train station, and would likely require additional bus transport of
those commuting to and from work, which is generally considered a disincentive for transit use.
4.2.6 Ability of Out-of-District Alternatives to Fulfill Growth Needs
This analysis considers the real estate market to be a significant factor in determining the ability
of various locations to fulfill the housing, office development, commercial, and warehousing
needs of the region. Market demand strongly influences decisions to construct new housing and
places of commerce and employment. Criteria that guide development decisions typically
include "hard" factors such as land cost, construction cost, and infrastructure availability, and
"soft" factors such as marketability and location.
The following sections review both suburban and urban out-of-District growth potential, and
conclude that differing market forces in urban, suburban, and Meadowlands intraregional areas
result in land use preferences which generally do not compete among these areas. These
differences in market forces are not expected to change during the 20-year planning period. As
a result, the growth projected for, and needed in, the District cannot be effectively relocated out
of the District, as discussed below. Real estate professionals in the region anticipate that if the
4-19
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
proposed growth in the SAMP is not accommodated in the District, the development will be lost
to the region. If this occurs, the region's housing and employment needs will not be met.
Suburban Locations. Although locations have been identified out of the District that would
accommodate single use needs, such as development of homes or office buildings, growth
dispersed throughout suburban locations (such as Mahwah and Wayne) would contribute to the
pattern of sprawl that is discouraged in the adopted NJ State Development and Redevelopment
Plan. Development of the Ramapo Ridge sites in Mahwah will result in loss of forested upland
in the NJ Highlands, with the attendant loss of wildlife habitat, open space, and increased
segregation of residential and non-residential land uses (requiring additional dependence on
automobile travel), in an area that serves as an important source of water supply for major
population centers in northern New Jersey. Furthermore, large mixed-use sites (with higher
density and low- and moderate-income housing components) are not desired by Mahwah,
because of the presence of high density housing in the area and previous fulfillment of
affordable housing goals. The Wayne site has greater potential for mixed use development,
however, as is the case for many large tracts that have remained undeveloped through the years,
the site has significant wetland acreage that hinders implementation of a large mixed use
project, and thus is not superior to in-District sites.
Urban I.orations. Growth in urban locations is consistent with the State Master Plan. However,
the nature of the housing and office market is substantially different than the market existing in
the Meadowlands District, and urban centers were not found to be alternative locations for most
of the forms of growth that are exhibited in the Meadowlands District. (See Section 1 for a
review of growth and land use trends in the District.)
A representative urban center—Newark—was selected to assess the degree to which an urban
location can be an alternative to commercial and residential locations in the Meadowlands.
Discussions were held with professionals in real estate development and brokerage to determine
the localized differences in the commercial and residential market. Although Newark was used
as a point of comparison, all urban centers were found to have similar redevelopment
characteristics during the interviews and analyses. The urban centers all exhibited similar mixes
of land use densities, allowed similar flexibility in land use, required similar incentives to
stimulate interest from the development community (such as land assembly, subsidization, and
tax abatement), and were most successful in attracting specific business sectors, such as utilities,
education, government agencies, and related government service businesses (such as law and
public accounting).
T Irban Business Location Alternatives. The real estate and planning professionals contacted
agreed that Newark has certain strengths as a location that are unmatched in the Meadowlands,
that the Meadowlands has its own unique advantages, and that the markets for each area were
different. Generally, the Newark market comprises public sector and utility companies and law
firms. The Jersey City-Hudson Waterfront market is focused on finance and insurance firms,
many of which have relocated from Manhattan. The Meadowlands, on the other hand, serve a
more diversified corporate (i.e., "Fortune 500") business market. The business activities that
appear most highly represented in urban centers are not incompatible with the forms of primary
4-20
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
office and business growth expressing interest in Meadowlands locations (see Section 1),
however, each location attracts different sectors of the business community because of the
difference in locational amenities, such as business sector concentration, market location, and
labor force.
T Jrban Housing Location Alternatives. Newark, as a representative urban center, shows limited
potential as an alternative location to the District for residential growth. There appears to be
demand for market-residential space downtown; for example, the proposed Capital Hill
development near the proposed New Jersey Center for the Performing Arts will include a
residential component. Real estate surveys and interviews with home buyers show that
downtown locations are most attractive to specific segments of the residential market, i.e.,
younger, childless professionals and empty-nesters are represented in high numbers in this part
of the market. However, the large majority of the housing market, comprised of middle-class
parent-child households, heavily favors suburban locations.
Suburban locations have dominated the residential market in New Jersey since 1945, and recent
analyses have indicated that this trend is stronger than ever, as the suburban periphery in the
metropolitan area expands into Hunterdon, Sussex, Monmouth, and Ocean Counties. While
housing construction in the urban centers is, and will continue to be, an expanding element of
the market, such housing supplements, but does not replace, the core housing market. The
demand for housing in a suburban setting is extremely strong in New Jersey, and constitutes the
large majority of the housing market. The characteristics of housing demand drive the housing
construction and real estate markets. The strong and consistent preference for suburban
residential location in New Jersey over the past 50 years indicate that the urban centers of
northeastern New Jersey cannot reasonably be considered interchangeable with the
Meadowlands housing market, which has a style and setting that is suburban in character.
Real estate and urban planning professionals generally agree on the importance of specific
location in determining market demand, and the demand for business and housing growth in
urban centers, as a proportion of the growth in the six-county region, has traditionally been low
(relatively) without specific incentives or the attraction of specific business sector concentrations.
If the demand is proportionally low in urban locations, the population and employment growth
of the region is not likely to be accommodated in such out-of-District locations.
In conclusion, neither vacant suburban nor urban locations appear to serve as practicable
alternatives to growth in the Meadowlands District. The market demand for (and related
development funding in) out-of-District urban locations is not sufficient to fulfill the regional
need for housing and employment facilities. If market forces proposing growth in the District
are not accommodated, and out-of-District locations do not adequately substitute for in-District
proposals, developers will look elsewhere for investment opportunities to replace those not
secured in-District. Such a scenario is likely to result in loss of population and jobs to the region.
There is significant competition for investment dollars throughout the U.S., witness the business
captures in the Sunbelt in the past decade. Investors that cannot find desirable business
locations have been readily induced to consider new locations outside the metropolitan area.
4-21
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Locations for Secondary Office/Warehouse Land Uses. Alternative locations for secondary
office/warehouse land uses exist along the metropolitan area's highway and turnpike system.
Ready access to the transportation network and access to markets are the principal factors that
attract secondary office and warehouse land uses, specifically highway proximity to commercial
centers in the area (including New York City). Programs to encourage warehouse and
secondary office development in Elizabeth (under a special study), and in Newark (as well as
other urban centers) have been identified.
However, in the metropolitan area, businesses have predominantly preferred locations in the
Meadowlands because of closer proximity to markets (hence lower fuel/operating costs), and
these trends are projected to continue. Market behavior is the most direct indicator of the
demand for secondary office/warehouse growth. While alternative locations for secondary
office/warehouse land uses exist in the metropolitan area, the market demand has been
expressed most strongly in the Meadowlands District (see Appendix D). This long-term trend is
projected to continue because of the locational advantages available in the District.
In terms of future trends, the need for in-District secondary office development is a function of
the strong primary office growth projected for the District. Relocating such uses away from the
District's economic, transportation, and labor pool resources, as well as locating sites away from
the primary business operations that require secondary office support, is likely to result in some
loss of such economic activity in the region.
4.2.7 Ability of Out-of-District Alternatives to Achieve Project Purpose
As noted earlier, the project purpose is the implementation of a SAMP in the Meadowlands
District—to address the District's environmental quality problems, and to streamline the
development review process and the regulatory programs that apply to economic growth in the
District that is consistent with the SAMP.
The approach to SAMP implementation agreed upon in the MOU, and proposed by HMDC for
future District planning, is based on the interdependency between future land uses and
environmental restoration, and linkage between future land uses and achievement of
environmental management goals and social needs (i.e., housing and employment opportunity).
In order to manage the complex land use and environmental issues in the District the following
mechanisms need to be synthesized:
¦	zoning that accommodates reasonable economic growth in the District, in the form of
mixed development centers with strong linkages to surrounding business services;
¦	financing environmental rehabilitation, environmental management, and monitoring
systems in the District using environmental linkage fees and environmental assessment
fees from new and existing development,
¦	convergence of federal, state, and local public policy objectives with regard to the
environment, transportation, housing, and economic development;
4-22
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
¦ creation of a federal/state partnership that can efficiently and comprehensively address
the "bundle" of problems and needs of the District;
Achieving the goals of the SAMP, in particular the EIP, is fundamentally dependent upon
implementing SAMP mechanisms that are integrally linked, so as to achieve comprehensive
District-wide planning and environmental management goals. The cost and regulatory
complexity of realizing land and environmental management goals are significant for the
District. Directing growth out of the District, to urban or suburban locations elsewhere in
metropolitan New Jersey, cannot contribute to the project purpose of implementing a SAMP
with an effective EIP, because it would make the implementation tools that are essential for
environmental improvement (such as environmental assessment fees and linkage fees, transfer
of development rights (TDR), and mitigation/restoration projects) unavailable to HMDC.
Hence, the integrity and effectiveness of the SAMP in achieving environmental and economic
goals would be undermined by shifting a majority of the anticipated economic development out
of the District. Out-of-District growth, to the degree that it substantially detracts from in-District
growth needs and environmental improvement goals, is inconsistent with HMDC's planning
objectives and environmental goals.
The criteria of practicability under Section 404(b)(1) recognizes, for a planning project such as a
SAMP, factors such as an alternative's ability to satisfy both SAMP goals and HMDC statutory
responsibilities, including overall environmental improvement, solid waste management, and
development of jobs and housing; and the ability to contribute to remediation of deteriorated
environmental conditions. Because HMDC is "applying" for the establishment of a federal
regulatory presumption regarding the availability of alternatives (analogous to a typical permit
situation), HMDC's goals, planning purposes, and authorities have been considered in assessing
the practicability of alternative sites for development, preservation, and restoration.
4.2.8 Pilot Program: Redirecting Growth to Out-of-District Urban Centers
This analysis has concluded that suburban locations are not practicable alternative site locations
for three principal reasons: (1) state and local planning processes, as a policy goal, discourage
suburban and exurban sprawl, (2) there is a scarcity of appropriately sized parcels within the
developed suburban portion of the region that accept mixed use development, and (3) out-of-
District locations have differing market forces that result in land use preferences that do not
compete among urban, suburban, and Meadowlands locations.
This analysis of out-of-District urban alternatives has also concluded that the professional
literature is scant with respect to identifying the degree to which proposals for development in
suburban areas can be redirected to urban areas. Because of HMDC's clearly stated support for
revitalizing New Jersey's urban centers, and because of HMDC's support for the NJ
Development and Redevelopment Plan (which promotes growth in urban centers), HMDC
proposes a pilot program to assess the potential for redirection of growth to an urban center(s).
The potential for redirecting some of the growth pressure focused on the Meadowlands District
to out-of-District urban locations will be assessed as part of the SAMP by implementing a pilot
program. Such a program will yield valuable information, insofar as little applicable data is
4-23
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
currently available to assess the effectiveness of various initiatives in encouraging such
redirection. However, efforts to redirect growth out-of-District will be implemented only to the
degree that they do not result in HMDC substantially forfeiting achievement of District and
SAMP environmental management goals.
Several locations appear to be suitable for this project, such as Jersey City, Newark, and
Flizabeth. A location which appears to offer considerable potential is Jersey City, because the
City is a member municipality of HMDC, and because several alternative sites exist with
development potential. Supporting out-of-District growth in Jersey City has fewer jurisdictional
and policy constraints than would arise for locations that are not member municipalities of
HMDC. However, this analysis also recognizes that substantial redevelopment efforts are
underway in Newark and Elizabeth. While stimulus packages to assist in redirecting growth to
these locations may be more limited than those that might be made available to Jersey City by
HMDC (because Jersey City is an HMDC member municipality), redirection mechanisms will be
included to support out-of-District growth in any urban area.
A site size and mixed use approach similar to the cluster (or node) project design preferred in
the District is recommended to assess the potential of supporting out-of-District projects. A site
density of about 40 residential dwellings per acre was assumed for the alternatives screening
analysis, as was a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 to 1.0. A project size of 1,000 residential units
and 1.0 million square feet of primary office space is equivalent to the project scale contemplated
within the District by HMDC, because it provides the desired land use efficiencies associated
with mixed use, higher density projects, such as clustered project layout and reduced
requirements for highway usage. Because several locations exhibit potential in Jersey City, and
because future utilization of specific sites by developers is not possible to predict, the
out-of-District growth program will be created such that about 1.5 million square feet of office
space and about 1,000 housing units could potentially be encouraged in an out-of-District
location(s) in Jersey City (or in other urban areas) that met the transfer criteria (i.e., appropriate
scale and combination of available urban land uses).
This quantity of residential and non-residential growth will be used to test its rate of utilization
by the development community and to refine the redirection components.6 This growth, to the
degree allowable by law, will be supported through SAMP mechanisms that create incentives
for out-of-District development, using subsidization and regulatory streamlining approaches to
facilitate growth in an urban center(s). Development that is redirected out-of-District will
reduce development needs within the District, and will replace the demand from in-District
projects that require wetland fill.
During the first 5 years, the out-of-District research project will be monitored to determine
whether in-District developers and/or land owners could be successfully encouraged to shift
development to Jersey City (or another urban center). The program will be assessed to
6 This alternatives analysis does not detail the mechanisms for redirecting growth to out-of-
District locations; such detail will be part of the agreements related to SAMP implementation.
4-24
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
determine the level of success in encouraging redevelopment in urban centers. Periodic review
will determine whether adjustments are needed in the project to improve incentives, and to
reduce administrative and regulatory review for selected projects. The program will also assess
whether, and how much, out-of-District development might compromise the SAMP. A program
assessment will be conducted every 5 years.
HMDC also proposes to include in this project the testing of the potential to redirect office,
commercial, and warehouse projects to out-of-District locations. HMDC proposes to identify
economic stimulus tools, and (in conjunction with Jersey City officials) a streamlined
development review process in Jersey City. In addition, the economic stimulus package will be
available to development interests to reduce the cost of completing projects in Jersey City (or
other urban locations that fit the out-of-District criteria).
Economic incentives for development will consist of public funding and economic programs
available from local, state, and federal sources, with a goal of leveraging funds from private
market or institutional sources. Other incentives might include project financing assistance,
project loans, parcel assembly and consolidation, and infrastructure development to the extent
permissible under HMDC enabling legislation and to the extent funding is available. HMDC
proposes to work closely with Jersey City (and/or other urban centers) to facilitate provision of
housing for Jersey City's needs, and to coordinate funding support (as possible) for clearing and
assembling tracts into acceptable sites. HMDC will also work to develop streamlined
administrative/regulatory review procedures for selected sites.
4.3 In-District Alternatives Analysis
4.3.1 Screening Analysis of In-District Alternatives
The in-District alternatives screening can be described as an environmental analysis that
compares the relative efficiency of land use and resource protection associated with a series of
alternative spatial arrangements for future growth in the District. The alternatives to be
screened consist of five in-District land management alternatives, as well as the no action
alternative. The alternatives that have been developed are representative of spatial
arrangements associated with typical growth patterns in the NY Metropolitan region. The in-
District alternatives that have been examined include:
No Action Alternative
In-District Land Management Alternatives
¦	Upland Growth
¦	Redevelopment
¦	Highway Corridors
¦	Dispersed Development Areas
¦	Growth Centers
4-25
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
A multi-phase approach has been adopted for the alternatives analysis because the SAMP/EIS
can be conducted most effectively by first identifying whether there are spatial arrangements for
growth in the District that have higher land use efficiencies, identifying which spatial
arrangements these are, and then evaluating detailed environmental effects only for those forms
of growth that best meet the objectives of the SAMP.
This section of the alternatives analysis consists of an alternatives screening process to evaluate,
on a relative basis, the general environmental effects of alternative in-District forms of growth.
A more detailed evaluation of the environmental effects of the preferred alternative is conducted
in Section 5. The spatial arrangements ("footprints") of the alternatives are illustrated in Figures
4-1 through 4-6. The planning areas included in each alternative, and the general land uses of
included in each alternative, are identified in Tables 4-1 through 4-7.
Alternatives Screening - Approaches and Planning Assumptions
The in-District alternatives were developed by HMDC based on local knowledge of the District's
growth patterns, land use trends, and environmental resources. Potential development areas
were delineated for each of the alternatives, following the definition of that alternative (as is
described below). The spatial arrangements were composed using three criteria: reasonableness
of the projected land use; degree of representativeness of forms (or spatial arrangements) of
growth that typically occur in the region; and the feasibility and appropriateness of identified
land uses and locations. For example, potential development areas for the Highway Corridors
alternative are primarily located along major transportation routes.
For planning purposes, the potential development areas have been divided into two groups:
Planning Areas and Satellite Areas. Planning Areas are locations that are anticipated to host the
principal land uses (primary office, commercial, and residential development). Satellite Areas
are tracts that are anticipated to host secondary land uses (secondary office, warehousing/
distribution, and light industrial development), and are typically parcels in proximity to
Planning Areas. The secondary office/warehouse land use category provides much of the
support service for the primary uses, but also provides for the storage, distribution, and
assembly of a wide variety of goods both manufactured and imported into the region.
Secondary office uses provide the administrative function for the distribution network and in
most cases, are located within close proximity to the distribution/assembly functions.
The in-District alternatives were screened to reveal the comparative land use efficiency and the
environmental effects of their spatial arrangements and planning concepts. Thus, all the
alternatives have been developed so that, to the maximum extent feasible, they similarly fulfill
HMDC-identified social, economic, and environmental needs. Comparison is facilitated by
4-26
-------


~ 0 R A F T *
E3
Planning Aria
a
Secondary Office/
WorihouJi Aria
/V
HMDC Boundary
A/
Uajar fioadj
/V
Surlaci Watir
A /
Rail
CDM
MrirmmM MjiNiri, uintiiti,
(talfl i KMHUMIlt (tmlMl
Figure 4-1
Upland Alternative
Hackensack Meodowlonds SAMP/EIS
-------
Table 4-1
ANTICIPATED LAND USES OF PLANNING AREAS
UPLAND ALTERNATIVE
Primary Office Commercial Residential
Size	Land Use Land Use	Land Use
Planning Area
(Acres)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(housing units)
(A) Bellman's Creek
31


1,550
(B) Arena
127
800,000


(C) Sportsplex
14


700
(D) UOP
36
2,352,240


(E) Red Roof Inn
22


1,100

7


350
(H) Standard Tool
79
5,161,860


(F) Tony's Old Mill
7


350
(G) Chromakill Creek
65


3,250

20

435,600

(K.) Enterprise Ave. So.
38
2,482,920


(M) PR - 2 (II)
79


3,950
(N)SCP
10

217,800

(R) Koppers Coke
28

609,840

(O) Laurel Hill
144


7,200

25

544,500

(L) Walsh
64
4,181,760


(J) BCC East
6


300
(P) Kearny
27
1,764,180


TOTAL	829 16,742,960 1,807,740	18,750
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 14,270,256 square feet for this alternative.
-------
METERS
CDM
tmlnnwiM (•#«>. tMUil,
ptarnfi I MMftmml ctMrflwIi
m Planning Aria
aSicondory Of lie*/
Warthoun Ar«a
HMDC Boundary
Uajor Roods
fsj Surlot» Wotir
A.' Roll
~DRAFT
Figure 4-2
Redevelopment Alternative
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS
-------
Planning Area
Table 4-2
ANTICIPATED LAND USES OF PLANNING AREAS
REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Primary Office Commercial Residential
Size Land Use Land Use	Land Use
	(Acres)	(sq. ft.)	(sq. fit.) (housing units)
(A)	UOP Site
(B)	Rutherford STP
(C)	Bellman's Creek
(D)	North Bergen
(E)	Wood Ave.
(F)	Secaucus 1-495
(G)	Secaucus Rd.
(H)	Castle Rd.
(I)	Kearny West
(J) Jersey City
(K) Little Ferry Waterfront
(N) Riverview
¦SO .1,267,000
36
36 2,352,240
17
31 2,025,540
28
10
26
33
42
111
22
10
50
31
10
1,089,000
2,156,220
4,835,160
1,437,480
784,080
914,760
217,800
1,870
880
3,080
2,860
5,500
3410
1100
TOTAL
551
17,162,640 1,916,640
18,700
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 15,489,936 square feet for this alternative.
-------

FEET
«	nil
'DRAFT'
CD
Planning Aria
CD
Secondary Ollici/
Warehouse Area
A'
HMDC Boundary
N
Ua|or Roads
A'
Surface Water

Rail
CDM
MVireMnMlfl MfiMWI, iciutilll,
ploMtri A wwwynxal cMivltwti
Figure 4-3
Highway Corridors
Alternative
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS
-------
Table 4-3
Planning Area
ANTICIPATED LAND USES OF PLANNING AREAS
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE
Primary Office Commercial Residential
Size Land Use Land Use	Land Use
	(Acres)	(sq. ft.)	(sq. ft.) (housing units)
(D)	Veterans Blvd
(C) Arena
(B) Sportsplex
(A) TAZ 92 (south)
(G)	B1.219A (Rutherford)
(F) East Ruth. Bl. 109
(E)	Berrys Creek Center
(H)	Meadowlands Pkwy
(I)	Plaza Center
(J) Mill Creek
(K) Chromakill Creek
(L) County Ave.
(M) Secaucus 1-495
(N) Secaucus Pat Plank Rd.
(0) SU - 2
TOTAL
140
78
32
17
55
216
65
35
22
17
2
8
65
10
18
16
16
10
28
17
142
28
1,059
958,320
1,800,000
740,520
4,247,100
1,524,600
348,480
1,089,000
696,960
653,400
6,185,520
370,260
43,560
392,040
348,480
609,840
370,260
609,840
18,243,900 2,744,280
3,120
1,280
2,200
8,640
880
2,600
18,720
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 16,300,000 square feet for this alternative.
-------
~DRAFT*

Legend
CD
Planning Ario
CD
Secondary 01 tic*/
Warihouse *r«a
>v
HWDC Boundary
N
Major Road]
/V
Surlaci Woiir
Roil
CDM
WlbWUMIlW WflMOI. icMsti.
plMMM * HWMfM*"! CMMIImU
Figure 4-4
Dispersed Development
Areas Alternative
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS
-------
Table 4-4
ANTICIPATED LAND USES OF PLANNING AREAS
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS ALTERNATIVE
Primary Office Commercial Residential
Size Land Use Land Use	Land Use
Planning Area	(Acres)	(sq. ft.)	(sq. ft.) (housing units)
(A) TAZ 92 (north ;
8!


3,240
(B) TAZ 92 (south)
32
1,393,920


(C) Sportsptex
58


2,320
(D) Berrys Creek
65
2,831,400


(E) Rutherford Bl. 109
70
20
3,049,200
435,600

(F) Mill Creek
50
97
2,178,000

3,880
(G) SU - 2
92


3,680
(H) Laurel Hill
169


6,760
(J) Kearny West
37

805,860

(L) Allied
28
4,878,720


(K) Koppers Coke
28
39
1,698,840
609,840

(I) PR-2
58
20
27
2,526,480
435,600
1,080
TOTAL	971 18,556,560 2,286,900	20,960
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 13,600,000 square feet for this alternative.
-------
~DRAFT*
Figure 4-5
Growth Centers Alternative
CDM
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS
-------
Planning Area
Table 4-5
ANTICIPATED LAND USES OF PLANNING AREAS
GROWTH CENTERS ALTERNATIVE
Primary Office Commercial Residential
Size Land Use Land Use	Land Use
	(Acres)	(sq. ft.)	(sq. ft.) (housing units)
(A) Empire Blvd Area
220
69
62
7,700
3,005,640
1,350,360
(B) Harmon Meadow Area	97	3,880
67 2,918,520
63	1,372,140
(D) Secaucus Transfer Area	20 4,356,000
63 2,744,280
169	6,760
(C) Berrys Creek Area	97	3,880
86 5,619,240
10	217,800
TOTAL	1,023 18,643,680 2,940,300	22,220
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 16,300,000 square feet for this alternative.
-------
~DRAFT*
Figure 4-6
Ho Action Alternative
CDM
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS
-------
Table 4-6
ANTICIPATED LAND USES OF PLANNING AREAS
NO ACTION (NO SAMP) ALTERNATIVE
Primary Office Commercial Residential
Planning Area
Size
(Acres)
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
Land Use
(housing units)
(A) Teterboro
23
500,940


(B) IR-4
224


4,480
(B) IR-4
10

217,800

(C) IR-3
147


2,940
(D) IR-2
87


1,740
(E) Berrys Creek
93
2,025,540


(E) Berrys Creek
79

1,720,620

(F) PR-2
226


7,910
(F) PR-2
10

217,800

(G) SU-2
95
2,069,100


(H) TC-3
22
479,160


(I) PR-3
138


4,830
(I) PR-3
10

217,800

(J)SU-l
76
1,655,280


(K) SU-3
322
7,013,160


(L) RD Park
73
1,568,160


(M) HC Secaucus
133
2,896,740


TOTAL	1,768 18,208,080 2,374,020	21,900
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 15,524,784 square feet for this alternative.
-------
Table 4-7
SECONDARY OFFICE, WAREHOUSING, & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
AREA COMPONENTS OF 1N-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
Warehousing &
Secondary Office & Size Office Areas in each
& Warehousing Area	(Acres)	Alternative (1)
a
10
GUSNHR
aa
18
GUSNHR
ab
9
GUSNHR
ac
4
GSNHR
ad
33
S
ae
38
GSNHR
af
15
GSNHR
ag
38
GSNHR
ah
7
GUSNHR
ai
13
GSNH
aj
26
GSNHR
ak
20
GUNH
al
22
GUSHR
am
5
GUSHR
an
20
GUSNHR
ao
47
GUSNHR
ap
41
GNHR
aq
5
SNH
ar
18
U
as
79
GUSNHR
b
3
GUSNHR
c
9
GUSNHR
d
2
GUSNHR
e
14
GUSNHR
f
13
GUSNHR
g
3
GUSNHR
h
18
GSNH
i
24
GSNH
j
48
GSNHR
k
19
USNHR
1
82
NHR
m
50
NHR
n
7
GSNH
0
2
GUSNHR
P
2
GUSNHR
q
3
GSNHR
r
10
GSNHR
s
26
GSNHR
t
26
GUSNHR
u
14
GUSNHR
V
28
GSNHR
w
36
GSNHR
X
45
GUSHR
y
28
GUSHR
z
22
GSNHR

1,001

(1) NOTE: Found within the specified alternative: G=Growth Centers Alternative;
U=Upland Alternative; S=Dispersed Development Areas Alternative;
N=No Action Alternative; H=Highway Alternative; R=Redevelopment Alternative.
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
applying a uniform set of assumptions. The assumptions established equivalency among the
alternatives during the screening analysis.7 The spatial arrangements, and their related
efficiencies are evaluated in terms of: the general magnitude of the environmental impacis; the
planning and management characteristics associated with the alternative; and the degree to
which the alternative fulfills the objectives of the SAMP and HMDC-identified needs. The
alternatives were evaluated using existing information.
The alternatives connect to highway and mass transportation systems in different ways (e.g., the
highway corridor alternative is highly road dependent). The alternatives also exhibit varying
degrees of nodality (i.e., development focused into centers versus dispersed growth). Finally,
with the exception of the upland alternative, the alternatives incorporate varying mixes of
upland and wetland locations because: (1) there is limited vacant upland in the District available
to meet HMDC-identified needs; and (2) the locations were selected so as to achieve a competent
planning concept for the District. The impacts of specific land uses that are common to all
alternatives (such as assumed future transportation improvements) has not been quantified in
the screening analysis because identification of such effects does not help distinguish between
alternatives during the screening process.
Because of the importance of evaluating use of non-wetlands in developing a future
comprehensive plan for the District, and because only limited land is available in the District
that is either upland or that may be eligible for blight designation (redevelopment) pursuant to
applicable New Jersey statutes, these alternatives were screened using relatively high land use
densities (50-110 dwelling units/acre) in order to try to meet HMDC-identified growth needs.
The alternatives screening is designed to reveal the more efficient ways to spatially arrange
growth in the District, applying a common and relatively equal set of assumptions. The
screening process produces a ranking of alternatives. The rank of each alternative is determined
by its environmental impacts, its relative ability to meet SAMP goals, and its relative
environmental efficiency regarding land use. From the analysis of alternative growth patterns, a
specific spatial arrangement was identified for the District, based on a hybrid formed from
7 Two categories of needs were used to create representative patterns of growth for the
screening analysis:
1.	Achievement of social and economic needs in the District by adding approximately
20,000 housing units, 18 million square feet of primary office space, 2-3 million square
feet of commercial space, and 16 million square feet of secondary office/light
industrial/warehousing over a twenty-year period.
2.	Implementation of an Environmental Improvement Program in the Meadowlands
District, including natural resource and habitat enhancement, solid waste facility
improvements, hazardous waste remediation, open space preservation, and water
quality improvement, among others. HMDC's Environmental Improvement Program
was described in Section 2.
4-40
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
portions of several of the Land Management Alternatives with the lowest potential for
environmental impacts (see Section 4.5).
Description of Land Management Alternatives
The general sets of assumptions underlying each of the alternatives are presented below. These
descriptions are designed to illuminate the principles by which the Land Management
Alternatives were composed. The spatial arrangements were composed using three criteria:
reasonableness of the projected land use; representativeness of forms (or spatial arrangements)
of growth that typically occur in the region; and feasibility and appropriateness of identified
land uses and locations.
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative, by definition, does not result in the creation
and implementation of a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the District, as defined in
the Memorandum of Understanding. The central assumption is that the existing HMDC Master
Plan and Zoning ordinance would continue to be implemented. (The absence of a SAMP
presumably would result in a continuation of current, apparently conflicting, authorities that
increase the difficulty of continued implementation of the existing HMDC Master Plan and the
federal Clean Water Act objectives. Conflicting goals also increase the difficulty of integrating
advance comprehensive planning into the federal and state environmental regulatory processes
affecting wetlands). This alternative also assumes increasing fragmentation and dispersal of
planning authority in the District, because HMDC would not be able to adequately fulfill several
of their statutory planning and environmental management mandates. (The out-of-District
alternative is the conceptual equivalent of a "no build" alternative; the No Action alternative
should not be regarded as a "no build" alternative.)
For purposes of evaluating the No Action alternative, which primarily describes the effect of no
SAMP being implemented in the District, it is assumed that land owners will continue to pursue
site development plans, in the context of current (and future) environmental laws and
regulations. Development proposals would be based on the existing Master Plan and Zoning
Regulations. Just as it is not possible to describe the location and size of future site development
proposals over the 20-year planning period, it is not possible to describe the administration of
future environmental laws and regulations given the absence of management controls that
would be achieved through the SAMP. For these reasons the No Action Alternative is described
and evaluated based on assumptions regarding future social, natural, and economic conditions
without implementation of a SAMP.
It is not possible to predict the specific locations and sizes of projects that would be
implemented in the absence of a SAMP because it is not possible to predict the outcome of
future permitting processes. Although HMDC has evaluated the generalized levels of growth
that would occur under full build-out of the existing Master Plan, it is reasonable to assume, on
a District-wide basis, that about 60 percent of the build-out of the existing HMDC Master Plan
would occur over a 20-year planning period, essentially based on the amount of growth that
would be equivalent to the growth needs established for the Screening Analysis.
4-41
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
The No Action alternative, because it does not result in the development and implementation of
a SAMP for the District, does not include a number of regulatory, programmatic, and
management benefits that would derive from the SAMP. The management and planning
improvements that will not be available under the No Action alternative, and prospective
difficulties arising from No Action, are listed below.
¦	In the absence of a SAMP there will be no agreement on or resolution of future alternatives
analyses, which are required under Section 404 for projects involving wetland impacts.
This lack of agreement on alternatives will continue the existing high level of complexity,
long duration, and high cost of complying with permitting requirements for projects
proposed in the District that require wetland fill, thereby reducing the predictability and
consistency of the permitting process.
¦	There will be no new comprehensive planning, management, and monitoring mechanism
to assure compatibility between the HMDC Master Plan and the Clean Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, and the Superfund/SARA laws, thereby increasing administrative and
management obligations for federal and state agencies.
¦	There will be few mechanisms and limited resources and authority to fully implement the
goals and objectives set forth in HMDC's Environmental Improvement Program, because
the spectrum of EIP goals can be achieved only by delivering both public and private
funding resources under a coordinated management system.
Upland Growth Alternative. This alternative assumes that growth occurs only on vacant land in
the District that is not wetland. Development of these sites assumes the use of several
properties suspected of being landfilled and/or contaminated, as well as some properties with
constrained road access. This alternative also involves the use of infill upland parcels
throughout the District to accommodate secondary office, light industrial, and warehousing land
uses (as described in HMDC's Needs Statement, see Appendix D). This alternative results in the
development of most of the natural terrestrial habitats that currently exist in the District. In
order place the identified development entirely in the limited upland areas, extremely high
development densities (e.g., housing densities of 100 units/acre, floor area ratios of about 5.0)
were used. These development densities are higher than prevailing geological conditions and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height restrictions allow.
Redevelopment Alternative. Redevelopment locations included in this alternative are generally
consistent with standard blight criteria of under-utilization and deteriorating conditions. The
redevelopment sites shown under this alternative involve redevelopment and conversion of lots
on which existing or remnant structures are present into residential, office, commercial or
warehousing uses. Redevelopment projects considered in this alternative require government
involvement in blight declaration and in such activities as site planning, acquisition, financing,
relocation, and site disposition. Additionally, development of these sites assumes use of several
properties suspected of being landfilled and/or contaminated, as well as some properties with
constrained or restricted road access. This alternative also involves the use of infill and other
parcels throughout the District to accommodate secondary office, light industrial, and
4-42
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
warehousing land uses (as described in HMDC's Needs statement), which would occur in both
upland and infill wetland locations. As with the Upland Alternative, in order to fulfill the
identified growth needs for the District, the development densities (i.e., units per acre and floor
area ratios) used for the Redevelopment Alternative were higher than prevailing geological
conditions and FAA height restrictions allow.
Highway Corridor Alternative. This alternative has been developed based on the assumption
that private market real estate pressures will result in growth along existing highway corridors,
specifically the high-visibility highly-traveled Route 3 corridor. This form of growth is typical in
the NY/NJ Metropolitan region, as development interests are attracted to highway corridors
that exhibit high levels of use by automobiles for commercial activities and that provide access
for office and residential land uses. This alternative involves growth in both upland and
wetland locations. This alternative also involves the use of a number of infill and other parcels
throughout the District to accommodate secondary office, light industrial, and warehousing land
uses, which would occur in both upland and infill wetland locations.
Dispersed Development Areas. The Dispersed Development Areas alternative assumes that a
pattern of functionally unrelated and decentralized growth is likely to result from market
pressures and demand; growth being located in small areas of development scattered
throughout the District. This alternative involves growth in both upland and wetland locations,
and includes locations of mixed-use development. This alternative also involves the use of infill
and other parcels throughout the District to accommodate secondary office, light industrial, and
warehousing land uses, which would occur in both upland and infill wetland locations.
Growth Centers Alternative. The Growth Centers Alternative involves growth occurring
principally in major nodes within the Meadowlands District. It involves growth in both upland
and wetland locations. This alternative involves a high level of linkage between nodes and
areawide transit systems, so as to maximize use of transit. It emphasizes large scale mixed-use
community designs that seek to integrate housing, employment, and retail activity in common
locations. This alternative also involves the use of infill and other parcels throughout the
District to accommodate secondary office, light industrial, and warehousing land uses, which
would occur in both upland and infill wetland locations.
Screening Results for In-District Alternatives
This section compares the environmental effects of the six in-District alternatives. The potential
environmental impacts associated with the six in-District alternatives were evaluated using a
range of environmental study methods. (The results of the screening analysis for each of the
environmental impact categories are described in Appendix K - Alternatives Screening Analysis
Report). Then, the potential impacts identified for each alternative were combined and
compared for all the alternatives. Please note that the impacts of the six in-District alternatives
are based on preliminary assumptions regarding land disturbance associated with each
alternative form of growth, and that the impacts of growth in satellite growth areas and from
transportation improvements are held constant during the alternatives screening. (The six in-
District alternatives are evaluated against the Preferred Alternative in Section 4.5.)
4-43
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Methods for Ranking Alternatives
Alternatives have been ranked based on their relative potential for environmental impact in
eight categories: wetland resources; threatened/endangered species and remnant/unique
habitats; water quality; aquatic resources; terrestrial resources; transportation; air quality; and
cultural resources. For each category of potential impact, a numerical measure of impact has
been determined. Using a numerical measure of impact allows direct comparison of impacts of
one alternative relative to another. The alternatives have been ranked, based on their potential
impacts, within each impact category (i.e., wetlands, water quality, transportation, etc.). Then,
the ranks for each impact category are combined into a single index. For each impact category,
the rankings have been calculated such that the alternative with the least potential for impact
receives a rank of 1.0, and the alternative with the greatest potential for impact receives a rank of
7.0 (because, including the Preferred Alternative8, seven alternatives were evaluated). The
remaining alternatives received proportional ranks between 1.0 and 7.0.
The ranks are indicators of how the potential impacts of each alternative compare to the
minimum and maximum potential impacts that would be exhibited by the alternatives. This
separates the scores for alternatives that have very different levels of impact, and results in
similar scores for alternatives that have similar levels of impact. The numerical method used is
illustrated in Figure 4-7. It should be noted that the screening assessment methodologies were
selected, and the impact assessments were conducted at a screening level-of-analysis. The
screening analysis is designed to reveal differences in environmental impact among the land use
management alternatives.
Environmental Impact Categories
Wetland Resources. To assess the potential for impacts to wetland resources, the attribute
indicator values for the water quality improvement (WQ), wildlife habitat (WH), and social
significance (SS) attributes (as explained in Section 3) were combined. At this level of screening
the attribute indicator values for the three attributes were added equally. The attribute indicator
values were calculated using the indicator value assessment (IVA) method (described in more
detail in Section 3 and Appendix F). The IVA method operates by assigning a numerical
importance rank to wetland functional indicators as they relate to three general wetland
attributes. Each wetland assessment area (AA) in the District is scored on the basis of the
presence or absence of these wetland functional indicators, on a scale of 0 to 100. The final
attribute indicator value is obtained by multiplying the attribute score by the area of the wetland
(in acres).
Potential for impacts to the wetland resources are measured by predicting changes in wetland
functional indicators to each AA in the District, and re-evaluating the AAs based on the revised
« The Preferred Alternative is not discussed in this section because it was a product of the
„	An environmental screening, ranking, and comparison of the Preferred
SSXJSSnSSSJrf"- Prcferred A1,emaHve was iden,ified- ^ anal)'5i818
nted in Section 4.5. The screening analysis is expanded to a detailed analysis of the
Preferred Alternative in Section 5.
4-44
-------
Terrestrial Resources
Impact Analysis Results
(acres of terrestrial
habitat impact)
No Action
(798.3)
Dispersed
Development
(749.1)
800
Terrestrial
Cultural
Upland
(726.7)
700
Growth Centers
(690.2)
Preferred Alternative
(629.9)
Highway Corridors
(578.4)
Redevelopment
(507.6)
Cultural Resources
Impact Analysis Results
(total number of
resources affected)
r 25
Highway Corridors
(24)
600 -
500 —
[
(Impac^, - lmpactmin)
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
set of indicators. The potential impact is then identifiable as the difference between the
post-impact attribute indicator values and the baseline values. (For a more detailed explanation
of the method used to estimate wetland impacts, the reader is referred to Section 5.1.)
The results of the wetland impact alternatives ranking are presented in Table 4-8. The
alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential for impacts to wetland resources:
the greatest potential for impact results from No Action (7.0), followed by Dispersed
Development (4.5), Growth Centers (4.5), Highway Corridors (4.4), Redevelopment (3.0), and the
lowest potential for impact results from Upland (1.0).
Threatened / Endangered (T/E) Species and Remnant/I Jniqnf fR/U) Habitat. To assess the
potential impacts to this environmental impact category, the area of potential impact to T/E
species and R/U habitats for each alternative was determined based on the existing information
on T/E species and R/U habitats in the District (see Section 3.3). Furthermore, because T/E
species habitat was considered to be more important than R/U habitat, an unequal weighting
was applied, with impacts to T/E species habitat receiving a weighting of 5 and impacts to R/U
habitat receiving a weighting of 2. The various alternatives were ranked for both T/E and R/U
impacts, these individual ranks were combined using the weighting factors, and the resulting
"weighted impact rank" was scaled to a numerical range from 1 to 7.
The results of the T/E species and R/U habitat impact ranking are presented in Table 4-9 The
alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential for impacts to T/E and R/U
habitats: the greatest potential for impact results from No Action (7.0), followed by Dispersed
Development (3.4), Highway Corridors (2.6), Growth Centers (3.0), Upland (1.4), and the lowest
potential for impact results from Redevelopment (1.0).
Water Quality- Modeling results for two of the several pollutants evaluated for stormwater
runoff impacts indicated potential stormwater concentrations greater than ambient surface
water quality concentrations in the District: suspended solids (SS) and copper. The
measurement selected to describe potential SS impacts was the mean SS concentration (in me/11
in runoff (the "end of pipe" concentration before dilution) estimated for each alternative The
measurement selected to describe potential copper impacts was the acreage of the planning
areas which resulted in projected higher relative stormwater quality concentrations (greater than
5 times the EPA acute toxic water quality criterion). Because the impacts from copper are
measured in acres contributing runoff with levels of copper estimated to have "significant
impact potential", while the potential impacts from SS are less significant, and because of the
numerical relationship between the two sets of scores, the copper ranks were given twice the
weight of the SS ranks. The measures of SS and copper impact potential were used to rank the
six alternative from 1.0 to 7.0, providing the water quality ranking. The results of this rankine
are presented in Table 4-10. The alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential
for impact to water quality: the greatest potential for impact results from Hiehwav Corridor
(7.0), followed by Redevelopment (5.5), No Action (4.2), Dispersed Development (2 6) Growth
Centers (2.5), and the lowest potential for impact results from Upland (1.0).
4-46
-------
TABLE 4-8
WETLAND RESOURCES IMPACTS
Alternative
Impact
WQ+WH+SS
Attributes
Relative
Rank
Upland
55,265
1.0
Redevelopment
168,055
3.0
Highway Corridors
241,476
4.4
Dispersed Development
248,866
4.5
Growth Centers
248,489
4.5
No Action
385,516
7.0
Preferred Alternative1
226,814
4.1
1 Includes indirect impacts from Transportation Improvements, does not
assume application of SAMP best management minimization actions; see text.
TABLE 4-9
THREATENED/ENDANGERED AND REMNANT/UNIQUE HABITATS IMPACTS
Alternative
T/E
Impact
Acres
T/E
Impact
Rank
R/U
Impact
Acres
R/U
Impact
Rank
Weighted
Impact
Rank
Relative
Rank
Weight =
5

2



Upland
768
2.0
29
1.0
12.0
1.4
Redevelopment
561
1.0
55
2.1
9.1
1.0
Highway Corridors
1007
3.2
55
2.1
20.0
2.6
Dispersed Development
1130
3.8
83
3.2
25.3
3.4
Growth Centers
993
3.1
87
3.4
22.2
3.0
No Action
1794
7.0
176
7.0
49.0
7.0
Preferred Alternative
805
2.2
66
2.5
16.0
2.0
-------
TABLE 4-10
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS

SS
Mean Concentration
Copper
Acres of High Impact
Potential
Summed Rank






from SS and

Alternative
Measure
Rel. Rank
Measure Rel. Rank
Copper
Relative Rank
Weight =
1

2



Upland
53
5.4
125
1.0
7.4
1.0
Redevelopment
57
7.0
150
4.6
16.2
5.5
Highway Corridors
52
5.0
167
7.0
19.0
7.0
Dispersed Development
52
5.0
137
2.7
10.5
2.6
Growth Centers
48
3.4
142
3.5
10.3
2.5
No Action
42
1.0
162
6.3
13.6
4.2
Preferred Alternative
47
3.2
146
4.0
11.2
3.0
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Other Aquatic Resources. Principal impacts to aquatic resources, as caused by loss of wetland
and reductions in water quality, have already been incorporated in the screening analysis as part
of the impacts identified for those environmental categories. Potential for additional impacts to
aquatic resources were calculated by measuring the acreage loss of estuarine wetlands, which
provide a source of primary productivity to the surface water ecosystems. Loss of primary
productivity is an indirect effect on aquatic ecosystems resulting from the reduction of export of
biomass to downslope waters that occurs when estuarine wetland are lost. This biomass
(organic matter) serves as a food source for aquatic organisms and supports the aquatic food
chain. Thus, this category of impact measures indirect and cumulative potential impacts on the
aquatic ecosystem, in addition to those aquatic impacts calculated separately as part of the
wetland and water quality impact assessments. The results of the "other aquatic resources"
impact ranking are presented in Table 4-11. The alternatives rank as follows, from highest to
lowest potential for impact to other aquatic resources: the greatest potential for impact results
from No Action (7.0), followed by Growth Centers (3.4), Dispersed Development (3.4), Highway
Corridors (3.3), Redevelopment (2.1), and the lowest potential for impact results from Upland
(1.0).
Terrestrial Resources. Potential impacts to terrestrial resources were determined by calculating
the loss of vacant upland area from the six management alternatives, measured in acres (see
Section 6.1.1). The results of this ranking are presented in Table 4-12. The alternatives rank,
from highest to lowest potential for impacts to terrestrial resources, as follows: the greatest
potential for impact results from No Action (7.0), followed by Dispersed Development (6.0),
Upland (5.5), Growth Centers (4.8), Highway Corridors (2.5), and the lowest potential for impact
results from Redevelopment (1.0).
Transportation. The potential impacts to transportation were measured by combining the effect
of three different transportation system measures:
1. The sum total length of roadway "links" (unidirectional sections of road in the
transportation model) projected to encounter peak hour congestion, based on the ratio of
traffic volume to roadway capacity (V/C ratio) for each alternative;
2 the hours of delay from roadway congestion resulting from development of each
alternative; and
3. the modal split for each alternative.
h\ order to obtain a single set of ranks for impacts to the transportation system, the three general
measures of transportation system impacts listed above were combined. The weights assigned
to transportation system impact measures are shown in Table 4-13. The three general measures
of transportation impacts groups were assigned equal weights. The measure of length of
roadway congestion has been broken down into 2 measurements: (1) the sum total length of
roadway links that were projected to "fail" in the peak hour (i.e., the links with a V/C ratio
above 1.25); and (2) the remaining length of roadway links that were projected to encounter
"congested" peak hour conditions (i.e., with a V/C ratio above 1.0). Thus, the links that were
4-49
-------
TABLE 4-11
OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS
Alternative
Estuarine
Wetland
Acres Lost
Relative Rank
Upland
0.0
1.0
Redevelopment
187.9
2.1
Highway Corridors
402.0
3.3
Dispersed Development
416.6
3.4
Growth Centers
422.3
3.4
No Action
1,041.2
7.0
Preferred Alternative
334.9
2.9

TABLE 4-12

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS

Alternative
Vacant Upland
Acres Lost
Relative Rank
Upland
726.7
5.5
Redevelopment
507.6
1.0
Highway Corridors
578.4
2.5
Dispersed Development
749.1
6.0
Growth Centers
690.2
4.8
No Action
798.3
7.0
Preferred Alternative
629.9
3.5
-------
TABLE 4-13
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS

Congested Link Miles
Failed Link Miles
Hours of Delay
(100 - Modal Split)
Sum of

Alternative
Measure
Re). Rank
Measure
Rel. Rank
Measure
Rel. Rank
Measure
Rel. Rank
Weighted
Ranks
Relative
Rank
Weight =

1

2

3

3


Upland
95.8
2.2
95.5
6.6
691
7.0
92.1
6.1
54.6
7.0
Redevelopment
88.8
1.0
89.6
5.5
571
1.0
92.7
7.0
36.1
4.0
Highway Corridors
95.3
2.1
97.3
6.9
677
6.3
92.3
6.4
54.0
6.9
Dispersed Development
97.0
2.4
82.4
4.3
600
2.5
89.4
2.1
24.4
2.1
Growth Centers
94.9
2.0
79.2
3.7
617
3.3
88.7
1.0
22.4
1.7
No Action
97.5
2.5
97.9
7.0
633
4.1
92.0
5.9
46.6
5.7
Preferred Alternative
124.2
7.0
63.6
1.0
591
2.0
88.7
1.0
18.0
1.0
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
predicted to encounter peak hour V/C ratios above 1.0 were divided into two groups—those
with V/C ratios above 1.25 were termed "failed" links, and those with V/C ratios above 1.00 but
below 1.25 were termed "congested" links. Furthermore, because a "failed" link is worse than
one that is congested, the miles of failed links were weighted twice as high as the miles of
congested links. Using two indicators of congestion (failed links and congested links) leads to
the weighting presented in Table 4-13, where the measure of congested links receives a weight
of "1", the measure of failed links receives a weight of "2", and the remaining two measures
receive weights of "3". (Thus, each of the three general measures of transportation impacts are
weighted equally, since the sum of the weights of the congested and failed link measures equals
"3"). Also, because alternatives exhibiting higher modal splits (as indicated by the
transportation model) should be associated with a more favorable (i.e., lower) ranking, the
measure used to rank the alternatives was 100 minus the modal split percentage (in reality,
because the modal split is the percentage of trips in the District using public transportation, 100
minus the modal split is the percentage of trips in the District using personal automobiles). This
adjustment results in a higher impact measure leading to a higher impact rank.
The results of this ranking are presented in Table 4-13. The alternatives rank as follows, from
highest to lowest potential for impacts to transportation: the greatest potential for impact results
from Upland (7.0), followed by Highway Corridors (6.9), No Action (5.7), Redevelopment (4.0),
Dispersed Development (2.1), and the lowest potential for impact results from Growth Centers
(1.7).
Air Quality. The air quality screening analysis, based on the vehicle emissions as calculated
from the projected traffic volumes and speeds under each alternative, resulted in peak hour
emission rates for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO[X]), and hydrocarbons (HC), in
pounds per hour. These emissions were combined to indicate the relative potential for impacts
to the air quality from each alternative. The results of this ranking are presented in Table 4-14.
The alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest projected impacts to air quality: the
greatest potential for impact results from Highway Corridors (7.0), followed by Upland (6.5), No
Action (4.0), Dispersed Development (2.0), Growth Centers (1.6), and the lowest potential for
impact results from Redevelopment (1.0).
Solid and Hazardous Waste. The presence of solid waste and hazardous materials is important
in assessing the potential developability of a site. However, the level of information available
for solid and hazardous waste sites varies widely, from virtually no information regarding the
types and levels of contamination for many sites, to detailed remedial investigations for a few
sites. Consistent information of sufficient detail was not available to support alternatives
screening. More detailed information is necessary to assess impacts or benefits from proximity
to solid or hazardous waste site locations. The effect of proximity to solid and hazardous waste
sites is evaluated in the analysis of the Preferred Alternative (Section 5).
Cultural Resources. The identified cultural resources by time period were enumerated for each
of the six management alternatives. To estimate the relative potential for impacts to the cultural
resources of the District for each alternative, the total number of identified cultural resources
that might be affected by an alternative for all time periods was used. The results of this ranking
4-52
I
-------
TABLE 4-14
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

Alternative
CO
Emissions, lb/hr
NO(x)
HC
Sum of
Emissions
Relative Rank


Weight
1
1
1




Upland
65062
10758
10415
86235
6.5


Redevelopment
59764
10490
9823
80077
1.0


Highway Corridors
65451
10781
10579
86811
7.0


Dispersed Development
60805
10487
9864
81156
2.0


Growth Centers
60391
10506
9846
80743
1.6


No Action
62616
10667
10170
83453
4.0


Preferred Alternative1
60404
10408
9818
80630
1.5


1 Mass Loadings were calculated using a screening model; results differ from Impacts Section (Section 5).




TABLE 4-15
CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS



Alternative
Pre-
historic
17th Century
18th
Century 19th Century
20th Total Resources
Century Affected
Relative Rank

Weight = 1
1
1
1
1


Upland
8
1
3
9
2
23
6.6
Redevelopment
4
1
2
8
0
15
3.4
Highway Corridors 7
2
2
11
2
24
7.0
Dispersed Development 6
1
1
5
5
18
4.6
Growth Centers
4
0
1
4
0
9
1.0
No Action
8
1
1
6
0
16
3.8
Preferred Alternative 11
0
1
7
1
20
5.4
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
are presented in Table 4-15. The alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential
for impacts to cultural resources: the greatest potential for impact results from Highway
Corridors (7.0), followed by Upland (6.6), Dispersed Development (4.6), No Action (3.8),
Redevelopment (3.4), and the lowest potential for impact results from Growth Centers (1.0).
Overall Environmental Impacts - Screening Summary
To evaluate the in-District alternatives, at a screening level, the relative ranks for the eight
assessed environmental impact categories discussed above were combined into a single index to
identify the alternatives that exhibited lower overall potential environmental impact. Ranking
was performed to facilitate environmental screening of the alternatives. A relative importance
weight was assigned to each impact category, to take into account the importance of each
environmental impact category in relation to the other impact categories. The weights assigned
to each of the assessed environmental impact categories are presented in Table 4-16. The
weights are the consensus of the professional staff of each of the SAMP partner agencies.
Impacts to threatened or endangered species and remnant or unique habitats receive the highest
weight (a weighting factor of "16") because such habitats are very important in the ecosystem,
and impacts can be very difficult to mitigate.
Impacts to wetland resources were assigned the next highest weight (a weighting factor of "8")
because wetlands are a very important natural resource in the District. They provide habitat for
a wide range of both aquatic and terrestrial organisms, as well as providing many valuable
social and ecological functions, such as nutrient transformation, sediment stabilization, and
retention of toxic materials. The location of the wetlands, within an urban complex, makes them
valuable as a refuge for many native species that have been displaced by development.
Impacts to the transportation system and air quality in the District were assigned weighting
factors of "4", due to the significance of existing transportation/air quality problems in the
District.
Impacts to terrestrial resources were assigned a weighting factor of "4". Terrestrial resources are
important because only limited areas of upland open space remain in the District to provide
habitat for terrestrial species.
Impacts to water quality were also assigned a weighting factor of "4". Water quality is
important to the wildlife and the ecosystems of the District; however, the additional stormwater
runoff resulting from the six in-District alternatives does not have the potential to substantially
degrade the existing water quality in the District. The additional stormwater runoff would
comprise only a very small fraction of existing point and non-point source discharges in the
District. Existing loadings of point-source pollutants are relatively high, and the additional
stormwater discharges will not substantially increase these loadings.
Impacts to other aquatic resources and to cultural resources were each assigned a weighting
factor of "2". Because impacts to aquatic resources are primarily measured as part of the impacts
to wetlands and to water quality, the "other aquatic resources" category measures only indirect
impacts on the aquatic ecosystems, and thus the significance as measured for the screening
4-54
-------
TABLE 4-16
COMPOSITE ALTERNATIVES RANKING
Sum of Composite
Alternative
Wetland
Resource
TERU
Habitats
Water
Quality
Aquatic
Resources
Terrestrial
Resources
Transpor-
tation
Air
Quality
Cultural
Resources
Weighted
Ranks
Relative
Rank
Weight =
8
16
4
2
4
4
4
2


Upland
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
5.5
7.0
6.5
6.6
126.2
2.0
Redevelopment
3.0
1.0
5.5
2.1
1.0
4.0
1.0
3.4
97.4
1.0
Highway Corridors
4.4
2.6
7.0
3.3
2.5
6.9
7.0
7.0
191.2
4.2
Dispersed Development
4.5
3.8
2.6
3.4
6.0
2.1
2.0
4.6
162.8
3.2
Growth Centers
4.5
3.0
2.5
3.4
4.8
1.7
1.6
1.0
134.9
2.3
No Action
7.0
7.0
4.2
7.0
7.0
5.7
4.0
3.8
273.2
7.0
Preferred Alternative1
4.1
2.0
3.0
2.9
3.5
1.0
1.5
5.4
118.0
1.7
1 Includes indirect wetland impacts from Transportation Improvements, impact not reduced by SAMP best management minimization actions; see text.
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
assessment (i.e., the loss of primary productivity from estuarine wetlands) represents this
category's status as only one of several measures to aquatic resources. Other impacts to aquatic
resources—wetland and water quality—are considered under separate impact categories.
Cultural resources may be an administrative impediment to the implementation of the SAMP,
but typically do not preclude the use of land if cultural resources are recorded, in the event of
disturbance.
The combined environmental impacts were ranked on a relative basis for each alternative by
multiplying the weight for each impact category by the relative rank for that category. The
results for all eight impact categories were then summed. This resulted in a single "impact
score" for each alternative. Using these total impact scores, the alternatives were ranked on a
scale of 1.0 to 7.0, as discussed above. This resulted in a composite rank for each alternative.
Comparison of Management Alternatives. Tables 4-8 through 4-15 presented the relative impact
ranking for the six management alternatives for each of eight environmental impact categories
assessed in the alternatives screening. Table 4-16 presented the composite rank for each
alternative. The composite rank combines the relative ranking determined for each of the eight
impact categories, using a weighting formula (described above). Please note that the discussion
of level of impact is comparative. Thus, where a moderately high impact is described, it must be
interpreted within the range of impacts determined for the alternatives. These impacts are
relative impacts, not absolute impacts.
The alternatives rank as follows, from lowest to greatest composite impact (the composite
impact includes eight environmental impact categories):
Redevelopment (1.0)—lowest composite environmental impact
Upland (2.0)
Growth Centers (2.3)
Dispersed Development (3.2)
Highway Corridors (4.2)
No Action (7.0)—greatest composite environmental impact
Please note that this analysis is comparative, and the ranks are reported on a scale of 1.0 to 7.0
because there are seven alternatives that were screened (including the Preferred Alternative,
which is presented in Section 4.5).
The following sections summarize each alternative, present its composite rank for
environmental impact potential, and discuss the relative ranks for the various impact categories
assessed during the screening process. (A profile of each alternative is presented in "Description
of Land Management Alternatives", at the beginning of this section.) The alternatives are
presented in order of composite rank, from lowest to greatest potential for environmental
impact.
Redevelopment Alternative. Among the alternative growth scenarios, the Redevelopment
alternative results in the lowest composite impact, because it involves the least land disturbance
(as a result of the finite availability of land for redevelopment). This alternative relies primarily
4-56
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
on lands already developed. Thus, it has lower impacts for terrestrial resources, wetland
resources, and other aquatic resources. The Redevelopment alternative has the lowest impacts
to terrestrial resources due to the fact that most of the land is already developed. It also has the
lowest impacts to threatened or endangered species and remnant or unique habitats, low
impacts to other aquatic resources, and moderate impacts to wetland resources (3.0 ranking),
due to the comparatively lower amount of wetland acreage involved.
Impacts to water quality from the Redevelopment alternative are moderately high (5.5 ranking),
due to a higher number of smaller parcels of land, which tend to increase the concentration of
pollutants discharged directly into the receiving waters, instead of being attenuated by
infiltration and overland flow. The impacts from the Redevelopment alternative to the
transportation system are moderate (4.0 ranking), and the air quality impact is the lowest of the
six alternatives. The cultural resources impacts from the Redevelopment alternative are
potentially moderate, compared to the other alternatives.
In terms of practicability of implementation, the redevelopment alternative has several
drawbacks. First, the densities needed for redevelopment to fulfill the District's growth needs
were higher than prevailing geological conditions and FAA height restrictions would allow (see
discussion under Uplands, below). Consequently, the inability to build at the requisite densities
for redevelopment made this alternative impracticable.
Second, in order for redevelopment to be a viable option, there would need to be vigorous
government intervention to provide redevelopment opportunities. Many of the proposed
parcels have occupied residences or uses, causing dislocation impacts. Several of the proposed
parcels (see Hybrid analysis in Appendix L) are undergoing redevelopment by the owners for
uses/densities that are incompatible with the proposed alternative. Such redevelopment, which
is currently being implemented by private parties, improves the condition of those properties
such that they no longer meet the blight criteria and would not therefore be eligible for
condemnation in support of redevelopment in the foreseeable future. For both these reasons,
the redevelopment alternative is not a practicable alternative, because it cannot, by itself, meet
the District's stated needs.
Upland Alternative. The Upland alternative results in a relatively low overall impact ranking
(2.0). The Upland alternative, by definition, involves no fill of wetlands. Thus it follows that the
Upland alternative has the lowest impacts to wetlands of the six management alternatives.
(However, there would be indirect impacts to wetlands for this alternative.) Also, due to the
absence of wetland fill, the other aquatic resources impact (measured by the amount of estuarine
wetland fill) is the lowest among the alternatives. The Upland alternative exhibits the lowest
potential to degrade water quality among the alternatives, although the range of impacts to
water quality among all six alternatives is narrow. Impacts to Threatened/Endangered and
Remnant/Unique habitats are comparatively low (1.4 ranking).
The Upland alternative uses a large amount of vacant upland, and thus the impact to terrestrial
resources is moderately high (5.5). Impacts to the transportation system from the Upland
alternative are the highest among the six alternatives. The inefficient spatial distribution of
4-57
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
upland parcels with respect to the road system which services those parcels, and the proposed
high densities at which the upland parcels would need to be developed in order to fulfill the
specified needs, would result in significant increases in vehicles mile traveled and congestion.
High levels of vehicle miles traveled results in the Upland alternative having high air quality
impacts (6.5). The upland alternative has the greatest traffic impact and the second greatest air
quality impact among the alternatives. The Upland alternative also has a relatively high
potential for impact on cultural resources (6.6), compared to the other alternatives.
The impact ranking for the Upland Alternative is not the lowest because of the higher impacts to
transportation, air quality, terrestrial resources, and cultural resources, which result primarily
from the limited availability of upland property, and the scattered spatial arrangement that
results from using only upland sites.
A wholly upland alternative has serious drawbacks in terms of its ability to be implemented. In
order for the stated development needs to be placed entirely in upland areas, development
densities would need to be extremely high (housing densities of 100 units/acre, Floor/Area
rations of about 5.0) in order to accommodate this growth. This is not possible, for several
reasons. First, the northern half of the District is in the flight approach radius of Teterboro
airport, and consequently is subject to FAA restrictions which limit the height of any structures
within this radius. As a result, upland development is height-limited and cannot be built at the
densities in the northern part of the District that would be needed to accommodate the District's
growth needs.
Second, with the exception of a small portion of the District, the geology of the Meadowlands
precludes the establishment of buildings of any significant height. The Meadowlands formed on
the remains of glacial Lake Hackensack, which deposited a thick layer of lacustrine sediment
over bedrock. The soils of the Meadowlands are thus underlain by a thick layer of varved clay
(the glacial lake deposits), which may extend 60-80 feet or deeper to bedrock in most of the
District. This means that there is inadequate bedrock foundation for tall buildings9.
The consequence of these factors means that the geology of the Meadowlands in almost all of is
southern portion (as well as the northern) prevents building at the high densities which would
be needed to enable the District's growth needs to be placed in existing upland. While some of
the District's growth can be placed in existing upland, there is not enough upland in the District
to accommodate the projected growth needs, even if the upland growth were built at the
maximum densities those areas could support, given the existing geologic constraints and FAA
9 The exception is the southeastern part of the District, where the Snake Hill rock outcrop
exists. Bedrock is much closer to the surface in the immediate vicinity of the Snake Hill rock
outcrop. However, high-rise development requires that pilings of extraordinary strength be
driven into the bedrock in order to provide a secure foundation. These structures add
considerably to the cost of a building (see ACE record on Allied Junction) and limit the
practicability of such building even in areas where the geology would support high rise
development. Snake Hill is not considered for development because of its status as a remnant
and unique habitat in the District.
4-58
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
height restrictions. The upland alternative cannot accommodate the stated growth needs given
these logistical factors. The upland alternative is therefore not a practicable alternative.
Growth Centers Alternative. The Growth Centers alternative results in moderately low overall
impact (2.3). The Growth Centers alternative is based on the planning principle that larger
mixed-use centers of development result in more efficient forms of growth. However, focusing
growth in the District into centers involves wetland fill, because the available uplands in the
District are not grouped so as to provide adequate site sizes for mixed-use centers.
The comparatively lower increase in vehicle miles traveled and congestion under the Growth
Centers alternative results in relatively low impacts to transportation (1.7 ranking) and air
quality (1.6). The centralized locations result in the lowest impacts to cultural resources (1.0).
Cultural resources in the District are primarily found in areas along the Hackensack River that
are not proposed for inclusion in the Growth Centers alternative. The larger size of the planning
areas in the Growth Centers alternative is responsible for moderately low impacts to water
quality (2.5)—large areas allow more chance for pollutant attenuation by infiltration and
sediment trapping.
The terrestrial resources impacts from the Growth Centers alternative are moderately high (4.8).
The terrestrial resources impacts are due to the use of vacant upland for growth in this
alternative. Wetland (4.5) and other aquatic resources (3.4) impacts from the Growth Centers
alternative are both ranked moderate. Impacts to TE and RU habitats are ranked comparatively
low (3.0). These intermediate rankings result from the amount of wetlands disturbed as part of
this alternative, compared to the other alternatives.
Dispersed Development Areas Alternative. The Dispersed Development Areas alternative
exhibits moderate overall impacts (3.2), higher than the Growth Centers alternative, but
significantly lower than the Highway Corridors alternative. The Dispersed Development Areas
alternative is comprised of somewhat large areas of development (between 30 and 170 acres in
size) distributed throughout the District. The dispersed nature of this alternative, with planning
areas that are, for the most part, readily accessible, leads to a relatively low impact to
transportation (2.1 ranking) and air quality (2.0). The relatively large size of the planning areas
is responsible for low impacts to water quality (2.6)—larger areas allow more chance for
pollutant attenuation by infiltration and sediment trapping.
Impacts to wetland (4.5), other aquatic resources (3.4), cultural resources (4.6), as well as to TE
and RU habitats (3.8) are moderate to high, and are higher than impacts from the Highway
Corridors alternative and the Growth Centers alternative. Impacts to terrestrial resources (6.0)
were the second greatest in the screening analysis. Impacts to terrestrial resources and to state
threatened and endangered species were among the highest of the alternatives, and could pose
other substantial adverse environmental consequences if this alternative were implemented as
proposed.
The impacts (when compared to the other alternatives) for this alternative result principally
from the spatial arrangement of growth. While development is somewhat clustered under this
4-59
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
alternative, there is a substantial amount of dispersion of the planning areas. The dispersion of
the growth areas is what contributes to the intermediate level of environmental impact for the
Dispersed Development Areas alternative.
Highway Corridors Alternative. The spatial arrangement of planning areas for this alternative
(centrally located around the Route 3 corridor) is directly responsible for the moderately high
overall impact ranking for this alternative (4.2). The Highway Corridors alternative is typified
by development around the Route 3 corridor. The spatial arrangement and the higher vehicle
miles traveled under this alternative result in high impacts to transportation (6.9 ranking), air
quality (7.0), and cultural resources (7.0). These significant impacts limit its practicability as a
land use plan for the District. The high transportation impact indicates that development
around the already congested Route 3 corridor results in a worsening of already heavily
congested traffic conditions, and also results in relatively high air quality impacts. The Route
3/Paterson Plank Road area has been a historic location for activity in the District since the 19th
century, thus there is a substantial potential for cultural resources from this time period to be
encountered.
The spatial arrangement of this alternative results in relatively moderate impacts to wetland
resources (4.4), and other aquatic resources (3.3), when compared to the other alternatives. The
amount of direct wetland fill involved in this alternative is the second largest among the
alternatives. The wetland resource impacts are similar to the wetland impacts from the
Dispersed Development Area and Growth Centers alternatives. This is because most of the
wetlands around the Route 3 corridor (except for the wetlands surrounding Berrys Creek and
Berrys Creek Canal) are already disturbed, are smaller and isolated, and are thus of lower
quality relative to other wetlands affected under other alternatives. The Highway Corridors
alternative also has moderate impacts to aquatic resources, with only slightly lower impacts than
the Dispersed Development Areas and Growth Centers alternatives, for much the same reasons.
The impacts to terrestrial resources are moderately low (2.5), as are impacts to TE and RU
habitats (2.6), because the Route 3 corridor area is already highly developed and has little vacant
upland suitable for habitats. Impacts to water quality from the Highway Corridors alternative
are the highest (7.0) among the alternatives, due to the high number of smaller parcels involved
in this alternative.
No Action (No SAMP^ Alternative. Comparatively, the No Action alternative exhibits the
greatest overall environmental impacts (7.0). The No Action alternative was developed using
existing HMDC zoning, and is a projection of possible development patterns in the absence of a
SAMP. The use of existing HMDC zoning means that much larger areas must be used to
accommodate the HMDC-identified development needs, because the existing zoning exhibits
lower development densities than is assumed for the land management alternatives evaluated
herein. In fact, the No Action alternative requires over 65 percent more land area than that
required under the Highway Corridors alternative in order to meet similar needs. The
comparatively large amount of land area required to meet HMDC-identified growth needs
under the No Action alternative (which uses existing zoning), along with the spatial
arrangement of these parcels, results in comparatively high environmental impacts.
4-60
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
The No Action alternative has the highest projected impact for four of the eight environmental
impact categories: wetland resources, TE/RU habitats, other aquatic resources, and terrestrial
resources. Implementation of the No-Action alternative would result in such high levels of
adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem that the impacts would be unlikely to ever be
adequately mitigated, even if all the remaining wetland acreage in the District were enhanced to
the maximum extent possible. Because implementation would result in unacceptable adverse
impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem, No Action is not a practicable alternative.
Impacts to the transportation system are also high (5.7 ranking), resulting from the relatively
high vehicle miles traveled and the congestion projected to occur under this alternative. Impacts
to air quality (4.0), water quality (4.2), and cultural resources (3.8) are all moderate to high.
4.3.2 Hybrid Alternative
The Alternatives Screening Analysis (Section 4.3.1) indicated that the Upland, Redevelopment,
and Growth Centers alternatives exhibited the lowest environmental impacts among the Land
Management Alternatives. Thus, on a comparative basis, land uses in the parcels that composed
these three alternatives resulted in lower levels of environmental impact.
However, the screening analysis did not result in the identification of an alternative that met the
needs and land use objectives of the SAMP. Two of the lowest impact Land Management
Alternatives—Upland Growth and Redevelopment—included development densities that were
extremely high. High densities were necessary because available land was scarce under the
Upland Growth and Redevelopment alternatives.
Such densities are not implementable, for several reasons. A realistic plan for the District needs
to reflect current and historical development densities in the District, and recognize the low
market acceptability of extremely high densities. Very high housing densities (over 100
dwelling units per acre), and high floor area ratios (1.0 to 5.0) were utilized in the Upland
Growth and Redevelopment Alternatives because of the scarcity of qualifying parcels. As noted
earlier, the northern half of the District is in the flight approach radius of Teterboro airport, and
is subject to FAA building height restrictions (which limits development density). Finally, in
most of the District the geology of the Meadowlands precludes the establishment of buildings of
any significant height, because there is inadequate bedrock foundation for tall buildings. Given
these logistical constraints, the Upland Growth and Redevelopment Alternatives cannot
accommodate the stated growth needs.
Although the other lower impact alternative—the Growth Centers alternative—is able to meet
the District's growth needs at practicable densities, it would still involve the discharge of fill into
wetlands within the District, while leaving some upland and redevelopment (i.e., non-wetland)
parcels unused. These vacant upland/redevelopment parcels, which are not proposed for
development as part of this alternative, could be used to fulfill a portion of the District's growth
needs, and thus avoid some of the discharges into special aquatic sites that are proposed as part
of the Growth Centers alternative (per the 404(b)(1) Guidelines). Maximizing the inclusion of
vacant upland parcels, along with all non-wetland redevelopment parcels that are practicable,
would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem.
4-61
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
It was also observed that some land parcels from other higher-impact Land Management
Alternatives (that were not included in the Upland, Redevelopment, and Growth Centers
alternatives) exhibited potential to further reduce the impacts of growth.
For these reasons each of the parcels in each of the Land Management Alternatives was re-examined as part
of a Hybrid Analysis (essentially a second round of alternatives analysis), and another alternative was
identified that was a hybrid of the sites from various Land Management Alternatives. This "hybrid
alternative" is the basis of the Preferred Alternative. While the Hybrid Analysis derives principally
from the Growth Centers alternative, its creation also involved maximizing use of non-wetland
sites (i.e., vacant upland parcels, and non-wetland redevelopment parcels) in keeping with the
404(b)(1) Guidelines, and evaluation of parcels from other Alternatives that exhibited potential
to reduce overall environmental impact.
The Hybrid Alternative Analysis methodically re-examines the Planning/Satellite Areas
associated with each of the Land Management Alternatives (screened earlier in this section), and
then recommends their inclusion in, or exclusion from, a new alternative—the Hybrid Plan. The
planning analysis for the Hybrid Plan considers each of the Land Management Alternatives, and
applies generally accepted planning practices to create a comprehensive plan for future land
uses. Each Land Management Alternative was analyzed in the order in which it was ranked in
the Alternatives Screening Analysis (from lowest environmental impact to increasing levels of
impact), as follows:
¦	Redevelopment
¦	Upland Growth
¦	Growth Centers
¦	Dispersed Development Areas
¦	Highway Corridors
While the planning analysis considers environmental factors, the detailed environmental impact
analysis of the Hybrid Alternative is conducted in Section 5 - Environmental Impacts of the
Preferred Alternative.
Each of the Land Management Alternatives contained two distinct types of planning units,
which essentially function at different scales:
"Planning Areas" are locations where the principal land use classifications (office, commercial
and residential) are planned, and,
"Satellite Areas" are locations where the secondary office and warehouse/industrial uses are
planned. The Satellite Areas are dispersed throughout the District, and are typically vacant
parcels located in proximity to the Planning Areas. Planning Areas not considered suitable for
primary land uses were also considered as Satellite Areas.
The principal objective of the Hybrid Analysis was to meet economic and social needs, and fulfill
comprehensive planning objectives for the District, by consolidating selected Planning Areas from the
several Land Management Alternatives, while concurrently addressing the Clean Water Act Section
4-62
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Thus, a guiding factor in conducting this rigorous analysis was to avoid the
use of wetlands to the greatest extent possible in meeting the growth needs of the District. This
planning analysis establishes and applies criteria intended to address the cost, logistics, and
technology parameters of the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This may include
using selected parcels in each of the alternatives in order to make any necessary adjustments
that can ensure a balanced distribution of needs. The Hybrid Analysis formed the basis for
determining which Planning Areas would be components of the Preferred Alternative. (The
HMDC Hybrid Analysis report is presented in Appendix M.)
Through this analysis, the suitability of the Planning Areas in composing the principal land use
classifications has been determined, in the context of preparing a comprehensive plan for the
District. This determination was based on the application of exclusionary and limiting planning
criteria, as described below. The Hybrid Analysis applies each of the exclusionary and limiting
planning criteria to the Planning and Satellite Areas, by Land Management Alternative, to
determine the suitability of the Planning or Satellite Area to be included in the Hybrid Plan.
A hierarchy of three levels (tiers) of planning criteria are applied to each Planning and Satellite
Area site. Assessing a site against the criteria in the first tier generally indicates whether a
Planning Area should be excluded from consideration as part of the Hybrid Alternative. The
second and third tiers generally indicate that a site has limited potential to achieve HMDC
Master Plan goals for Planning Areas, and should be excluded, or its use is limited, as a
Planning Area (although the site may be appropriate as a Satellite Area). The exclusionary and
limiting criteria for Planning Areas are presented in Table 4-17, and are summarized below.
Tier I - Exclusionary Criteria are factors or circumstances which are of such significance that
they would eliminate the Planning Area from any further consideration (as a Planning Area,
Satellite Area, or other use). Specifically, Tier I Criteria relate to site availability,
contamination, and ownership or jurisdictional issues.10
Tier II - Potential Cost, Logistics, and Technology Exclusionary Criteria are factors, that
when present, can eliminate a Planning Area from further consideration, can change the
proposed land use, or can alter the proposed use to that of a Satellite Area. Tier II criteria also
are intended to address Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines with regard to activities in wetlands.
Tier III - Limiting Planning Criteria demonstrate the ability of the Planning Area to be
responsive to comprehensive planning principles and HMDC developmental needs. If
present, the Tier III Criteria indicate limited potential for a Planning Area to achieve Master
Plan goals. Tier III criteria also help to define the specific land use types—either primary
(primary office, residential, or commercial) or secondary (secondary office, light industry, or
warehousing)—to be implemented in the Planning Area.
10 Tier I and Tier II criteria are designed to reveal the practicability of use of a site, specifically
with respect to the Costs, Logistics, and Technology parameters of the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines.
4-63
-------
TABLE 4-17
PLANNING AREA EXCLUSIONARY & LIMITING CRITERIA
Tier I
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA (environmental conditions and site
availability)
1-1.
Severe Land Contamination: Identified locations within the Planning Area
where reasonable certainty exists of hazardous material contamination, where
no public program for remediation exists and the extent of contamination is
suspected to preclude development within the 20 year planning period.
1-2.
Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: Land parcels within the
Planning Area that are publicly or quasi-publicly owned and where land
development may be institutionally precluded (e.g. Tcterboro Airport is under
the jurisdiction of the Port Authority of N.Y. N.J.). Similarly, land owned by
certain entities (e.g. N.J. Sports and Exposition Authority), where the HMDC
regulatory jurisdiction is limited, would be included in this criteria as well as
any land that is deed restricted from development.
1-3.
Current Land Development: Land uses projected for the subject Planning Area
under this Land Management Alternative are no longer available either because
incompatible development is underway or is imminent (i.e., project has
received all government permit approvals), or existing development is the
Planning Area is viable and would not meet redevelopment criteria.
Tier II
POTENTIAL COSTS, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY
EXCLUSIONARY AND LIMITING CRITERIA
II-l.
Poor Accessibilitv
(a) Hichwav Capacitv: The road and hiehwav svstem within or adiacent to the
Planning Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of
traffic projected from the Planning Area. New roadway access and rights-of-
way are not available or sufficient.
(b^ Direct Highwav Impact: The Planning Area must utilize the regional
highway system as its primary means of access without existing or future
alternative secondary access opportunities that can reasonably be expected to
be built.
(c)	Maximum Direct Impact To Local Road Svstem: The Planning Area must
utilize the local roadway network exclusively without any existing or future
direct access to collector or arterial systems that can reasonably be expected to
be built.
(d)	Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: The Planning Area cannot
provide effective access to mass transportation facilities, either existing or
proposed.
-------
TABLE 4-17, continued
11-2.
l.ack of Efficient Public Services: Insufficient infrastructure capacity (sewerage
or water) and the inability to support new infrastructure development within the
projected 20 year planning period.
11-3.
Incompatible I.and Uses: The established pattern of land uses in or surrounding
the Planning Area relate poorly to the projected land uses proposed for this
Planning Area under this Land Management Alternative. Accordingly,
implementation of the primary land uses would be impractical or seriously
limited by market demand.
11-4.
Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve
sufficient population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies,
such as viable mixed-use or employment centers. Office/residential mixed-use
projects (in general), require a minimum of 1 million sq. ft. and 3,000 dwelling
units in order to achieve sufficient scale.
11-5.
Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
(a)	Community Of Place: The inability of land uses within and surrounding the
subject Planning Area to interact such that together they can achieve a total
effect of which each is separately incapable. Where such synergism cannot be
achieved, "community of place" attributes are absent.
(b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibits extraordinarily low
or high Floor Area Ratios (FAR) or densities which will be adversely impacted
by market and physical constraints.
(c)	Poor Jobs to Housing Linkage: The Planning Area is either isolated or there
are insufficient linkages between housing and employment land uses.
11-6.
Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Planning
Area that result from the projected costs of land preparation and building
construction would render development impractical.

Tier III
LIMITING PLANNING CRITERIA
III-l.
Lack of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/ TransDortation Control
Measures 
-------
4-17, continued
III-3.
Capacity to Foster Cultural Facilities: The size and tvpes of uses proposed in
the Planning Area are insufficient to achieve cultural facility implementation
(e.g. theaters, art and design exhibitions, galleries, concert areas, etc.).
III-4.
Lack of Visual Cohesiveness: The proiected land uses in the Planning Area will
have a negative impact on overall District viewsheds including views from in-
District locations to areas outside the District and from areas outside the
District to locations in this Planning Area; and views across the District.
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
The presence of a Tier I criteria could result in the elimination of the Planning Area from further
consideration. The presence of Tier II criteria in a Planning Area may change the status of the
Planning Area to a Satellite Area, or result in a change in use, or result in elimination of the
Planning Area from further consideration, based on accepted planning principles and
professional judgement. Tier III criteria alone will not result in the elimination of a Planning
Area; rather the Tier III criteria are used to determine the responsiveness of the potential
Planning Areas in meeting HMDC development needs. Other factors described in Section 3,
Description of the Affected Environment, may also indicate the presence of exclusionary and
planning criteria.
Based on the results of the Hybrid Planning Analysis, recommendations were made about the
feasibility of including each potential Planning and Satellite Area in the Hybrid Plan, keeping in
mind the comprehensive planning principles that are used by HMDC to guide future growth.
Individual Planning and Satellite Areas were assessed to determine if they met Tier I, II, or III of
the exclusionary and limiting planning criteria. If a site was determined to be not suitable as a
Planning Area, a similar analysis was applied to determine whether it would be suitable as a
Satellite Area.
One of the following specific recommendations was made for each of the potential growth areas
in each Land Management Alternative:
1.	Retain the Planning Area for inclusion in the Hybrid Alternative;
2.	Change the Planning Area status to Satellite Area, and reconsider as part of the Hybrid;
3.	Merge the Planning Area with other Planning Areas, and re-evaluate its potential to meet
needs;
4.	Eliminate the Planning Area from further consideration; or,
5.	Revise the recommended land use in the Planning Area.
The Planning Analysis conducted by HMDC for the Hybrid Plan is typical of traditional land
use planning techniques. Each of the potential Planning Areas was analyzed with respect to
Existing Conditions, Projected Land Use, Planning Analysis, and Tier I Criteria, Tier II Criteria,
and Tier III Criteria. Review of Planning Areas was performed according to this sequence,
resulting in a specific recommendation for each Planning Area (for inclusion or exclusion from
the Hybrid Alternative, with or without modification). The Areas that were retained were
reassessed, and merged and assembled into a Hybrid Plan.
In addition to reviewing the physical setting, the land uses surrounding the area were assessed,
as were any specific features that might have an effect on the feasibility of the selected area to be
included in a Hybrid Plan. Access to the Planning Area was identified from both roadway and
mass transit modes. The presence of water and sewerage infrastructure was also evaluated.
Pursuant to this Hybrid Planning Analysis, a number of Planning Areas "passed" (i.e., were not
excluded under) the Tier II Potential Cost, Logistics, and Technology Exclusionary and Limiting
4-67
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Criteria, and/or Tier III Limiting Criteria. Table 4-18 describes example situations where a site
would pass the criteria.
In the process of reviewing the individual Planning Areas, decisions were made concerning the
use of the Areas as they related to other Planning Areas, compatible surrounding land uses, and
to the principles of comprehensive planning. Several Planning Areas had been included in more
than one Land Management Alternative and different land use designations were given to them
in each of the Land Management Alternatives. Some degree of reconciliation with the basic
planning criteria was performed by HMDC to select the most feasible land use in creation of the
Hybrid Plan. These decisions, in part, were a function of how the Land Management
Alternative was perceived in its contribution to achieving a comprehensive plan for the District.
The other consideration concerned how the use selected for the individual Planning Area related
to the surrounding uses and developed environment.
Some Planning Areas were excluded from any further consideration because they did not pass
the Tier I Planning Criteria. Such Planning Areas are either contaminated and no public
program for remediation exists11; are outside the planning and zoning jurisdiction of HMDC; are
owned by public entities for conservation purposes; or were locations where projects were
already under construction, so the sites were unavailable for future growth planning purposes.
Contaminated lands and Superfund sites have been extensively reviewed. Where remediation
plans exist that may allow the site to become available within the 20-year planning period, the
site has been included in the Hybrid Plan. However, many of the known hazardous waste sites
(where no public program for remediation exists), were eliminated based on costs, logistics, and
technology constraints that make their reuse impractical.
Through application of the exclusionary and limiting criteria, HMDC has sought to reduce the
environmental impacts of the Hybrid Plan on the District. To this end, use of possible upland
and redevelopment areas suitable for primary land uses was maximized. Several areas were
determined to be unsuitable for primary uses under Tier II criteria, but those upland and
redevelopment areas were again analyzed for use as secondary office/warehouse locations. The
principal objective in conducting this rigorous analysis was to avoid the use of wetlands to the greatest
extent possible in meeting the growth and development needs of the District.
Wetland areas that are considered to be highly valuable to the Meadowlands ecology were not
considered in the selection of growth areas. Areas such as the Sawmill Creek Wildlife
Management Area, Kearny Marsh, and other known highly valuable wetland areas were
excluded from screening analysis review and remained as open space/wetland preservation
areas. This narrowed the availability of locations where the development needs of the District
could be implemented.
11 Chapter V of the HMDC Hybrid Plan report, presented in Appendix L, presents a discussion
of why "orphan" landfill areas could not be used a growth locations.
4-68
-------
TABLE 4-18
EXAMPLE SITUATIONS WHERE TIER II AND
TIER III CRITERIA ARE NOT LIMITING
Tier II
POTENTIAL COST, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY LIMITING
CRITERIA
Il-l.
Poor Accessibility
fa) Highwav Capacity: The road and highwav capacity within or adjacent to the
Planning Area is adequate or can reasonably be improved to accommodate traffic
projected from the Planning Area. Rights-of-way and existing development
characteristics do not appear to inhibit roadway improvements.
(b)	Direct Highwav Impact: The Planning Area is not limited to access from regional
highway systems, and secondary access opportunities either exist or can reasonably be
expected to be built.
(c)	Maximum Direct Impact To Local Road System: The Planning Area does not
exclusively rely on the local roadway system. Alternate accessibility is available to
other local or regional road systems.
(dl Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: The Planning Area can effectively
access existing or proposed mass transportation facilities. Rail access is provided
through proximity to existing or proposed rail stations. Bus service can be directed to
the Planning Area from existing routes.
II-2.
Lack of Efficient Public Services: The size and scale of the Planning Area can
facilitate growth management controls in an environmentally sensitive manner that is
calibrated to the availability of public facilities, and sufficient capacity exists by
public service providers to support development.
II-3.
Incompatible Land Uses: Projected land uses in the Planning Area generally are
compatible with surrounding land uses. The market demand for the projected
development in the Planning Area would not be affected substantially by the
surrounding land use pattern.
II-4.
Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area is of sufficient size and scale to maximize
District-wide land use efficiencies such as mixed use projects and employment
centers.
continued
-------
TABLE 4-18, continued
11-5.
Lack of Svnergistic Effects:
Community Of Place: The diversity of proposed uses in the Planning Area can
support community of place attributes which contribute to overall synergy. Examples
of such attributes include: a variety of lifestyles; job opportunities; cultural and
recreational opportunities; shopping conveniences; diverse housing opportunities
where reasonably priced housing choices are available; close relationship of
employment, residential, shopping, and recreational opportunities, nearby public
transportation, and environs that define the community; opportunities to provide
natural and built landmarks that foster a sense of place and orientation at a human
scale.
fhl Disproportionate Densities: The proposed Floor Area Ratios and housine densities
are consistent with present and projected market conditions and generally accepted
planning principles.
(r.\ Poor .lobs to Housing Linkaee: The relationship between office, commercial and
housing uses within the Planning Area can support acceptable jobs to housing linkages
by creating attractive communities in which people live and work.
II-6.
F.ngineering/Financial Constraints: Excessive land preparation and construr.tinn costs
are not anticipated that would render development impractical.
Tier III
LIMITING PLANNING CRITERIA
III-l.
Lack Of Transportation Demand Manaeement (TDM) \ Transportation Control
Measures CTClvn Implementation: The size and scale of the mixed uses propose in
the Planning Area can facilitate effective TDM and TCM Programs. Examples of
such programs are ride sharing, van pooling, alternate transportation modes, mass
transit, staggered work hours, parking restrictions, high occupancy lanes, parking fee
structure variations, etc.
111-2.
Poor Relationship to Open Space/Recreation: The location of th* PianmnC Ar»n ^
within proximity to existing parks and recreation areas tracts. There is the potential to
preserve open space through local land use regulations.
m-3.
Capacity to Foster Cultural Facilities: The scale of the Planning farilitntc a
range of cultural and recreational facilities consistent with community of place
attributes.
in-4.
| ac.k of Visual Cohesiveness: Land Uses nroiected in th* Pennine ^ren ivill not have
a negative impact on HMD viewsheds including views from in-District locations to
areas outside the District and from areas outside the District to locations within the
Planning Area; and views across the HMD.
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Density factors and intensity of site uses were reviewed early in the alternatives analysis. The
initial Land Management Alternatives included residential densities that were extremely high in
some instances, this being necessary because available land was scarce under some alternatives
(e.g., upland growth and redevelopment). Housing densities of over 100 dwelling units per acre
and floor area ratios (FARs) of 1.0 to 5.0 were utilized in the Alternatives Screening Analysis.
FAR indicates the intensity of office use at a site. In creating the Hybrid Plan, unrealistic density
and FAR factors were adjusted to reflect current and historical development patterns in the
District and projected market conditions (keeping in mind the intent of increasing the intensity
of use to minimize the degree to which wetlands may need to be displaced). For the intensity of
office use, the FAR of 0.75 used in the Hybrid was reassessed to determine whether it was
feasible to increase the intensity of this use in upland locations, thereby reducing wetland fill. In
some cases the FAR was expanded to 1.0.
Housing densities were tiered at 15 units per acre, 20 units per acre and 40 units per acre. The
lower density was utilized for housing development principally along the Hackensack River, to
incorporate open space and recreational requirements relative to the physical environment in
these areas.
Housing densities of 20 units per acre were utilized in large scale housing developments in
order to permit housing diversity and appropriate scale within these areas. A greater amount of
housing development was planned at a density of 40 units per acre, the highest density
permitted by HMDC regulation and the most difficult to implement. This was done in order to
provide a housing program that would promote well planned, affordable and market-based
communities within the District, and maximize the use of available land areas, both upland and
wetland.
Housing need was also reviewed and revised during the hybrid process. Initially, housing need
was premised on providing low and moderate income housing units for all of Jersey City,
including the area of Jersey City that is outside the District, and that it would not be possible to
construct housing in the portion of Jersey City that is within the District. An HMDC study
found that potential in-District rehabilitation and new construction of affordable housing in
Jersey City within the District was possible and that this approach would be the basis for
achieving affordable housing goals, rather than out-of-District housing development. It was
projected that the in-District construction of 450 new dwelling units and 80 rehabilitated units
was achievable in the HMDC portion of Jersey City. This revised estimate reduced the total
amount of market-based housing need required to subsidize low and moderate housing needs
in Jersey City from 4,800 units to 2,200 market units. The analysis also resulted in the
development of Hybrid Area No. 15 in Jersey City.
The Planning Areas retained for the Hybrid Plan are described below, followed by a summary
listing of the Satellite Areas retained for the Hybrid Plan. The total development potential of
these Planning Areas generally meet the growth objectives and social needs identified by
HMDC (as discussed in Section 1, "Purpose and Needs"). The hybrid plan has a total of 14
Planning Areas and 38 Satellite Areas, as described in the following sections.
4-71
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Selected Planning Areas
The land acreage required for full implementation of the Planning Areas that compose the
Hybrid Alternative totals 931 acres (over the planning period), of which 498.5 acres are
considered to be wetlands. The land use projections for the Planning Area acreage in the Hybrid
Alternative amount to a total of 17.8 million square feet of office space, 2.7 million square feet of
commercial space and 13,920 residential units. Table 4-19 identifies each Planning Area selected
for the Hybrid Alternative and provides information about the type and amount of growth
assigned to each of the Areas. Figure 4-8 illustrates the locations of the Planning and Satellite
Areas in the Hybrid Plan. (The numbering of the Hybrid Areas is discontinuous because areas
were eliminated during the review process.) The impacts of the Hybrid Plan are assessed in
Section 5, Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative.
Hybrid Area 1: Paterson Plank Road/Carlstadt-E. Rutherford. This Planning Area consists of
portions of Redevelopment Area A and Upland Growth Area D and is situated along Paterson
Plank Road in Carlstadt and East Rutherford. The Area was designated in the Screening
document for office and commercial use. The commercial use was retained for use in the
Hybrid Plan. This is due to the location of the Planning Area in proximity to major
warehouse/distribution employment centers and the major service roadway bisecting it
(Paterson Plank Road.)
Of the total of 86 original acres in this Planning Area, portions were eliminated because of
contaminated lands with no apparent remediation program and the absence of blight criteria
necessary for redevelopment status. There is also an isolated wetland area of approximately 2.3
acres in size which is impacted in this Planning Area.
In order to maximize the utilization of upland areas, a coverage factor of 50% was projected in
this Planning Area. Therefore, as described in the analysis a total of 40 acres was retained for
development. This results in 871,000 square feet of commercial space being projected for this
Area.
Hybrid Area 2: Old Mill / Secaucus. This Planning Area is derived from the Upland Growth
Alternative Area F and is situated at the terminus of a local unimproved road along the
Hackensack River in northern Secaucus. The Area was designated in the Screening document
for residential use. The total land area of seven (7) acres is unchanged from the original
Screening analysis. In order to maximize the usage of upland areas, a density of 15 dwelling
units per acre is projected for this Area. Therefore, 105 residential units are planned for this
Planning Area. No wetlands are impacted by this Area.
Hybrid Area 3: Carlstadt north/Carlstadt. This Planning Area is derived from the Dispersed
Development Area A and Growth Center Area A West. It is located at the eastern end of
Empire Boulevard west of the New Jersey Turnpike western spur. The Area was designated in
the Screening document for residential use. The Growth Center Planning Area A called for the
utilization of 220 acres of land for 7,700 housing units in this area. In the hybridization process,
this acreage was reduced to 166 acres. This was accomplished through implementation of
4-72
-------
Table 4-19
PLANNING AREAS
Area
Location
Acreage
EABZ
Office
Commercial
Residential
Wetland



Density *


fill




(sq. ft.I
(sq. ft.l
(dwelling units)
(acres)
HYBRID 1
HYBRID 2
HYBRID 3
HYBRID 4
Carls/E. Ruth
Secaucus
40.0
0.50. |
I
871,200 |
I
2.3 |





7.0
15.00
I I
105 |
|





Carlstadt
96.0
40.00


3,840
95.0
70.0
20.00


1,400
70.0






Carlstadt
92.0
0.75
3,005,640


87.6
HYBRID 5
32.0
1.00

1,393,920

32.0






Carls/E. Ruth
14.0
16.00


210
5.0
HYBRID 6
HYBRID 7
HYBRID 8
HYBRID 9
HYBRID 10
HYBRID 11
HYRRID 12
HYBRID 13
HYBRID 14
10.0
40.00


400
10.0
7.0
15.00


105

E. Ruth
E. Ruth.
Rutherford
E. Ruth





12.0
1.00
522,720 |

1





115.0
0.75
3,767,050 |

72.7 |





0.0
1
*
o
8
I
o
0.0 |





15.0
1.00
653,400 |

0.0|





Secaucus
10.0
1.00
435,600



65.0
31.00


2,015
65.1






Secaucus
30.0
0.75
980,100



20.0
050

435,600


30.0
0.75
980,100,



North Beraen





50.0
0.75 I 1,633.500 1

49.7 ]





Secaucus
20.0
5.40
4,704,480


9.1
33.0
0.75
1,078,110









Secaucus
15.0
15.00


225

15.0
20.00


300

122.0
40.00


4,880

HYBRID 1B Jersey City 1 11.0 | 40.00 |	|	I	440"T
PLANNING AREA SUBTOTAL
931.0
AC.
17,760,700 | 2,700,720 |
13,920
498.6
SATELLITE AREA SUBTOTAL
757.9
AC.
See table 4-21
261.3
PLANNING AND SATELLITE TOTAL
1688.9
AC.


749.8
• par = Floor Area Ratio for office & commercial uu. Density is in dwelling units per acre for residential use.
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
HMDC's open space criteria, through the maximization of housing density within portions of
the project of 40 dwelling units per acre and through a reduction in total housing need.
These adjustments allowed a reduction in acreage to 166 acres and 5,240 housing units. Of the
total acreage, 96 acres are planned at a residential density of 40 units per acre and 70 acres are
planned at 20 units per acre. This will allow for a diversity of housing types while maximizing
the density of housing wherever possible. This approach also minimizes the total wetland area
disturbed.
Hybrid Area 4: Carlstadt South/Carlstadt. This Planning Area is derived from merging the
Growth Center Area A West, Dispersed Development Area B and Highway Corridor Area A. It
is located on the north side of Paterson Plank Road just west of the New Jersey Turnpike
western spur. Land uses identified in the Screening document included office, residential and
commercial uses which are maintained in the Hybrid Plan. The total area of this Planning Area
was originally 154 acres of wetland and is projected to support approximately 3 million square
feet of office space and approximately 1.3 million square feet of commercial development.
The initial floor area ratios of 0.75 for the office and 0.5 for the commercial use are consistent
with current development experience in the District. However, the commercial FAR was
increased to 1.0 which permitted wetland fill reduction of 30 acres. This was due to the planning
of multiple office and commercial land uses, in this case, which provided the opportunity to
minimize the displacement of wetland areas. The office and commercial facilities utilize one
central parking area thus reducing the total amount of parking required for the site. The
"shared parking" arrangement cannot be accomplished in areas where single land uses are
implemented and would require significantly more impervious area for parking than the
"shared parking" approach. Therefore, the land area utilized in hybrid area 4 totals 124 acres.
Hybrid Area 5: Paterson Plank Road East/Carlstadt. This Planning Area is derived from the
Growth Center Planning Areas A East, Dispersed Development Area C, Upland Growth Area C
and Highway Corridor Area B. It is located both North and South of Paterson Plank Road just
east of the New Jersey Turnpike western spur and west of the Hackensack River. Land Uses
designated in the Screening document for this area included residential uses which are retained
in the Hybrid Plan. The total area of this Planning Area is 31 acres of which 15 acres are
classified as wetland. This Planning Area actually consists of several marinas, a restaurant
(currently closed), a golf driving range, open vacant upland and 15 acres of wetland.
The Planning Area is projected to support 715 residential units. Of the total acreage, 10 acres is
planned at a residential density of 40 units per acre and 21 acres is planned at 15 units per acre.
The two levels of density are needed in order to allow for a diversity of housing types, and to
reflect waterfront development sensitivity along the Hackensack River. Riverfront areas require
more open space and public areas. This is also consistent with present HMDC existing land use
and development trends providing for a maximum housing density of 15 units per acre along
the waterfront. The residential development in wetland areas is planned at 40 units per acre to
maximize the density of housing and avoid additional wetland fill.
4-74
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Hybrid Area 6: New Tersev Sports Authority/East Rutherford. This Planning Area is derived
from the Upland Growth Area B and the Highway Corridor Area C. It is located on the south
side of Paterson Plank Road between the New Jersey Turnpike western spur and Route 120 and
is the site of the Brendan Byrne Arena. Because of the existing development on the site, 12 acres
of upland were calculated to be available for development purposes. This acreage was
determined to be available from information recently released by the New Jersey Sports &
Exposition Authority. This area was designated in the Alternatives Screening analysis for office
development. The screening analysis projected a FAR of 0.75. The hybrid plan anticipates a
FAR of 1.0 for this site which would yield 522,720 square feet of office space. A 13-acre wetland
parcel on the Arena property has been avoided.
Hybrid Area 7: Kingsland North/East Rutherford. This Planning Area is derived from the
Growth Center Area C, Dispersed Development Areas D and E, Highway Corridor Areas E, F
and G and Upland Growth Area J. The components of this Planning Area are located south of
Route 3, and northeast of Berrys Creek. Land uses identified in the Alternatives Screening
analysis included office, residential, and commercial uses. The Hybrid Analysis indicates that
residential uses may not be appropriate, considering the locational criteria for non-residential
uses.
Therefore, this Planning Area has been designated for office land uses in the Hybrid Plan. The
total area of this Planning Area is 115 acres of land, of which 72.7 are considered to be wetland.
This Area is projected to support approximately 3.8 million square feet of office space. A floor
area ratio of 0.75 for the office space is used, although it is somewhat higher than current
development experience in the District. A reduction in the total site acreage used in the
Alternatives Screening analysis (193 ac.) was attainable due to the increase in the FAR in other
Planning Areas, allowing a reduction in wetland impact in this Planning Area.
This Planning Area is dominated by wetland with the exception of a small area adjacent to
Route 3 at the northern-most area and an area south of the Bergen Line Rail. The identification
of 115 acres of land for the Hybrid results from fulfilling need requirements for growth and
open space/preservation requirements and FAR increases elsewhere. A significant portion of
wetland area originally considered for development in the Alternatives Screening analysis
remains wetland in the Hybrid Plan, thus minimizing impacts to wetlands in this Planning Area.
Hybrid Area 8: Kingsland South/Rutherford. This area, originally under consideration as a
Hybrid Area, was eliminated from the Hybrid Plan pursuant to additional analysis. Elimination
of this Planning Area resulted in the avoidance of 40 acres of potential wetland impact.
Hybrid Area 9: Howmedica/Rutherford. This Planning Area is derived from Highway
Corridor Area D. It is located on the Route 3 West service road just west of Berrys Creek and
north of Route 3. Office use was designated for this Area and is affirmed in the Hybrid Plan.
The total land area is 15 acres which is projected to support 653,400 square feet of office space.
This Planning Analysis initially included the displacement of 7 acres of wetland located between
buildings on the site. However, a FAR increase from 0.75 to 1.0 enabled the avoidance of all
wetland fill in this Planning Area.
4-75
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Although the site is developed, it was determined that the current uses would be displaced
during the 20-year planning period. This site was not determined to be eligible for
redevelopment since it does not exhibit blight conditions, however, it is projected that market
conditions will support the conversion to office. The use of this site as a Planning Area also
supports the efforts to minimize the use of wetland areas for the implementation of the HMDC's
growth and development needs.
Hybrid Arpa 10: Mill Creek/Secaucus. This Planning Area is derived from the Growth Center
Area B West, Dispersed Development Area F West, and Highway Corridor Area J Alternatives.
It is located north of Route 3 and to the west of the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur. Land
uses designated for this area included residential and office uses which are affirmed in the
Hybrid Plan. The total land area is 75 acres, of which 65 acres are considered wetland. The 10
acres of upland are located within the Mill Creek development. It is projected that
approximately 435,000 square feet of office space can be accommodated in this Area at an
increased FAR of 1.0. The balance of the Planning Area consists of wetland area north of the
Mill Creek development also known as IR-2. A total of 97 acres of development was originally
proposed for this area. The Hybrid Plan has reduced the land area utilized to 65 acres which
will support 2,015 residential units at 31 units per acre.
Upland areas were maximized by using the 10 acres of upland within the Mill Creek
development which have been marginally developed. However, HMDC determined that these
uses could be displaced by uses consistent with the surrounding office and commercial
development. In addition, the use of wetland areas is minimized as reflected by the permit
deliberations for IR-2 with the Federal agencies. These discussions have resulted in the
proposed wetland fill on this site being reduced from 97 acres to 65 acres. The total residential
units in the permit discussions have been used and the housing density adjusted appropriately
to 31 units per acre. This is consistent with HMDC's requirement for development of this area
between 15 and 40 dwelling units per acre.
Hybrid Area 11: Harmon Meadow/Secaucus. This Planning Area is derived from the Growth
Center Area B east, Dispersed Development Area F east, Upland Growth Area G, and Highway
Corridor Area K Alternatives. It is located north of Route 3 and to the east of the New Jersey
Turnpike eastern spur. Land uses designated for this area included office, residential and
commercial uses. Two distinct subareas comprise the Planning Area. One area is located
adjacent to the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur and is 30 acres in size. This area has for the
most part been recommended for office development and is affirmed as such in the Hybrid Plan.
A total of 980,000 square feet of space is supported by this subarea.
The other area is located along the east side of the existing Harmon Meadow office park and just
to the west of West Side Avenue in North Bergen. This Area has been proposed for office,
commercial and residential uses in various alternatives. An analysis of this Area concluded that
residential uses should not be further considered and that non-residential uses would be most
appropriate because of the dominance of non-residential uses on the adjacent site and industrial
development to the east. This subarea has been projected to support approximately 435,000
square feet of commercial space and 980,000 square feet of office area.
4-76
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
The intensity of use in the Planning Area also supports the objective of maximizing the
utilization of upland areas. The projected FAR of 0.75 for office development and 0.50 for
commercial development is higher than existing development trends in the District.
Hybrid Area 12: Special Use Area 2/North Bergen. This Planning Area is derived from the
Highway Corridor Area O alternative. It is located south of Route 1-495, west of the Northeast
Corridor Rail Line and east of the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur. The land use identified for
this Area is office which is maintained in the Hybrid Plan. The total area of this Planning Area is
50 acres of wetland and is projected to support approximately 1.6 million square feet of office
space. The acreage of this Area was reduced from that assessed in the Alternatives Screening
analysis because of public land ownership, and open space requirements per HMDC zoning
regulations. The floor area ratio of 0.75 is somewhat higher than current development
experience in the District.
The reduction of this Planning Area is a result of maximizing the use of upland locations outside
this Planning Area, and an attempt to utilize only the degree of wetland necessary to achieve the
developmental needs of the District. The reduction of this Planning Area from 92 acres to 50
acres directly reflects this effort. Utilizing a FAR of 0.75 also supports the objective of
developing at the highest practicable densities within the District.
Hybrid Area 13: Secaucus Transfer/Serau^. This Planning Area is derived from
Redevelopment Area H, Dispersed Development Area L and the Growth Center Area D
alternatives. It is located south of County Road and east of New County Road. The Planning
Area also includes the intersecting rail lines from the Northeast Corridor Line, the New Jersey
Transit Main Line, and the Bergen Line. Office use was designated for the Area and is affirmed
in the Hybrid Plan. A total land area of 53 acres includes 20 acres within the intersection of the
rail lines and 33 acres of surrounding land area within proximity to the rail facilities. Of the total
land area, 9.1 acres are considered to be wetlands. The wetland area is within the property
encompassing the intersection of the rail lines. A total of approximately 5.8 million square feet
of office space is proposed for this Area. Within the immediate area of the rail lines, a floor area
ratio of 5.4 was utilized to reflect the special locational and land use advantages of this site. In
the balance of the Planning Area a more conventional, but still increased 0.75 FAR was utilized.
The development of the 33 acres of surrounding land will be accomplished as a result of
redevelopment of this area. This is upland area and to a large extent, development will be
created through private efforts related to the construction of the rail station in this Area.
Utilizing the FAR of 0.75 was determined to be reasonable and the maximum FAR possible
based on the potential impact to the road and infrastructure systems from the overall
development in this Area. It was determined that use of a higher FAR would result in
unacceptable impacts to these facilities. In addition, the development of Hybrid Area 14 will
also impact these same facilities, supporting the concern that the infrastructure would be
overtaxed by an increased FAR.
Hybrid Area 14: Laurel Hill/Secaucus. This Planning Area is derived from the Upland Growth
Area O, Dispersed Development Area H and the Growth Center Area D alternatives. It is
4-77
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
located at the southern terminus of New County Road just west of the New Jersey Turnpike
eastern spur and along the east side of the Hackensack River. Residential uses were designated
for this Area and are affirmed in the Hybrid Plan. A total land area of 152 acres is projected to
support 5405 residential units. The housing density is established by utilizing densities
consistent with HMDC zoning and design regulations. Use of this Hybrid Area does not
involve fill in wetlands.
This Planning Area was reduced in size from the Screening Analysis from 169 acres to 152 acres.
The difference in the acreage results from the avoidance of a rock outcrop and steeply sloped
area known as Snake Hill. The graduated housing densities projected in this Area result from
HMDC's regulations and planning objectives of housing diversity and scale of development,
particularly along the Hackensack River. Directly adjacent to the River, housing would be
planned at 15 dwelling units per acre. Further from the River an increased density of 20 units
per acre would be planned. The higher density of 40 units per acre would be reserved for the
balance of the site and for the majority of the Planning Area. This allows the maximum use of
this upland area and also permits a sensitivity to the planning objectives and visual resources of
the site.
Hybrid Area 15: St. Pauls Ave.Mersey City. This built up area of Jersey City, within the District,
had initially been included in the screening analysis as a portion of Redevelopment Area J.
Existing housing in this area was planned to be removed and was consistent with the current
zoning plan for the District. During the hybrid analysis, additional analyses and field
investigations indicated that this housing should be retained and that additional infill housing
would be possible within this neighborhood.
It was determined that approximately 80 existing dwelling units were present that could qualify
for rehabilitation status. Between these smaller neighborhoods, an additional 440 new infill low
and moderate income or affordable units could be realized at a density of 40 units per acre.
Therefore, a total of approximately 11 acres are available for meeting the total District housing
need, which would equate to 440 new residential units. There is no wetland area within this
Planning Area.
Selected Satellite Areas
Satellite Areas are locations where the needs for secondary office/warehouse uses can be met.
The secondary office/warehouse land use category provides much of the support service for the
primary uses, but also provides for the storage, distribution, and assembly of a wide variety of
goods both manufactured and imported into the region. Secondary office uses provide the
administrative function for the distribution network and in most cases, are located within close
proximity to the distribution / assembly functions. This can be in the same building as the
distribution activities or in separate buildings within distribution office parks where desirable.
There are 27 Satellite Areas that were originally selected for the Hybrid Alternative, having a
total land area of 449 acres, and creating approximately 8.4 million square feet of secondary
office/warehouse space. These 27 Satellite Areas require wetland fill totaling approximately 251
acres.
4-78
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
There are also 11 Planning Areas that were redesignated as Satellite Areas, constituting a total of
309 acres, allowing the fulfillment of an additional 6.7 million square feet of secondary
office/warehouse space need. There is no wetland fill associated with use of these redesignated
areas.
Combining the original Satellite Areas with the Planning Areas that were re-designated as
Satellite Areas, the land area for all Satellite Area development totals 758 acres, potentially
hosting 15.1 million square feet of secondary office/warehouse space at 38 locations. This total
is consistent with the needs analysis expressed by HMDC for the Meadowlands District. The
total wetland impact for the Satellite Areas is 251.3 acres. The characteristics of each Satellite
Area, and the basis of their selection is provided in Appendix L, Hybrid Analysis (prepared by
HMDC).
The Satellite Areas were drawn from several groups within the hybridization process. First,
several of the primary Planning Areas (analyzed in each of the Land Management Alternatives)
were determined to be unsuitable for use as primary office, commercial, or residential uses.
However, the analysis indicated that some of these areas should be considered as Satellite Areas.
Therefore, several of the Satellite Areas are derived from former Planning Areas. In instances
where wetland areas were not utilized for primary uses in the Hybrid Plan, these sites were
again reviewed to determine their suitability for secondary office/warehouse use. Only wetland
areas meeting the specific criteria established to support these uses were included in the Hybrid
Plan.
Second, Satellite Areas were considered where smaller, isolated lots or undeveloped lots are
present within existing subdivisions. These lots may be smaller infill lots or larger vacant
parcels within the subdivision or "park". Lots may have both upland and wetland on them in
which some wetland fill is projected. Where individual secondary office/warehouse sites were
identified, wetland areas on these properties were protected if they adjoined substantial wetland
areas, if they constituted open space areas on developed lots, or if they adjoined future wetland
preservation areas. There was a consistent and systematic attempt to recognize the importance
of sensitive wetland areas within the District and to protect such wetlands from inclusion in the
plan for future growth.
Third, Satellite Areas were considered where contaminated properties were present that could
be utilized for the secondary office/warehouse component. The use or non-use of contaminated
properties is an important issue with respect to realistically meeting the needs of the District.
There are three Superfund sites located within the Meadowlands. The Hybrid Plan analyzes
these sites and discusses the viability of future development of the sites.
Other contaminated sites that have an approved remediation plan have also been proposed for
development. Contaminated sites also include properties with area- or basin-wide
contamination. Properties along Berrys Creek, Peach Island Creek and Penhorn Creek exhibit
the effects of basin-wide contamination events. Potential satellite parcels in these areas required
additional discussion to determine whether they would realistically be available for
development. The Hybrid Plan approach is to stimulate clean up of these potentially
4-79
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
contaminated sites by encouraging development of these upland parcels. In most cases, further
site investigation is necessary in order to make final suitability determinations. The Hybrid Plan
recommends several of these sites for potential development.
The method of determining the suitability of the potential Satellite Areas was similar to the
analysis of the Planning Areas. A specific set of exclusionary and planning criteria were
developed to determine if individual Satellite Areas should be excluded or retained for future
satellite development. The Criteria specify three tiers of attributes. Tier I Criteria concern
environmental conditions and site availability and are identical to the Planning Area Tier I
Criteria. Tier II - Potential Costs, Logistics and Technology Exclusionary and Limiting Criteria
are also similar to the Planning Area Tier II criteria. Tier III - Limiting Planning Criteria relate to
services and relationships of District land uses with satellite locations. The exclusionary and
limiting criteria for Satellite Areas are presented in Table 4-20. Table 4-21 lists the Satellite Areas
that were included in the Hybrid Alternative.
4.4 Environmental Improvement Program Alternatives
Alternatives for achievement of environmental improvement goals for the District have been
assessed as part of this analysis. The alternatives for environmental improvement in the District
range from no action (no implementation of environmental improvements under the SAMP,
beyond programs currently in place), to partial implementation of environmental improvement
goals using a subset of available mechanisms, to full implementation of environmental
improvement goals for the District (through HMDC's Environmental Improvement Program,
EIP).
Alternative mechanisms for implementing environmental improvements in the District include:
¦	relying on public funding sources to realize environmentally beneficial projects;
¦	creating new private funding sources to implement environmental improvements;
¦	implementing environmental management and regulatory enhancements (in addition to
minimum compensation requirements related to project impacts);
¦	coordinating environmental projects that are now administered by a range of
governmental agencies; and,
¦	applying a variant of transferable development rights within the District to achieve
conservation objectives.
All the above mechanisms will contribute to achievement of environmental improvement goals
in the District. In fact, all the above mechanisms are proposed as part of HMDC's EIP, which is
an integral component of the Preferred Alternative for the SAMP. The EIP is a key element of
the SAMP because of the extensive need for environmental improvement and remediation in the
District, as described in Sections 2,3, and 4 of this EIS. The EIP proposes an expanded program
of environmental improvements beyond those programs in place among local, state, and federal
4-80
-------
TABLE 4-20
SATELLITE AREA EXCLUSIONARY AND LIMITING CRITERIA
Tier I
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA (concerning environmental conditions and site
availability)
1-1.
Severe Land Contamination: Identified locations within the Satellite Area where
reasonable certainty exists of hazardous material contamination, where no public
program for remediation exists and the extent of contamination is suspected to
preclude development within the 20 year planning period.
1-2.
Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: Land parcels within the Satellite
Area that are publicly or quasi-publicly owned and where land development may be
institutionally precluded (e.g. Teterboro Airport is under the jurisdiction of the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey). Similarly, land owned by certain entities
(e.g. New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority), where the IIMDC regulatory
jurisdiction is limited, would be included in this criteria as well as any land that is
deed restricted from development.
1-3.
Current Land Development: Land uses projected fnr the snhject Satellite Area under
this Land Management Alternative are no longer available either because
incompatible development is underway or is imminent (i.e. received all government
approvals), or existing development is the Planning Area is viable and would not meet
redevelopment criteria.

Tier II
POTENTIAL COSTS, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY EXCLUSIONARY
AND LIMITING CRITERIA
II-l.
Poor Accessibilitv:
(a) Highwav Capacitv: The road and highwav svstem within or adjacent to the
Satellite Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic
projected from the Satellite Area. New roadway access and rights-of-way are not
available or sufficient.
fb) Proximate Location To Regional Highwav Svstem: The Area is not located
within close proximity to the interstate highway system . Available route to the
highway system would be circuitous and cause delay in delivery and distribution due
to lack of such access.
(c") Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located in areas where convenient
existing or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause
the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck
surface transportation.
-------
TABLE 4-20, continued
11-2.
Lack of Efficient Public Services: Insufficient infrastructure capacity (sewerage nr
water) and the inability to support new infrastructure development within the
projected 20 year planning period.
11-3.
Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area
that result from the projected costs of land preparation and building construction
would render development impractical.
11-4.
Insufficient Scale: The Area consists of parcels which are of insufficient size to
accommodate secondary office/warehouse development and cannot be merged with
adjacent similarly zoned parcels with minimum acceptable lot area in accordance with
market demand and economic efficiencies.

Tier III
LIMITING PLANNING CRITERIA
III-l.
Absence of Services: The Area is not within proximitv to the services necessarv to
support warehouse/distribution facilities i.e. truck/transport services, etc.
111-2.
Incompatible Land Uses: The established pattern of land uses in or surrounding the
Area relate poorly to the projected land uses proposed for this Satellite Area under this
Land Management Alternative. Accordingly, implementation of secondary
office/warehouse land uses would be impractical or seriously limited by market
demand.
111-3.
Scattered or Isolated Site/Not Part of a Planned Industrial Distribution Park: The Area
is isolated and not associated with other compatible uses nor is it a component of
existing or previously planned distribution or secondary office/warehouse Satellite
Area Development.
-------
Table 4-21
SATELLITE AREAS
Area
Municipality
Proposed
Projected
Wetland


for
Facility Size
Fill


Development
0.5 FAR



(acres)
Isq. ft.)
(acres)
a
UTILE FIRRY
3.0
65,340
0.0
b
MQQNAGH1E
2.0
43,560
0.0
c
CARLSIADI
9.7
211,266
0.0
e
CARLSIADI
12.4
270,072
0.0
f
CARLSTADT
13.0
283,140
7.1
h
CARLSIADI
10.2
222,156
7.8
i
LBUIHERFJ3BD
30.8
670,824
0.0
j
LBUTHEREQBD
49.1
1,069,398
37.5
k
CARLSIADI
12.1
263.538
5.6
o
CARLSTADT
1.7
37,026
0.0
P
CARLSIADI
10.2
222,156
6.5
q
CARLSTADT
3.1
67,518
1.8
V
N.. BERGEN
30.3
659,934
23.3
w
E.RUTHERFQRD
39.7
864,666
35.0
X
LYNDHURST
46.2
1,006,236
35.9
V
LYWDHURSI
4.0
87,1 20
0.0
aa
MJEBfiEN
13.2
287,496
9.5
ab
N.BERGEN
7.5
163,350
0.0
ac
N.BERGEN
4.4
95,832
2.9
ah
SECAUCUS
8.1
176,418
0.0
am
KEARNY
5.0
108,900
0.0
ar
MQONACHIE
14.9
324,522
0.0
as*
JERSEY CITY
81.5
392,040
64.4
at
CARLSIADI
1.7
37.026
0.0
av
CARLSTADT
5.3
115,434
2.5
aw
SECAUCUS
18.3
39B,574
0.0
bb
NJSiBGEN
11.5
250,470
11.5
SUBTOTAL	|	448.9 ]	8.394.012 [	2S1.3 |
PLANNING AREAS RETAINED AS SATELLITE AREAS
AREA Municipality
Proposed
Projected
Wetland

for
Facility Size
Fill

Development
0.5 FAR


(acres)
(sq. ft.)
(acres)
n CARLSTADT
(upland area N)
s N. BERGEN
(upland area A)
(upland area H)
BB/af N. BERGEN
(upland area L)
afl SECAUCUS
(upland area K)
aj KEARNY
(upland area P)
ak KEARNY
(redevelopment I)
(redevelopment J)
ay SECAUCUS
(redevelopment E)
(redevelopment F)
(redevelopment G)
SUBTOTAL
10.0
217,800
0.0



30.7
668,646
0.0



20.8
453,024
0.0



60.8
1,324,224
0.0



36.5
794.970
0.0



27.1
590,238
0.0



32.3
703,494
0.0



30.8
670,824
0.0



3.0
65,340
0.0



30.6
666,468
0.0



26.4
574,992
0.0



309.0
6,730.020
0.0



SATELLITE AREA SUBTOTAL
PLANNING AREA SUBTOTAL
PLANNING AND SATELLITE TOTAL
757.9
16,124,032
261.3
931.0

498.60
1688.9
749.80
* represents the development of an intermoda) rail facility with associated warehouse space.
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
agencies, and coordination of existing environmental improvement projects. The HMDC also
proposes that new revenues be secured for needed projects, using a range of mechanisms
available under their regional authority.
4.4.1	Need for Environmental Improvement
There is a critical need for environmental improvement in the District, a location that has served
as a "dumping ground" for New Jersey and New York's waste for many years (described in
Section 2, Environmental Improvement Program, and Section 3, Description of the Affected
Environment). Although a number of environmental improvements have been achieved in
recent years—many under HMDC's stewardship—these improvements derive principally from
implementation of regulatory programs related to solid waste, hazardous waste, and water
quality discharge (NJPDES).
Several environmental improvement projects have been implemented in the District under
various authorities (e.g., hazardous waste site remediation via Superfund, landfill closure for a
subset of landfills for which closure funds were established, and wastewater treatment plant
improvements). However, a number of proposed environmental improvements that are very
important in the District (specifically, wetland protection and enhancement, water quality
improvement, and closure of orphan landfills) cannot proceed because no programs and no (or
only minor) sources of funding are available to address these major environmental remediation
and improvement projects.
The existing natural environment in the District indicates the stresses of past environmental
abuses. Natural and manmade processes of sedimentation and erosion continue to impact the
wetland resources of the District, which exhibit lower value monotypic vegetation and urban
hydrology. Water quality continues to be impacted by uncontrolled leachate discharges from
orphan landfills—leachates with typical "landfill" pollutants (e.g., ammonia, heavy metals) and
hazardous pollutants that affect both water quality and aquatic life. While existing wetland
regulations direct growth to upland locations, the wildlife habitats in these terrestrial sites are
becoming increasingly scarce in the District, reducing the diversity of habitat in the District.
These long-standing environmental problems in the District are, for the most part, beyond the
scope of existing regulatory programs. Projects to address these major on-going threats to
environmental quality, and to create terrestrial habitats from abandoned landfills, are proposed
within the EIP.
4.4.2	EIP Funding
The public resources that can be applied for environmental improvement in the District are
limited, and the ability of the taxpayers to fund new government actions are constrained by the
rising costs of existing government services. HMDC has continued to press for increases in
funding for environmental enhancement; however, funding for hazardous waste cleanup, water
quality improvement, wetland enhancement, habitat restoration and preservation, and landfill
closure is delivered through disparate programs under a range of local, state, and federal
controls, each of which indicate limitations on available funding. The projected cost of the EIP
providing comprehensive environmental management and improvement in the District, is
4-84
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
almost $900 million. Adequate financial resources are not currently available to reverse the extensive
damage the District has experienced, damage that has serious continuing negative impacts on the natural
aquatic and terrestrial systems.
It is for this reason that one of the most significant elements of the SAMP is HMDC's proposal to
raise new revenues for environmental improvement. New revenues are needed where no
funding or implementation mechanisms exist for environmental improvement, for example: to
secure title to privately owned wetlands for conservation and enhancement purposes; to close
and control leachates from orphan landfills; or to provide new wildlife habitat. Four
mechanisms proposed by HMDC provide important new revenues to be dedicated specifically
to the EIP: (1) environmental linkage fees to be imposed on new growth; (2) new revenues
raised by environmental assessment fees on existing development in the District; (3) Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR); and (4) focused application of existing local, state, and federal
government funding. Each these programs will play an important role in leveraging the large
and interlinked set of environmental improvements proposed in the District.
4.4.3	Implementation of the EIP
HMDC proposes to be the central coordinating and implementation agency for the EIP. There
are two fundamental roles in implementing the EIP: to make new funds available for
environmental improvements that are not being addressed; and to coordinate existing and
future environmental improvement programs for all media, targeting priority geographic
locations in the District. While HMDC is currently advancing such an agenda, it is hampered by
lack of funding to achieve environmental improvement goals. The EIP implementation agency
must have sufficient funding to reverse decades of environmental degradation in the District, or
the goals of the Environmental Improvement Program will remain "paper" objectives.
Funding (including coordination of funding), decision-making, and operational elements of the
EIP would be implemented most effectively if one regional agency—HMDC—integrated and
coordinated EIP actions and participants. The SAMP proposes such an arrangement. As EIP
elements are implemented in unison (as is proposed), the environmental benefit will be
significantly greater than the benefits that would be realized if environmental improvement
actions were implemented individually and without coordination.
4.4.4	Alternatives to the EIP
The Environmental Improvement Program, as envisioned by HMDC and implemented through
the SAMP (see Section 6 of the EIS), consists of numerous environmental improvement actions
that cover the full spectrum of environmental compartments (air, land, and water). As noted
earlier, the alternatives to the EIP consist of: (1) no implementation of the EIP, (2) partial
implementation of the EIP (only a subset of improvement actions are implemented), or (3) full
implementation of the EIP.
No Implementation of the EIP (No Action)
Under the no EIP alternative, existing environmental programs are assumed to continue in the
District, but no new programs or projects would be implemented because no new funding
4-85
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
sources would be available. Existing programs consist principally of those implemented by
HMDC for continued monitoring of water quality in the District, and collection and use of
tipping fees to close several of the landfills recently active in the District. As a result of the
diffused responsibility for past environmental degradation in the District, there are no programs
in existence, with sufficient funding, to achieve several of the central projects of the EIP. A
number of critical EIP projects will not be implemented without a SAMP (and its constituent
EIP), specifically:
¦	Research and demonstration project initiatives for remediation of hazardous waste sites
are not currently eligible for funding under state and federal programs,
¦	No (or slow) closure of orphan landfills (for which no closure funds were ever established),
including construction of leachate collection systems, subsurface cutoff walls, landfill
surface caps, stormwater control systems, and methane collection devices,
¦	Only limited wetland acquisition and enhancement, and potentially no implementation of
wetland mitigation banking for the District. Only limited wetland monitoring and
management as funding may be available from federal or state sources,
¦	Only limited upland habitat management and enhancement, as current low levels of
funding allow. Without mechanisms to close orphan landfills, potential reclamation of
landfills as upland wildlife habitats cannot occur, and,
¦	No mechanism/funds to implement a watershed-based stormwater management plan that
controls and reduces impacts caused by runoff from past development.
Under the no action alternative (i.e., no EIP) no new mechanisms and funding will be created to
facilitate active management, control, and improvement of orphan landfills, stormwater from
past development, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and degraded wetlands. The No Action
alternative results in serious ongoing degradation of the environment of the District. Leaving
unchecked the ongoing discharges to the aquatic and terrestrial environment (caused by historic
waste disposal and environmental modification in the District) will result in continued loss of
environmental quality in the District, including: water quality degradation, with attendant
impacts to aquatic biology, reductions in diversity in habitat and wildlife populations,
sedimentation and accretion in wetlands, and air pollution from discharges of methane and
other volatile organics to the atmosphere.
Imparts of Continuing Environmental Degradation
Analysis of existing water quality in the District reveals that the Hackensack River and its
tributaries have been, and continue to be significantly affected by the many sources of pollution
in the watershed. Although the permitting, monitoring, and increases in the level of wastewater
treatment that occurred during the early 1970's did produce recognizable positive results in the
quality of the Hackensack River, since that time the overall water quality in the Hackensack
River has not changed substantially. The Hackensack River experiences severe water quality
problems in the summer, with extremely low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels (less than 4 0 mg/1)
4-86
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
a common occurrence. DO levels below 4.0 mg/1 cause mortality for most fish species. In
addition, high levels of fecal coliforms (an indicator of human and animal waste) are present
throughout the year. The average fecal coliform level for 14 sampling points within the District
during 1993-1994 was 3,894 colonies/100 ml (the state standard for the Hackensack River is 770
colonies/100 ml). Significant sources of pollution (landfills and combined sewer overflows) and
related effects on the Meadowlands wetlands are discussed below.
Landfills. HMDC reports a total of approximately 1,400 acres of past and present undeveloped
landfills in the District (many of the past landfills have been built upon, either with roads,
parking lots, or buildings). Leachate has been controlled at only two landfills: the 150-acre
(BCUA/HMDC) Kingsland landfill and the 45-acre Kearny (HMDC 1-A) landfill. Thus, there
are currently approximately 1,200 acres of uncontrolled landfills discharging leachate into the
Meadowlands waters.
According to HMDC, the 150-acre (uncapped) Kingsland landfill generates approximately 100
million gallons of leachate per year (670,000 gallons/acre/year), while the 45-acre (capped) 1-A
landfill generates 15 million gallons per year (330 gallons/acre/year). Leachate generation at
the uncontrolled (and uncapped) sites are expected to be similar to the rate at the uncapped
Kingsland landfill. Additionally, HMDC has indicated that a typical leachate generation rate for
orphan landfills in the District is approximately 540,000 gallons/acre/year. Thus, the 1,200 acres
of uncontrolled landfills result in ongoing discharges of between 650 and 800 million gallons of
leachate to Meadowlands waterways each year.
BCUA conducted a study (performed by Clinton Bogart and Associates, or CBA) in 1990 to
determine the effect of the BCUA wastewater treatment plant discharge on the water quality of
the Hackensack River. As part of their analysis, CBA estimated the contributions and water
quality effects of pollutants from other sources, including landfills. Based on samples taken
during their study in the Sawmill Creek basin, CBA estimated that uncontrolled landfills
discharge approximately 2,300 pounds of BOD per year per acre, and approximately 3,300
pounds of ammonia-nitrogen per year per acre. Applying these loading factors to the 1,200
acres of uncontrolled landfills in the District yields a loading of 1,400 tons of BOD per year and
2,000 tons of ammonia-nitrogen per year. To put this into perspective, CBA also estimated that
BCUA, the largest wastewater discharger in the District (discharging an average of 70 MGD of
wastewater), releases approximately 5,000 tons of BOD per year, and 1,875 tons of ammonia-
nitrogen per year. Thus, the generation of BOD from landfills is almost 30 percent of the
discharge from BCUA, while the generation of ammonia-nitrogen from landfills is greater than
that discharged from BCUA. As discussed below, the CBA analysis showed that uncontrolled
landfill leachate is a significant ongoing cause of water quality degradation in the Hackensack
River.
CBA's 1990 analysis of the Hackensack River water quality included an analysis future
conditions with no CSOs (see below), landfills, or benthos contributing nutrients to the river.
(During the summer, CBA found that river sediments, or benthos, exhibited a significant oxygen
demand, due to microbial activity.) Under present conditions (using 1988 flow data, which
represents a "worst case" flow scenario), the model predicts that the critical reach of the river
4-87
-------
Section 4
Analysis ot Alternatives
(between Berrvs Creek am) Chromakill (.'rook) would experience low dissolved oxygon (DO)
levels (below 4.0 nit;/1) approximately I1' percent ot the time during summer months (June
through September). Under future conditions (using the same assumptions except tor higher
w astew ater loadings), the critical reach would experience low DO levels approximately 21
percent ot the time during summer months. It, in the future, all landfill leachates, CSO and
benthic sources of pollution were removed, the model predicted that the critical reach would
experience low DO levels onlv approximately 14 percent of the time during the summer. Thus,
it can be concluded that these non-point sources ot contamination contribute substantially to the
continuing degradation ot the water quality in the I lackensack kiver.
In addition to nutrients and BOD, landfill leachate contains other pollutants, such as petroleum
hydrocarbons and metals (e.g., chromium, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and arsenic).
Table 3-12 (in Section 3) presents the mass loading rates of these toxics from landfills into the
Meadowlands environment, contributing further to water quality degradation.
l andfills also generate gases (primarily methane) which contribute to air quality degradation in
the District. Landfill gas can be controlled by collecting the gas and either burning it on site, or
piping it to a power generating station. Landfill gas collection systems are currently in place at
the HMDC 1-A, 1-C, and l-l) landfills, covering approximately 350 acres. Based on estimates of
gas generated at these sites, the remaining 1,050 acres of uncontrolled landfills generate between
15 million cubic feet per day (mcfd) and 32 nicfd. This translates to between 5.4 and 11.5 billion
cubic feet per year of methane that is released into the regional airshed, providing precursors for
ozone formation. The region is classified as severe non-attainment for o/one.
Stormwat-er and CSOs. The total area in the lower Hackensack Kiver watershed served by
combined sewers is approximately 7.3 square miles (8.7 percent of the total drainage of the
lower Hackensack River). The BCUA report (CBA, 1990) identified 32 combined sewer
overflow's (CSOs) in the lower Hackensack River basin. Approximately 60 percent of the
combined sewer area is in jersey City, and these discharges enter the Hackensack River close to
the mouth, where tidal flushing is greatest. However, even these CSOs impact the District water
quality because the discharges are transported upstream by the incoming tide. CBA estimated
that the total dry weather flow from these CSOs averaged approximately 21 cubic feet per
second (cfs), with average BOD concentrations ranging from 110 mg/1 to 243 mg/1 and
ammonia-nitrogen concentrations ranging from 6 mg/1 to 18 mg/1. The total average loading
from these CSOs is 2,900 tons/year of BOD and 230 tons/year of ammonia-nitrogen.
Comparing these mass loading rates to those presented above for landfill leachate and the
BCUA discharge indicates that CSOs also contribute a significant source of nutrients, oxygen
demand, and pollution to the Hackensack River.
Wetlands. The wetlands in the Hackensack Meadowlands have a history of transition and, more
recently, degradation. Approximately 14,000 years ago, the local environment of the
Meadowlands was most likely a well-drained woodland of alder and oak. Approximately 2 000
B.P. (before present), with the rising sea level, many parts of the Meadowlands began to evolve,
first into freshwater wetlands, and then into tidal wetlands, vegetated predominantly by salt
grass.
4-88
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
About 800 B.P., the first cedar trees appeared in the Meadowlands. The cedar bogs were
dominant for about three to five centuries, and then began to dwindle, beginning about 500
years ago. According to late 19th century maps, the then surviving cedar stands were limited to
only a few scattered areas, surrounded by common reed (Phragmites australis), suggesting a
takeover of the cedar swamps by Phragmites.
Recent changes in the Meadowlands have been more abrupt, and more drastic. The first cause
of change was the attempt to "reclaim" the Meadowlands as arable land, and beginning in the
1930's, to control mosquito breeding. Because the diking and ditching performed to drain the
wetlands prevents the influx of tidal water, and also dries out the marsh, the diking probably
contributed to the loss of cedar in the Sawmill Creek area. Also due to the dikes, the layers of
peat that existed at the bottom of the marshes protected by the dikes began to dry out. Common
reed (Phragmites australis) began to colonize these drier, less saline areas. The dryer land behind
the dikes also began to subside, sinking to lower elevations than the water level in the
Hackensack River.
The second major recent cause of change in the Meadowlands environment was the construction
of the Oradell Dam (completed in 1922). This dam limited fresh water inputs into the
Hackensack, and increased the tidal effects, moving the head of tide upstream. As the
population served from the Oradell Reservoir increased, passing fresh water flows decreased,
resulting in a more saline environment for most of the District.
In 1950, a major hurricane breached most of the dikes, and the saline waters of the Hackensack
River (with elevated salinity due to the Oradell Dam) flooded large expanses of the
Meadowlands. In some areas (e.g., the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area) the
Phragmites were unable to survive in the deeper, more saline water, and large expanses died off.
The resulting mudflats are only recently being slowly revegetated by salt-marsh cordgrass
(Spartina alterniflora). However, in the majority of the Meadowlands, history has shown that
Phragmites, once established, remains present in environments where it would not otherwise
establish itself. Only drastic events such as the flooding of the Sawmill Creek area have been
successful in removing large expanses of Phragmites—even in Sawmill Creek, Phragmites is still
the dominant plant species.
The effects of the deterioration of the Meadowlands ecosystem on the wetlands environments
(caused by both hydrologic changes and degraded water quality as discussed above) can be seen
by comparing the vegetative species found in previous surveys with those found today. In 1819,
John Torrey conducted a "catalogue of plants growing spontaneously within thirty miles of the
City of New-York." In this report, Torrey relates that,
Few places have afforded us more plants, than the vicinity of Hoboken
and Weehawk [Weehawken], and the neighboring marshes. Many
excursions have been made to these places, but much remains to be
discovered. The cedar swamp, near New Durham [North Bergen], is
particularly deserving of notice. This is a sphagnous morass, of about
three quarters of a mile in length, and between two and three hundred
4-89
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
yards wide, and is entirely overgrown with the cupressus thuyoides or
white cedar and other evergreens. Many of our most rare and interesting
plants were obtained in this place, as our catalogue bears evidence.
Torrey lists over 190 plant species found in the Meadowlands or surrounding areas in 1819. No
salt or brackish marsh species were reported other than Sabatia dodecandra (large rose-gentian).
Also of note is that Phragmites was not yet reported in the Meadowlands.
Another survey of flora that included the Meadowlands region was compiled in 1889 by Britton.
Britton listed over 220 species from the Meadowlands or surrounding areas. Seven of these
were salt or brackish species, indicating a still predominantly freshwater environment.
In 1919, Harshberger and Burns reported that typical salt marsh flora existed at the mouth of the
Hackensack River, and gradually changed upstream into brackish flora in the central regions,
with freshwater marsh occurring in the northern area. Spartina alterniflora, typical of salt
marshes, was reported only from Sawmill Creek southward. The report states that
"The outer margin of the salt marsh, where it touches the open lagoon...is
fringed with a broader, or a narrower, strip of the tall salt grass...[Spartina
alterniflora]. Back of this strip...we find the rush salt grass, Spartina patens,
which grows at a slightly higher tidal level. Then came the extensive
areas of the black grass, Juncus gerardi [saltmeadow rush],..Sometimes
there are extensive areas covered with the lesser salt grass, Distichlis
spicata..."
Harshberger also state that Phragmites australis, which was reported to cover extensive areas,
competed with such species as Typha angustifolia and Typha Jatifolia (two species of cattails) for
dominance in the marshes.
These past descriptions of the Meadowlands flora can be contrasted with that of today. As
listed in Table 3-2 (in Section 3), of a total of 2,543 acres of vegetated wetlands (as surveyed by
BCUA consultants), almost 90 percent were dominated by Phragmites australis. The remaining 10
percent was almost entirely vegetated by Spartina alterniflora. This loss of floral and habitat
diversity is a direct result of the altered hydrology and the degraded water quality in the
Meadowlands. Because no actions are being taken to improve the hydrology of the
Meadowlands, and because of the slow progress in improving water quality in the Hackensack
River (see above), and because history has shown Phragmites to be a resilient resident of the
Meadowlands, the existing, almost monotypic environment can be expected to continue, and
potentially worsen, in the future.
Conclusion. A SAMP alternative that results in no implementation of the EIP has been rejected
by all parties involved in the development of the SAMP because of the significant environmental
impacts that would continue, or worsen, under the "no EIP" alternative (as discussed above).
The consensus of the SAMP participants is that severe environmental problems exist in the
District that must be addressed to make possible a healthy ecosystem in the future. The current
system for environmental improvement consists principally of regulatory actions taken by
4-90
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
HMDC and state and federal agencies, coupled with relatively modest expenditures by HMDC
(compared to the scope of the environmental improvement needed). The current system is
unfocused—because of a lack of funding for, and agreement on, comprehensive improvement
among local, state, and federal agencies; and uncoordinated—because the environmental
improvement programs implemented do not benefit from the synergy of multiple programs
focused on priority areas.
If an EIP is not implemented for the District, critical environmental resources will continue to be
compromised, and decades of environmental degradation in the District will remain
unaddressed. This alternative has been rejected for the SAMP because the environmental effects
of no action are significantly less acceptable than partial or full implementation of the EIP.
Partial Implementation of the EIP
Partial implementation would occur if funding is not available for the full spectrum of proposed
EIP program elements and projects. Under partial implementation, an interagency coordination
committee for mitigation and environmental improvement action, as is proposed in the EIP,
could be implemented. However, the number of projects that could be achieved would be
limited (see discussion of full implementation, below). Most future environmental
improvements will require new funding because responsible parties are not identifiable or
available (such as in the case of the wetland degradation and landfilling that occurred in the
District over the last century).
Partial implementation would result in implementation only of programs for which funding
exists or can be obtained (e.g., if new funds were available to HMDC, state, or federal agencies
for a subset of EIP actions, or if HMDC was successful in securing specific project-related
environmental improvements from developers whose projects are approvable and permittable).
Programs that are currently funded, and that are likely to continue to be funded include Green
Acres preservation funds, escrow fund to close and monitor four of the eight major orphan
landfills in the District, and parks, recreation, and open space programs. These programs would
likely continue under partial implementation. However, partial implementation of the EIP
would result in no action being taken to identify, remediate, and/or manage a number of
significant sources of ongoing contamination in the District.
Projects that would not likely be addressed under partial implementation of the EIP (because of
a lack of funding mechanisms) include: landfill closure for 4 priority orphan landfills for which
no funding is available; installation of waste gas collection at uncontrolled landfills;
management of hazardous waste remediation at scores of listed potentially contaminated sites in
the District; and implementation of certain regional non-point source water quality management
programs. These sources of pollution are currently discharging significant contamination to the
air, land, and aquatic ecosystem of the District. However, current funding sources, and funding
potentially available from existing development in the District would be adequate to address
only about half of the currently unfunded, yet significant, sources of contamination in the
District.
4-91
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
The inability to remediate or control the major sources of contamination under the partial
implementation alternative will result in significant, ongoing, and cumulative degradation of the
environment in the District. Because partial implementation of the EIP will not address several
of the most critical needs for environmental improvement in the District—specifically water
quality improvement, air quality improvement, restoration of the aquatic ecosystem, and
creation of needed terrestrial habitats—this EIP alternative was not selected for the SAMP. The
consequences of partial implementation of the EIP make this alternative unacceptable, especially
in comparison to full implementation of the EIP.
Full Implementation of the EIP
Full implementation of the EIP was selected for inclusion in the SAMP Preferred Alternative.
Implementing environmental improvement in the District requires proactive management
(especially for areas not covered under existing environmental programs), using new sources of
funding dedicated to environmental improvement projects and programs. As noted previously
in this section, there have already been significant individual and cumulative adverse impacts to
the aquatic and terrestrial environments in the Meadowlands. The critical environmental
improvements that are needed in the District can be realized only through coordinated
implementation of the array of water quality improvement, wildlife management, and land
management projects in the EIP, in the context of implementing the SAMP.
As discussed under the no EIP alternative, there are a number of important EIP projects and
programs that are essential to realizing wetland, wildlife habitat, and water quality
improvement in the District, but such projects are not eligible for funding or implementation
support under available regulatory or management programs. Full implementation of the EIP
under the SAMP will allow these inter-related environmental improvement projects to move
forward synergistically (including funding for many projects and programs that otherwise have
no funding available).
Most significantly, full implementation of the EIP will result in a centrally managed program for
pollution abatement, remediation, and enforcement, and will allow all of the identified hazards and
sources of environmental degradation to be controlled and managed, thus preventing future system-wide
impacts to air quality, the aquatic ecosystem, and the terrestrial environment. In conclusion full
implementation of the EIP will significantly advance the restoration of environmental quality in
the lower Hackensack River watershed.
The proposed EIP funding mechanisms provide over 90% of the total EIP funding needs but
there remains a funding shortfall of about $60 million. Dedicated EIP funding is expected to
"draw" additional federal and state environmental program funds to the District which may
help close the shortfall. Environmental improvement actions, as proposed in the EIP would b
administered and coordinated by HMDC, with the input and assistance of the SAMP partners6
4.5 Preferred Alternative
The SAMP Preferred Alternative was created during the planning and environmental studv
process that was conducted for the EIS. As described in the introduction to Section 6 of the EIS
4-92
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
the MOU for the SAMP called for the implementation of specific products pursuant to the
SAMP/EIS process: a General Permit and Abbreviated Permit Process for projects consistent
with the SAMP; a revised HMDC Master Plan for the District; restrictions on development in
specific areas; and application of best management practices for stormwater runoff. In
accordance with this list of objectives for the SAMP, the SAMP Preferred Alternative consists of
the following principal components:
¦	Adoption of a specific future land use plan (the "Hybrid Alternative") and a plan for
transportation improvements in the District, to be included in the revised HMDC Master
Plan and Zoning Regulations (see Section 6.1),
¦	Full implementation of an Environmental Improvement Program for the District, that
comprises a comprehensive series of environmental programs and projects to remediate
historic environmental degradation in the District (see Section 2),
¦	Requirements for Environmental Mitigation (including mitigation review and monitoring),
especially wetland mitigation required for wetland impacts (specific mitigation
requirement are presented in Section 5, and mitigation oversight is described in Section 6),
¦	Adoption of SAMP Implementation Mechanisms, including streamlining of the regulatory
review process (see Section 6.2), mechanisms for conservation and for funding
environmental improvements (see Section 2 and 6.1), SAMP oversight processes, and
revisions to those elements of the NJ Coastal Management Plan that relate to the District.
The SAMP Preferred Alternative represents a comprehensive plan for the future of the District.
Because the SAMP was developed as a comprehensive plan—addressing economic,
transportation, environmental, and social needs in the District—its components are interlinked
in numerous and subtle ways. For example, the economic development anticipated in the
District will help fund significant improvements to water quality and wildlife habitat in the
District, thereby reducing, and potentially halting, long term releases of pollution in the District
that are caused by historic waste discharge practices. In turn, such water quality and wildlife
habitat improvements are predicted to expand recreational activity in the District. As another
example, enhancement to wetlands that will be performed as part of required mitigation for
wetland impacts will result in significant expansion of desirable habitat for wildlife that uses the
District, including the Peregrine Falcon.
The future land use plan constitutes the development component of the Preferred Alternative,
and represents growth anticipated over the 20-year planning period. (The growth anticipated
over the 20-year planning period represents virtually all growth anticipated for the long-term
future of the District; the District will reach its buildable limit during the planning period). The
land use plan was created during the Hybrid analysis (see Section 4.3.2), and yields an
alternative that meets the planning and management goals of HMDC, and the economic
development and social needs of the District, while also addressing environmental criteria
established through the Clean Water Act (i.e., avoidance, and costs, logistics, and technology
criteria associated with the use of specific land areas).
4-93
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
The future land use plan proposed under the Hybrid analysis will allow for the construction of
13,920 new homes in the District, in planned locations, and will allow specific office and related
development that will accommodate an estimated 100,000 jobs in the District, over the 20-year
planning period for the SAMP. The land use plan proposed in the Preferred Alternative will
result in the addition of 17.8 million square feet of primary office space, 2.7 million square feet of
commercial space, 13,920 residential housing units, and 15.1 million square feet of secondary
office/distribution space in the District. The total land disturbance associated with the Planning
and Satellite Areas, as set forth in the Preferred Alternative, calls for the utilization of 1,690 acres
of land in the District. The proposed Transportation Improvements call for the additional
utilization of about 160 acres of land in the District. Proposed transportation improvements are
listed in Table 4-22.12
The implementation of the Environmental Improvement Program is anticipated to lead to
significant restoration of the District's natural environment, including areas that were seriously
degraded as a result of historic activities.
The new Master Plan that will be adopted for the District will be consistent with relevant federal
and state environmental authorities and regulations, thereby improving the predictability of
land use proposals for landowners in the District. Because the SAMP/HMDC Master Plan sets
forth a land use plan that is acceptable to federal and state agencies, the potential for the future
land uses of the District to be established in courts of law (i.e., appeals of permit decisions) and
as a result of regulatory negotiations, will be minimized. The predictability and
comprehensiveness that derives from this planning process substantially increases the ability of
the District to function effectively and efficiently in a regional context—environmentally
economically, socially, and infrastructure-wise.
The environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative are examined in Section 5, Environmental
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative. The environmental mitigation proposed as part of the
SAMP is discussed in Sections 5 and 6 of the EIS. SAMP implementation mechanisms are the
subject of Section 6 of the EIS.
Environmental Screening Comparison of the Land Management Altfrnatives anrl the Preferred
Alternative. In Section 4.3.1 a screening analysis of Land Management Alternatives was
conducted to compare the environmental efficiency of, and resource protection afforded b
alternative spatial arrangements for future growth in the District. The following paragraphs'*1*
compare the Preferred Alternative with the six alternatives evaluated in the screening analysis
For purposes of comparison, the Preferred Alternative was evaluated on the same basis as the
Land Management Alternatives in the screening analysis. While some characteristics of the
12 Only minor transportation improvements to existing transportation facilities in the DktrW
were determined to have no available alternatives, because the low level of impact in th
existing location could not be reduced by relocating the improvement to an alternative W
Alternatives analyses have na! been conducted for major transportation improvements Sthe
new or existing facilities) for this EIS.	(euner
4-94
-------
Table 4-22
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
From Maps, Plans, and Tables Received from HMDC
Project#
Description
Project Area1
(Outside P/SAs)
(acres)
Wetland Fill
(w/o Open Water)
(acres)
1
Extend Sea View Ave, south to NE Corridor, replacing Bergen Line.
4.6
0
2
Widen County Ave, from Secaucus Rd to County Ave/Rd.
7.3
0
4
Widen New County Rd, from County Ave/Rd to southern terminus.
2.6
0
5
Realign ramps at Rt 3 and Meadowlands Parkway.
4
0
6
Widen Paterson Plank Rd, from E.Spur NJ Tpk Bridge to West Side Ave.
7.4
0
7
Widen and extend Bergen Ave, from District Boundary to Newark-Jersey Citv Tpk.
4.9
0
8
Extend Meadowlands Parkway, north to Paterson Plank Rd.
4.1
0
9
Connect/widen Paterson Plank Rd, from W.Spur NJ Tpk across river to existing
road.
4.3
0.2
10
New road (Bergen Arches Extension), along existing Bergen Line, from NJ Tpk
Interchange at Secaucus Transfer (see #28) to Tonnelle Ave.
11.5
2
12
Widen Belleville Tpk, from Sellers Street (District boundary) to Newark-Jersey Citv
Tpk.
28.1
5.4
13
Widen and realign Castle Rd, from Meadowlands Parkway Extension to New
County Rd (entire length).
5.7
0
16
Widen Redneck Ave from Moonachie Ave to Liberty St (entire length).
8.1
0
17
Construction of Park & Ride on approx 7 acres at Moonachie Ave/Railroad
St/Industrial Ave.
7.5
0
-------
Table 4-22 (continued)
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Project#
Description
Project Area1
(Outside P/SAs)
(acres)
Wetland Fill
(w/o Open Water)
(acres)
20
New ramp from VV. Spur NJ Tpk northbound at 18W to Rt 120.
7
1.8
21
New road east of Brendan Byrne Arena (Rt 120).
42.3
5
22
Widen Paterson Plank Rd, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave.
15.4
0
25
Widen Moonachie Ave, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave/Moonachie Rd.
14.2
0
26
Rt 17 South Extension, from Rt 3 to Rt 280 (along existing Kingsland Line).
57.5
6.4
27
New rail line from Bergen Line, adjacent to widened NE Corridor (see #40) to
NYS&W/West Shore rail (at Rt 3).
4
2.9
28
E.Spur NJ Tpk Interchange at Secaucus Transfer.
31.7
16.8
29
New rail line connecting Main Line to Bergen Line, west of Meadowlands Parkway.
6.6
1.6
30
Widen Main Line from connection from Bergen Line (see #29) to NE Corridor.
20.8
0.7
31
Waterfront Corridor Transit Rail, along District boundary from 50th Street to Vince
Lombardi P&R (see #38).
38.4
7.3
32
WTiden Newark-Jersey City Tpk, from District boundary to Belleville Tpk.
20.4
0.4
33
Realign/grade separation of Secaucus Rd at NYS&W/West Shore rail and post
affice access road.
4.2
0.1
34
jrade separation and ramps at intersection of West Side Ave and Paterson Plank
?d, and realignment of West Side Ave.
1
0.1
35
Viden Washington Ave, from Paterson Plank Rd to Moonachie Ave.
13.1
0
-------
Table 4-22 (continued)
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Project#
Description
Project Area1
(Outside P/SAs)
(acres)
Wetland Fill
(w/o Open Water)
(acres)
36
Widen Secaucus Rd, from E.Spur NJ Tpk to new alignment at West Shore rail (see
*33).
2.8
0
37b
Widen Rt 3, from Rt 20 to Berry's Creek bridge.
17.5
0
38
Expansion of Vince Lombardi Park & Ride, approx 10.7 acres.
10.7
0
39
Secaucus Transfer Station, between Planning Area "13", new Turnpike Interchange
(see #28), Penhorn Creek, widened Main Line (#30), and widened NE Corridor (see
#40).
3
0
40
Widen NE Corridor Line, from Hackensack River to Secaucus Rd.
43.6
11
41
Widen County Rd from New County Rd/County Ave to Tonnelle Ave.
10.9
1
42
West Shore Line Commuter Rail (between Vince Lombardi P&R—#38 and
Meadowlands Sports Complex).
50
29.1

Total
515.2
91.8
1. Includes existing roads and railways
[o: \hmdceis\t4-22.wp5]
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Preferred Alternative are no longer strictly comparable with the Land Management Alternatives
(for example, the Preferred Alternative contains specific transportation improvements, which
were not considered in the screening analysis), the evaluation is included herein to illuminate
the relative advantages of the land use plan included in the Preferred Alternative. For some
environmental impact categories, more detailed analyses were conducted for the Preferred
Alternative, which are discussed in Section 5. However, in cases where more detailed (or more
recent) analytical methods were used, the Preferred Alternative was also analyzed using the
same methods as were used to conduct the alternatives screening. (Differences in methods and
assumptions between the alternatives screening and the more detailed impact assessment
conducted for the Preferred Alternative are discussed below.) Thus, some of the impacts
reported in this section for the Preferred Alternative are not the same as the impacts (resulting
from the more detailed analyses) reported in Section 5. 1 or a detailed discussion of the results of
the impact analysis of the Preferred Alternative, please refer to Section 5 of this EIS.
Tables 4-8 through 4-15 compared the Preferred Alternative with the six alternatives examined
during the alternatives screening analysis. The relative ranks (the last column in each table)
represent the score each alternative received, on a scale of one to seven (i.e., the lowest impact is
assigned a relative rank of 1.0, the highest impact is assigned a relative rank of 7.0, and the
remaining impacts are scaled between 1.0 and 7.0).
Wetland Resources Impacts. The sum of the total impacts to the Water Quality Improvement
(WQ), Wildlife Habitat (WH) and Social Significance (SS) Attributes were used for the measure
of impact to wetland resources from each alternative. However, it should be noted that the
WQ+WH+SS number in Table 4-8 for the Preferred Alternative includes indirect impacts from
transportation improvements, while the Screening Alternatives do not. Thus, impacts presented
for the Preferred Alternative are not fully comparable with the impacts from the remaining
alternatives. It is also important to note that all impact numbers in Table 4-8 (including those for
the Preferred Alternative) are impacts without SAMP management action (e.g., stormwater
BMPs). As is discussed in Section 5.1, SAMP management actions will be implemented to
minimize the indirect impacts to wetlands from the proposed development, that will reduce
impacts over those shown in Table 4-8. However, because the Screening Analysis did not
account for these SAMP management actions, the wetland impact number in Table 4-8 for the
Preferred Alternative also does not include the reduction in impact associated with the SAMP
management actions. Thus, the reader should be aware that the wetland impact for the
Preferred Alternative as presented in Table 4-8 uses different assumptions than the impact
presented in Section 5.1.
As is shown in Table 4-8, the Preferred Alternative ranks third in impacts to wetlands, behind
the Upland and Redevelopment alternatives. However, these two alternatives (Upland and
Redevelopment) applied unreasonably high development densities to fulfill the District's
growth needs. Of the remaining alternatives, the Preferred Alternative exhibits the lowest
impacts to wetlands.
Threatened/Endangered (T/E1 Species and Remnant/Unique (R/U^ Habitats Impacts. Impacts
to T/E species and R/U habitat have been assessed by determining the area of potential impact
4-98
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
to these habitats from each alternative, and are presented in Table 4-9. As was discussed in
Section 4.3.1, T/E species habitat was considered to be more important than R/U habitat. Thus
an unequal weighting was applied, with impacts to T/E species habitat receiving a weighting of
5 and impacts to R/U habitat receiving a weighting of 2. The various alternatives were ranked
for both T/E and R/U impacts, these individual ranks were combined using the weighting
factors, and the resulting "weighted impact rank" was reduced to a scale of 1 to 7.
As is shown in Table 4-9, the Preferred Alternative ranks third in impacts to T/E and R/U
habitats, behind the Redevelopment and Upland alternatives. However, as discussed above,
these two alternatives (Upland and Redevelopment) apply unreasonably high development
densities to fulfill the development needs. Of the remaining alternatives, the Preferred
Alternative exhibits the lowest impacts to T/E and R/U habitats.
Water Quality Impacts. The measures used to compare impacts to water quality were the mean
concentration of suspended sediments (SS) and the acres of development with "severe" copper
runoff concentrations (more than 5 times the EPA acute toxic water quality criterion of 0.0029
mg/1). The method used to compute stormwater concentrations (the NURP regression
equations) is such that smaller areas lead to higher runoff concentrations. In order to compare
the seven alternatives using equivalent assumptions, the Preferred Alternative was analyzed by
looking at each Planning or Satellite area as one stormwater runoff source.13 However, a more
detailed analysis of water quality impacts is presented in Section 5.
As is shown in Table 4-10, the Preferred Alternative has the fourth lowest impact to water
quality, behind the Dispersed Development, Growth Centers, and Upland alternatives.
However, the ranks for Dispersed Development, Growth Centers, and Preferred are closely
grouped (ranging from 2.5 to 3.0). Thus, the water quality impacts from the Preferred
Alternative are expected to be only slightly higher than the lowest impact alternatives.
Other Aquatic Resources Impacts. The "other aquatic resources" impact measure—the acreage
of estuarine wetlands filled—is comparable among the seven alternatives. As is shown in Table
4-11, the Preferred Alternative ranks third in impacts to other aquatic resources, behind the
Upland and Redevelopment alternatives. However, as discussed above, these two alternatives
(Upland and Redevelopment) apply unreasonably high development densities to fulfill the
development needs. Of the remaining alternatives, the Preferred Alternative exhibits the lowest
impacts to other aquatic resources.
" In the Preferred Alternative, the footprints of a number of Planning and Satellite Areas were
more precisely delineated than during the Screening Analysis of Land Management
Alternatives. In the Preferred Alternative several Planning and Satellite areas are delineated by
subsection, for example, portions of a single Satellite area that are located on each side of a road
are separately mapped. This method resulted in smaller runoff areas than the larger
consolidated sites that were analyzed during the Screening Analysis. This difference in method
had the potential to exhibit a large effect on predicted water quality concentrations, so subareas
of Planning and Satellite parcels from the Preferred Alternative were combined for the
comparison of Screening Alternatives.
4-99
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Terrestrial Resources Impacts. Impacts to terrestrial resources were determined by measuring
the acreage of vacant upland potentially impacted by each alternative. As is shown in Table
4-12, the Preferred Alternative ranks third in impacts to terrestrial resources, behind the
Redevelopment and Highway Corridors alternatives. As discussed above, the Redevelopment
alternative applies unreasonably high development densities to fulfill growth needs. Of the
remaining alternatives, the Preferred Alternative exhibits the second lowest impacts to T /E and
R/U habitats, behind the Highway Corridors alternative.
Transportation Impacts. As is shown in Table 4-13, the Preferred Alternative exhibits the lowest
impacts to the transportation system. Although the analysis shows that there will be slightly
more congested links with the Preferred Alternative (links with a V/C ratio between 1.0 and
1.25), the Preferred Alternative has significantly fewer failed links (links with a V/C ratio above
1.25) than the other alternatives.
Air Quality Impacts. At the time that the screening analysis was conducted, the most current
emission model available was EPA's Mobile 4.1 emission model. However, the recently
available EPA Mobile 5a model was used for analyzing air quality impacts from the Preferred
Alternative, the results of which are presented in Section 5. Because radically different assump-
tions, emission factors, and modeling approaches were used between these two versions of the
EPA emissions model, the results of the two models cannot be compared. In order to be able to
compare the Preferred Alternative to the six screening alternatives, the earlier Mobile 4.1 model
was run for the Preferred Alternative. Thus, the air quality impacts reported in Table 4-14 for
the Preferred Alterative are not representative of actual expected emissions using the more
recently available EPA model, and do not compare with the results presented for the Preferred
Alternative in Section 5.
As is shown in Table 4-14, the Preferred Alternative has the second lowest total (CO—carbon
monoxide, NO(X)—nitrogen oxides, and HC—hydrocarbon) emissions among the seven
alternatives, behind the Redevelopment alternative. As discussed above, the Redevelopment
alternative applies unreasonably high development densities to fulfill growth needs. Of the
remaining alternatives, the Preferred Alternative exhibits the lowest air quality impacts to T/E
and R/U habitats.
Cultural Resources Impacts. Impacts to cultural resources were estimated during the screening
analysis by determining the number of Planning/Satellite Areas that overlaid currently
identified potential cultural resources (as determined in Phase I of the Stage 1A Cultural
Resources Survey). The Preferred Alternative footprints were overlaid, using the same process,
and the results are presented in Table 4-15. However, the results of Phase II of the Stage 1A
Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the SAMP/EIS supersedes these screening-level
results, and the information in Table 4-15 for the Preferred Alternative are presented for the
purposes of comparison with the Screening Alternatives only. Table 4-15 shows that the
Preferred Alternative ranks fourth in impacts to cultural resources. However, as is discussed in
Section 5.16, there are actually only 8 Planning/Satellite Areas in the Preferred Alternative that
exhibit cultural resources sensitivity.
4-100
-------
Section 4
Analysis of Alternatives
Overall Environmental Impacts. The comparison of overall environmental impacts was
conducted as is described in Section 4.3.1. Table 4-16 shows that the Preferred Alternative ranks
second lowest in overall environmental impact (the Redevelopment alternative exhibits the
lowest impact). However, as discussed above, the Redevelopment alternative applied
unreasonably high development densities to fulfill the development needs, because only limited
acreage of redevelopment land exists in the District. If the Redevelopment alternative is
excluded from consideration because of implementation constraints, the Preferred Alternative
exhibits the lowest overall environmental impact.
Based on its ability to reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with meeting
social, economic, and environmental needs in the District, the Preferred Alternative has been
subjected to a second, more detailed evaluation of potential environmental impact, and a review
of mitigation opportunities, in Section 5.
4-101
-------
Section
Five
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
This section presents the environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative. As discussed in
Section 4, the Preferred Alternative was identified in two steps. First, an alternatives screening
analysis was conducted that assessed the environmental effects of representative land use plans
(called Land Management Alternatives) for the District. The screening analysis concluded that
the Redevelopment and Upland Alternatives showed the lowest cumulative environmental
impacts. However, the limited amount of land available for either of these alternatives
necessitated unrealistically high (i.e., unfeasible) development densities. Among the remaining
land management alternatives, the nodal form of growth which was used in the Growth Centers
Alternative exhibited comparatively lower environmental impact. Combining selected parcels
from the Upland and Redevelopment land management alternatives with the nodal plan for
growth exhibited the potential to produce an implementable growth plan that minimized
environmental impacts. To select the parcels that best met the Special Area Management Plan
(SAMP) planning objectives, the sites in all of the Land Management Alternatives were then re-
examined, and a preferred alternative was identified. This Preferred Alternative was a
composite (hybrid) of the sites from the Land Management Alternatives, drawing most
extensively from the Upland Redevelopment, and Growth Centers alternative. This Preferred
Alternative results in fewer impacts to wetlands than any of the individual alternatives
examined during the screening (except for the Upland and Redevelopment Alternatives, which
required unfeasibly high development densities to achieve the projected development needs).
The Preferred Alternative is composed of a land use plan for the District, a set of transportation
improvements, and an Environmental Improvement Program for the District. The development
plan includes two types of planned development areas: Planning Areas and Satellite Areas.
Planning Areas are typically larger tracts of land with proposed primary office, commercial, or
residential uses (or a combination of these). Satellite Areas are typically smaller tracts of land
with proposed secondary office or warehousing use. Several transportation improvements
(including improvements to mass transit) are anticipated that will improve mobility in the
District and reduce traffic congestion based on both existing and future development. The
Preferred Alternative also includes the environmental benefits anticipated by implementation of
the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP, see Section 2). Thus, the Preferred Alternative
has several elements: the Planning and Satellite Areas (growth locations), the transportation
improvements, and the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP). Development components
of the Preferred Alternative (i.e., the Planning and Satellite Areas and the transportation
improvements) were shown in Figure 4-8.
The Preferred Alternative has been assessed using impact assessment methods relevant to
regional environmental analysis, to identify (at a programmatic level) effects of the Preferred
Alternative on environmental resources. Information on the existing conditions of the various
environmental resources of the District has been collected, and is used for the purposes of
presenting relative impacts. Section 3 discusses the existing environment of the District.
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) focuses on regional and cumulative environmental
impacts from the Preferred Alternative, not highly localized site specific issues. Detailed site
5-1
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
planning is not available for most sites under consideration, nor is this level of detail relevant for
regional programmatic impact analysis. Detailed site-specific impact analysis will be conducted
for individual projects during site plan review, as appropriate.
Impacts have been assessed for 18 different environmental or socio-economic topics that are
important in the Meadowlands. These topics include biological resources (e.g., wetland and
upland habitats for both plants and animals), other natural resources (e.g., water quality,
hydrology, air quality, and noise), socio-economic resources (e.g., community facilities,
transportation, and local government services), and cultural resources. The methods used to
assess impacts are described in each subsection.
Several types of impacts from the Preferred Alternative are presented in Section 5. Direct
impacts are those impacts that result directly from the proposed project. For example, the loss
of wetland value and acreage from filling is a direct impact of a project. Indirect impacts are
other impacts that derive from the direct impact, not as a direct result of the project. Continuing
the example above, impacts to other wetlands near the project, such as increased pollutant and
sediment loads to the wetland, are considered indirect impacts.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) also requires that cumulative impacts be
discussed. A typical discussion of cumulative impacts includes regional-level impacts not
necessarily apparent at an individual site. Because this comprehensive EIS is being conducted at
a regional scale (i.e., District-wide, over a 20-year planning period), all of the impacts discussed
in this EIS are evaluated as cumulative impacts. The analyses selected to assess impacts from
the Preferred Alternative were chosen because they are appropriate at a regional scale, and, to
the extent possible, they reflect cumulative effects. As an example, impacts to aquatic resources
(see Section 5.2) are discussed in terms of the amount of primary productivity lost
(cumulatively) to the entire Meadowlands ecosystem. Cumulative impacts are also often felt
"across" different environmental media. For example, impacts to aquatic biology (Section 5.2)
may occur because of decreases in water quality (Section 5.5). To the extent possible, "cross-
media" cumulative impacts have been evaluated.
If an identified environmental impact is significant, planned and/or appropriate actions to be
taken to mitigate adverse impacts have been identified. In some cases (e.g., wetland resources
or threatened/endangered species impacts), mitigation actions are required by law. But in
many cases (e.g., terrestrial habitat or community facility impacts), mitigation for projected
impacts is not required by law. In these cases, appropriate mitigative actions are presented in
order to minimize the cumulative environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative. In many
cases, the anticipated mitigation actions, in concert with implementation of the Environmental
Improvement Program, result in improved environmental quality in the District.
5.1 Wetland Resources
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative (which includes transportation improvements) will
result in impacts to wetland resources in the District. The hybridization process used to develop
the Preferred Alternative included review of all feasible upland and redevelopment areas within
the District to avoid, where possible, wetland impacts. In addition, development densities (e.g.,
housing units per acre, square feet of office space per acre, etc.) were maximized to reduce
5-2
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
wetland impacts to the greatest possible extent. As discussed below, wetland impacts are
calculated for three wetland attributes: water quality improvement, wildlife habitat, and social
significance (which includes flood control, educational opportunities, and conservation
potential). Other issues relating to wetlands in the District are discussed in later
subsections—impacts to specific wetland habitats of concern (i.e., habitats for threatened or
endangered species, and remnant or unique habitats) are further discussed in Section 5.4,
impacts to water quality are discussed in Section 5.5, impacts to surface water hydrology and
additional flooding impact are discussed in Section 5.7.
This impact analysis assumes that the entire footprint of the Preferred Alternative Planning/
Satellite Areas and transportation improvements will be developed (e.g., with buildings,
parking lots, or landscaping), including filling wetlands where the development areas contain
wetlands. This wetland fill is termed a "direct" wetland impact, and leads to a complete loss of
wetland values in the directly impacted area. Indirect wetland impacts are impacts to adjacent
wetlands related to the development (e.g., uncontrolled culverted stormwater runoff, hydrologic
disturbances and non-point source runoff). Indirect impacts lead to a lowering of the wetland
value for the indirectly impacted wetlands, but not a complete loss. These indirect impacts are
initially calculated (in Section 5.1.1 below) by assuming that no management or minimization
actions would occur to reduce indirect impacts.
However, these potential "maximum" indirect wetland impacts will be reduced through
requirements in the SAMP for structural and site planning techniques, or "best management
practices" (BMPs) to reduce (by avoiding and/or minimizing) indirect impacts to the remaining
wetlands. Thus, requirements for BMPs, within the SAMP, will result in a reduction of indirect
impacts (as is discussed below in Section 5.1.2).
After avoidance and minimization of wetlands impacts, a mitigation plan is required under the
Clean Water Act to mitigate direct and indirect impacts. In Section 5.1.4 below, a programmatic-
level mitigation plan has been identified to compensate for wetland functions and values lost as
a result of fill activity and indirect effects. The mitigation plan first identifies on-site mitigation
to replace wetland functional indicators lost due to indirect impacts, and then identifies
wetlands enhancement and creation opportunities for the entire District, and facilitates the
creation of wetland mitigation banks. These enhancements will improve the value of a large
amount of wetlands in the District to mitigate for the unavoidable wetland impacts.
5.1.1 Impacts to Wetland Resources from Planning/Satellite Areas and
Transportation Improvements
In order to assess impacts to wetlands in the District, the indicator value assessment (IVA)
method was used. The IVA is an indexing system developed for the SAMP that uses chemical,
physical, and biological wetland functional indicators to identify the effects of potential changes
to wetlands in the District. The IVA method provides a semi-quantitative measure of wetland
functional indicators currently present in the District (relative to other District wetlands), and
allows for measurement of potential impacts caused by predicted changes to these indicators.
The IVA method uses the wetland functional indicators from the Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET), and incorporates the data collected during the 1985 advanced identification (AVID). In
addition, the results of the WET/AVID and the information provided in the WET were used in
5-3
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
developing the IVA method. Thus, the method being used to evaluate wetland impacts (the
IVA method) is based on the WET (EPA, 1989) and AVID (EPA, 1992) previously conducted in
the District.
Potential impacts to wetlands are assessed in this EIS by using the IVA method to track wetland
functional indicators (and changes to these indicators) for three wetland attributes:
¦	water quality improvement (WQ),
¦	wildlife habitat (WH), and
¦	social significance (SS).
The IVA method operates by assigning a numerical importance rank to a broad range of
wetland functional indicators (including features such as water depth, vegetation type, wildlife
presence, tidal influence, etc.) as they relate to these three wetland attributes. The wetland
functional indicators used in the IVA method are based on the "Yes/No" questions of the WET
questionnaire used during the AVID. Each AVID wetland assessment area (AA) in the District
is indexed on the basis of the presence or absence of these wetland functional indicators. The
IVA provides a numerical score for each wetland (for each attribute) on a scale of 0 to 100. An
attribute score of 0 indicates the presence of no indicators relating to that attribute; a score of 100
is assigned to the wetland(s) in the District exhibiting the highest rank score for indicators
relating to that attribute. Scores for the remaining wetlands are scaled between 0 and 100, based
on the number and ranks of the wetland functional indicators present in each wetland. The
score for each attribute is then multiplied by the area of the wetland (in acres) to arrive at a final
"attribute indicator value" for the AA for each of the three attributes (i.e., "attribute indicator
value" = "score" multiplied by acreage). In this way, not only are important wetland functional
indicators accounted for, but the areal extent over which they are expressed is also included in
the final wetland "attribute indicator value". For a complete description of the IVA method,
please refer to Appendix F.
In support of this EIS, a field study of the IVA method, and its application in the District, was
conducted. The report presenting the data, results, conclusions and recommendations of this
study is contained in Appendix M. One important conclusion of the field study was that the
IVA method resulted in measurements of wetland value comparable to the best professional
judgement of the participating wetland professionals.
The impact analysis considered two types of wetland impacts using the IVA method: direct
impacts and indirect impacts. As discussed above, direct wetland impacts are those impacts
directly associated with the filling of wetlands. The IVA tracks direct impacts by assuming that
a wetland that is within a development area is filled and loses all of its wetland functional
indicators. In other words, the filled wetland ceases to be a wetland. Direct impacts to wetlands
are therefore assessed by reducing all three attribute scores (and thus all three attribute indicator
values) to zero for the filled wetland. For the Preferred Alternative, a maximum of
approximately 842 acres of wetlands are projected to be filled over the 20-year planning period.
When development occurs adjacent to (or upstream from) a wetland, that wetland is likely to
experience secondary impacts from the new development. Because these impacts are not caused
by "direct" activity in the wetland area, they are termed "indirect" impacts. Indirect impacts to
5-4
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
wetlands are measured by evaluating potential changes to the wetland functional indicators of
all wetlands that are either adjacent to, or downstream of land projected for development
(Planning/Satellite Areas and transportation improvements), in order to achieve a conservative
estimate of wetland impacts. Using existing information regarding the possible effects of
development on wetland functional indicators, the potential changes to wetland functional
indicators of the affected wetlands were assessed (see Appendix N for a complete list of
assessed indirect impacts). For example, development upstream of a wetland often results in
channelization of the water entering the wetland, caused by the introduction of stormwater
discharges. This may increase the peak flow experienced by the wetland, which is an indicator
of reduced water quality improvement value. Thus, an increase in the peak flow results in the
reduction of the attribute indicator score (and accordingly, the attribute indicator value) for the
water quality improvement (WQ) attribute for that wetland. Piping of stormwater may also
change the primary source of sediment, nutrients, and toxics to a wetland. These wetland
functional indicators are also tracked in the IVA method and changes in these indicators are
reflected by reductions in the IVA indicator scores.
The results of the wetland impact analysis are presented in Table 5-1. The locations of wetland
fill and indirectly impacted wetlands are illustrated in Figure 5-1. The 842 acres of projected fill
represents approximately ten percent of the existing wetland and aquatic habitat now present in
the District. According to the IVA method, direct fill will impact approximately 12 percent of
the existing ("baseline") attribute indicator value for the water quality improvement (WQ)
attribute in the District. Similarly, direct fill will impact approximately ten percent of the
existing wildlife habitat attribute indicator value, and approximately eight percent of the
existing social significance attribute indicator value in the District. Thus, as a direct result of
wetland fill, between 8 and 12 percent of the existing attribute indicator values in the District
will be lost. Table 5-2 presents individual direct impacts for each Planning Area and Satellite
Area, as well as a total direct impact for transportation improvements (see Appendix N for a
table of direct impacts from individual transportation improvements). Because indirect impacts,
discussed below, are essentially cumulative impacts—many Planning/Satellite Areas can
indirectly impact a single wetland—it is not possible to disaggregate indirect impacts in this
way, and thus individual indirect impacts from each P/SA are not presented. It should be noted
that, although the wetlands impacted by Planning/Satellite Areas "1" and "q" were not assessed
during the WET/AVID, and thus impacts to these wetlands cannot be quantified, these 2
wetlands comprise only 4 acres, less than one-half of one percent of the total wetlands directly
impacted. Thus, there should be no significant additional direct impacts beyond those
quantified here.
Initially, indirect impacts were calculated by assuming that no management or minimization
actions would occur to reduce indirect impacts to wetlands. All indirect impact measurements
presented in this paragraph are prior to minimization actions, and without compensating effects of
wetlands mitigation. Both minimization and mitigation are required under the Clean Water Act
and implementing regulations, such as the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, and the effect of
minimization on reducing impacts is discussed in the following section. Indirect wetland
impacts, before any minimization efforts are applied, would occur over an additional 1,945 acres
over the 20-year planning period (an additional 23 percent of the existing wetland acreage in the
District). As is shown in Table 5-1, the acreage over which indirect impacts are projected to
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-1
DIRECT & INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
(in acre-points)1

Water Quality
Improvement
Wildlife
Habitat
Social
Significance
Baseline Indicator Value2
521,445
592,609
309,522
Direct Impact
(acres of direct impact)
Percent of Baseline
62,237
842
11.9%
56,753
842
9.6%
25,903
842
8.4%
Maximum Indirect Impact*
(maximum acres of indirect impact/
Percent of Baseline
Indirect Impact with SAMP Mgmt5
(acres of indirect impact/
Percent of Baseline
Reduced Indirect Impacts from SAMP Mgmt
(reduced acres of indirect impact)
Percent of Baseline
38,211
1,945
7.3%
10,456
1,217
2.0%
27,'754
728
5.3%
19,729
1,860
3.3%
7,051
1,048
1.2%
12,678
812
2.1%
35,747
1,179
11.5%
16,466
642
5.3%
19,281
537
6.2%
Total Impact with SAMP Mgmt
Direct Impact
Indirect Impact
62,237
10,456
56,753
7,051
25,903
16,466
Total Impact
(percent of baseline)
72,693
13.9%
63,804
10.8%
42,369
13.7%
Mitigation
Partial mitigation of indirect impacts
(percent of baseline)
Enhancement/Creation
(percent of baseline)
4,435
0.9%
68,261
13.1%
1,998
0.3%
107,898
18.2%
6,497
2.1%
116,907
37.8%
Total mitigation
(percent of baseline)
(acres of mitigation/enhancement/creation)
Ratio of Values (Mitigation/I mpact)*
Ratio of Acres (Mitigation/Impact)'
72,696
13.9%
3,402
1.00
4.0
109,895
18.5%
3,402
1.72
4.0
123,404
39.9%
3,402
2.91
4.0
Notes: 1IVA Method units for attribute indicator value (see text and Appendix B).
2Total indicator value for existing wetlands in the District (see Section 3).
*Without SAMP managment controls (e.g., BMPs). Appendix E for a
breakdown of indirect impacts.
4P/S Areas may indirectly impact each wetland attribute differently (e.g., where a PA might in-
directly impact the WQ attribute of an adjacent wetland, it might not impact the SS attribute).
5See text for a description of SAMP Management actions. Also, see Appendix E
for a breakdown of indirect impacts.
''Total Mitigation (direct only) divided by Total Impacts (direct and indirect).
7Acres of mitigation/enhancement/creation divided by acres of direct impact.
ue«mpp3.wkl
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 5-2
DIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
(in acre-points)1
Planning
Wetland
WQ Attribute
WH Attribute
SS Attribute
Area
Fill (Acres)
Direct Impact
Direct Impact
Direct Impact
1
2.3
NA2
NAi
NA2
3
165.0
13,258
11,304
3,840
4
119.6
9,808
8,492
2,871
5
15.0
594
746
532
7
72.7
4,367
6,301
1,778
10
65.1
4,689
3,908
4,299
12
49.7
4,369
3,227
1,638
13
9.1
557
493
310
Subtotal
498.5
37,642
34,472
15,268
Satellite
Wetland
WQ Attribute
WH Attribute
SS Attribute
Area
Fill (Acres)
Direct Impact
Direct Impact
Direct Impact
f
7.1
622
447
7
h
7.8
701
576
405
j
37.5
2,630
2,558
587
k
5.6
297
230
22
P
6.5
442
325
111
q
1.8
NA2
NA2
NA2
V
23.3
1,745
1,502
313
w
35.0
2,3582
2,6662
1,7922
X
35.9
2,514
3,592
2,730
aa
9.5
820
639
0
ac
2.9
126
56
0
as
64.4
5,408
3,798
2,318
av
2.5
225
185
130
bb
11.5
930
884
207
Subtotal
251.3
18,818
17,458
8,621
Transportation
Improvements3
TOTAL
91.8
841.6
5,7762
62,237
4,823
56,753
2,0142
25,903
Notes: JIVA Method units for attribute indicator value (see text and Appendix B).
Contains wetlands not assessed during AVID.
'Direct impacts from individual transportation improvements are presented
in Appendix E.
wetimpp3.wkl
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
occur differs for the three wetland attributes. This is because different Planning/Satellite Areas
are predicted to have differing levels of indirect impacts to the adjacent wetlands, and where
indirect impacts to the water quality improvement attribute may occur, indirect impacts to the
social significance attribute may not occur. The projected decline in the water quality
improvement attribute indicator value resulting from these "maximum" indirect impacts
represents approximately seven percent of the existing value of indicators that relate to water
quality improvement in the District. Indirect impacts to wildlife habitat indicators would
decrease the attribute indicator value by a maximum of approximately three percent of the
existing attribute indicator value relating to wildlife habitat in the District. Indirect impacts to
social significance indicators are projected to decrease the existing value by a maximum of
approximately 12 percent of the existing attribute indicator value relating to social significance.
Thus, without the minimization efforts discussed in the following section, the Preferred
Alternative would impact (including both direct and indirect impacts) between 13 and 20
percent of the existing wetland attribute indicator values in the District. However, many of
these indirect impacts included in this assessment of "maximum" impacts can be either avoided
or minimized through appropriate management techniques, as discussed in the following
section.
5.1.2 Minimization of Indirect Impacts Through SAMP Management Actions
Many of the indirect wetland impacts will be avoided or minimized through requirements in the
SAMP for the use of appropriate management techniques in the design and construction of new
development. For example, a major assumed indirect wetland impact from the Preferred
Alternative comes from the assumption that uncontrolled, culverted storm drainage systems
will be used to convey stormwater from new impervious areas. Uncontrolled stormwater
flowing from a culvert into a wetland can degrade the wetland, by introducing water pollution
in urban runoff, and by altering the hydrologic response of the wetland to storm events. In its
"natural" condition, an undisturbed wetland receives a majority of its storm flow from diffuse
overland flow from the surrounding uplands. A wetland's flood storage and filtration effects
are diminished when flow is channelized into the wetland, as is its value for wildlife habitat.
Appropriate management techniques for minimizing such impacts will be required by the
SAMP (see Section 6 for a discussion of SAMP implementation). One applicable technique is to
require developers to use stormwater detention basins with flow spreaders on the outlets into
wetlands. This will reduce the amount of urban runoff pollution, reduce the peak velocity
during storm events, and mimic the hydrology of pre-construction conditions. Additional
management techniques for controlling stormwater runoff are discussed in Section 5.5.3. Other
management techniques useful in minimizing indirect wetland impacts include: maintenance of
important pre-construction wetland features such as natural waterway inlets and outlets;
conservation of irregular wetland-upland edge; and landscaping to restore gently sloping
vegetated wetland buffer zones and vegetative wind barriers. Appendix N provides additional
detail on the impacts to specific wetland functional indicators that can be avoided through
management techniques.
Table 5-1 shows the reduction of indirect impacts (measured using the IVA method) associated
with the use of SAMP management techniques to avoid and/or minimize indirect wetland
impacts. Figure 5-1 shows the wetlands in which projected indirect impacts (without
5-8
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
minimization) can be avoided, if appropriate management controls are used. The direct impacts
using SAMP management techniques are identical to the direct impacts without SAMP
management, because the wetland fill area is the same. With the application of SAMP
management techniques, indirect wetland impacts are reduced by between 37 and 45 percent
(compared to non-managed indirect impacts). Indirect impacts to water quality improvement
indicators are reduced through minimization (SAMP management techniques) from 7% to 2% of
existing attribute indicator values; indirect impacts to wildlife habitat indicators are reduced
from 3% to 1% of existing attribute indicator values; and impacts to social significance indicators
are reduced from 12% to 5% of existing attribute indicator values.
The combined (direct and indirect) impacts with SAMP management are also shown in Table
5-1. As is shown in Table 5-1, combined wetland impacts to water quality improvement
indicators in the District total approximately 73,000 acre-points (14 percent of existing attribute
indicator values); while wetland impacts to wildlife habitat indicators total approximately 64,000
acre-points (11 percent of existing attribute indicator values); and impacts to social significance
indicators total 42,000 acre-points (14 percent of existing attribute indicator values).
Compensatory mitigation for these direct and indirect wetland impacts are presented in Section
5.1.5.
5.1.3 Wetland Habitat Fragmentation Impacts
Approximately 90 percent of the District's wetlands and aquatic habitats are contained in eight
large (over 100 acres in size) interconnected wetland complexes. The remaining ten percent of
the District's existing wetlands are smaller, disconnected and/or isolated wetlands. The
"connectedness" of the majority of the District's wetlands is important with respect to wildlife
usage and movement within and through the District. Substantial fragmentation of the existing
wetland habitats in the District could lead to detrimental impacts on wildlife species.
A regional analysis of habitat fragmentation was conducted to identify areas where
implementation of the Preferred Alternative might lead to the fragmentation of existing wetland
complexes, in turn possibly reducing the wildlife utilization of particular wetlands. Potential
effects to wetlands greater than one acre in size were determined by overlaying the Preferred
Alternative Planning/Satellite Areas and Transportation Improvements on a map of existing
wetland complexes. The results of the analysis showed that a maximum of 287 acres of
wetlands might be fragmented from the wetland complexes in the District.
The fragmented wetland areas represent approximately three percent of the existing wetlands in
the District (or approximately four percent of the wetlands remaining after full implementation
of the Preferred Alternative). Full implementation of the Preferred Alternative could result in
fragmentation in three of the eight existing large (over 100 acres in size) wetland complexes (the
over 500-acre wetland complex that includes wetlands surrounding the Hackensack River,
Berrys Creek, Mill Creek, lower Bellmans Creek, and lower Sawmill Creek; the 170-acre complex
of wetlands around the upper reaches of Penhorn Creek; and the 120-acre complex of wetlands
around the middle reaches of Penhorn Creek). Additionally, five of the smaller (less than 100-
acre) wetland complexes may be fragmented by full implementation of the Preferred
Alternative. Figure 5-2 shows the locations of these "fragmented" wetlands. Potential
5-9
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
fragmentation of specific wetland complexes are discussed below. The potential impacts are
grouped by major wetland complex, from the north to the south of the District.
Wetlands around Planning Areas "3" and "4"
Planning Areas "3" and "4" include fill of wetlands connected to the larger wetland complex
that includes the Hackensack River. One 9-acre wetland fragmented from the larger complex
after implementation of Planning Area "4" is located east of Planning Area "4." Because of the
proximity of Planning Area boundaries to wetland boundaries, three additional areas are likely
to be partially or totally fragmented from the larger wetland complex—two additional tracts
comprising 14 and 6 acres southwest and north (respectively) of Planning Area "4", and a 39-
acre area northeast of Planning Area "3". These four areas, totaling approximately 68 acres,
would potentially be fragmented from the Hackensack River wetland complex, to which they
are currently connected if Planning Areas "3" and "4" are constructed as currently envisioned.
Site planning at these two Planning Areas should identify ways to either shift disturbance from
the eastern edge of the current site boundary into the wetlands that are shown in Figure 5-2 as
isolated, leaving more connected wetlands, or maintain hydrologic and habitat connection
between the isolated wetlands and the larger wetland complex by preserving specific wildlife
corridors. Such mitigation actions will result in negligible fragmentation impacts.
Wetlands between the proposed West Shore Railway (TI42) and the NT Turnpike Western Spur
The proposed route for the West Shore Railway (Transportation Improvement #42) passes
through wetlands north of Paterson Plank Road and west of the NJ Turnpike Western Spur, and
also wetlands west of the Vince Lombardi Service Area on the NJ Turnpike. Both of these areas
are currently part of the larger wetland complex that includes the Hackensack River. If this
railway were built as previous railways were constructed in the District (i.e., on a filled berm),
the remaining wetlands between the new railway and the Turnpike would be fragmented from
the surrounding wetland complex. Approximately 25 acres of wetlands north of Paterson Plank
Road and south of the Hackensack River, and approximately 5 acres of wetlands north of the
Hackensack River could potentially be affected. To avoid fragmenting approximately 30 acres of
wetlands, the design of the West Shore Railway in this area could incorporate several bridge
segments, instead of a solid berm.
Wetlands north of the proposed Waterfront Corridor Transit Railway (TI 31)
The proposed route for the Waterfront Corridor Transit Railway (Transportation Improvement
#31) passes through the approximately 60-acre wetland complex north of Bellmans Creek,
between the NJ Turnpike Eastern Spur and NYS&W railways. If this railway were built as
previous railways were constructed in the District (i.e., on a filled berm), the approximately 8
acres of wetlands north of the new railway would be fragmented from the larger wetland
complex to the south of the new railway (approximately 48 acres). To avoid this potential
impact, the design of the Waterfront Corridor Transit Railway in this area could incorporate a
bridge to span this wetland, instead of a solid berm.
5-10
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Wetlands west of "Walden Swamp", along Berrvs Creek
The configuration of Satellite Area "j" is such that approximately 5 acres of wetlands will
become disconnected from Berrys Creek. Site planning should maintain hydrologic connection
between these wetlands (by using culverts and/or bridges). Habitat connection between these
wetlands is likely to be maintained, due to the configuration of the site.
Wetlands along Mill Creek, south of Planning Area "10"
The current configuration of Planning Area "10" allows for hydrologic connection between the
wetlands at the headwaters of Mill Creek located south of the Planning Area (of which
approximately 18 acres will remain after implementation of this Planning Area), with the lower
Mill Creek wetlands. However, if development were to occur to the waters edge of Mill Creek
(at the western boundary of Planning Area "10"), there might not be a sufficiently wide corridor
for wildlife to travel between the upper and lower Mill Creek wetlands. Additionally, terrestrial
wildlife would not be able to travel this (primarily aquatic) route. Therefore, site planning for
Planning Area "10" should include an undisturbed buffer area along Mill Creek to maintain
both hydrologic and habitat connectivity, resulting in negligible fragmentation impacts.
"Valley Brook" wetlands, along the proposed Route 17 extension (TI26)
The existing approximately 50-acre wetland complex along Valley Brook Road will be crossed
by the proposed Route 17 extension (Transportation Improvement #26). Construction of this
roadway will divide the wetland into two sections, approximately 33 acres and 12 acres in size.
Design of this roadway should include culverts to maintain hydrologic (and limited habitat)
connection between the two wetlands. Bridging of this site is not warranted; the existing
wetland is currently isolated from major wetlands, so the potential for further habitat
fragmentation to cause deleterious impact is small.
Upper Penhorn Creek wetlands, near Planning Area "12" and TI 27
The wetland complex along the upper reaches of Penhorn Creek currently has a total area of
about 175 acres. Planning Area "12" and Transportation Improvement #27 (a new light railway)
will directly impact upper Penhorn Creek wetlands. After implementation of Planning Area
"12", approximately 2 acres of wetlands east of the Planning Area will be fragmented from the
remainder of the upper Penhorn Creek wetlands. Additionally, approximately 3 acres of
wetlands could potentially fragmented as a result of the construction of the new light railway.
These potential fragmentation impacts, at the scale of the entire District, are negligible, and no
specific mitigation is required.
Middle Penhorn Creek Wetlands, around Satellite Area "as"
The existing wetland complex along the middle reaches of Penhorn Creek (between County
Road and Secaucus Road) has a total area of approximately 115 acres. Construction of Satellite
Area "as" would divide the remaining wetlands in the area into two sections, approximately 32
acres and 19 acres in size. Site planning for Satellite Area "as" should concentrate development
5-11
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
towards the northern end of the site, leaving open space at the southern end, that would
provide a wildlife corridor connecting the wetlands.
Lower Penhorn Creek Wetlands, around TIs 10.28. and 30
The wetlands around the lower reaches of Penhorn Creek (between County Road and the
Hackensack River) are extensively fragmented. These wetlands are divided into three
complexes approximately 30 to 35 acres each, with additional isolated wetlands. Construction of
three of the Transportation Improvements (Nos. 10, 28, and 30) in these wetlands will further
fragment these wetlands. However, given the existing fragmentation in this area, additional
habitat fragmentation from the Preferred Alternative should lead to negligible deleterious
impacts on wildlife habitats.
5.1.4 Impacts to Wetland Resources from the Environmental Improvement
Program
The Environmental Improvement Program (EIP, see Section 2) will have a significant positive
impact on the wetland resources in the District, by establishing a program to enhance and
manage the wetlands in the District. Short-term goals of the EIP include: the designation of the
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC, the local planning agency) to
coordinate a number of state regulatory and enforcement actions; the permanent preservation of
wetlands (in addition to wetland mitigation requirements under Section 404); and the
establishment of a comprehensive wetland management plan for the District. The EIP also sets
forth a blueprint for the creation of a wetland mitigation bank. Long-term goals of the EIP
include the enhancement, restoration, and management of the wetland resources in the District
by increasing the biological diversity, health, and functioning of the wetlands.
The programs proposed in the EIP will coordinate various mitigation actions to maximize
benefits to natural resources. Under the EIP, mitigation actions will be targeted to areas most in
need of restoration and enhancement, and coordination will occur so that various mitigation
actions function in concert. The wetland mitigation bank to be established under the EIP will
help assure compensation in advance for losses of wetland values that result from activities
permitted under federal and state regulatory programs. It is important to note that wetland
enhancement actions proposed under the EIP would be in addition to mitigation for wetland
impacts from the Preferred Alternative (see Section 5.1.5).
The EIP includes plans to protect approximately 4,200 acres of wetlands by bringing them under
HMDC authority, especially through HMDC's planning and zoning powers. At least 1,160 acres
of wetland will be protected by Marshland Preservation zoning; at least 770 acres of wetlands
will be preserved under the open space requirements in the HMDC zoning regulations; at least
1,500 acres will be protected through lot coverage/Floor Area Ratio requirements; at least 500
acres of privately-owned wetlands will be preserved by compensating their owners for the loss
of development rights, and 250 acres of privately-owned wetlands will be publicly acquired
and/or controlled. The EIP also includes continued preservation and management of over 700
acres of quasi-publicly-owned wetlands (e.g., utilities, railroads, transportation authorities,
sports authorities), and 900 acres of publicly-owned wetlands in the District that are currently
protected. Thus, the EIP will both make the required wetland mitigation (discussed in Section
5-12
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.1.5) more effective through careful coordination, and also provide for preservation and
enhancement of additional wetland resources in the District.
5.1.5 Mitigation of Wetland Impacts
Mitigation is necessary to replace the wetland value lost by both direct and indirect impacts
(those that cannot be avoided or minimized) to assure "no net loss of wetlands values" as
required by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Subsequent to taking avoidance and
minimization actions regarding wetland impacts, a mitigation plan is required under the Clean
Water Act to mitigate direct and indirect impacts. A programmatic-level mitigation plan has
been identified to compensate for wetland functions and values potentially lost as a result of all
fill activity and indirect effects.
For construction in other locations (outside the District) a wetland impact mitigation plan
typically entails the creation of a wetland from a nearby low-lying upland area with amenable
hydrology. However, due to the lack of available vacant upland in the District not proposed for
development in the Preferred Alternative, and the importance of the remaining upland to
terrestrial wildlife, only a minor amount of wetland creation is contemplated for this project.
Instead, to replace the majority of the lost wetlands' values, specific actions will be undertaken
to enhance the quality and functioning of the existing wetlands in the District. There are
significant opportunities for enhancement because many of the District wetlands have been
seriously degraded as a result of past human activities, such as landfilling and hydrologic
alteration, without appropriate environmental management.
For the Hackensack Meadowlands District SAMP, three management methods will be used to
mitigate impacts to wetlands. The first method (which will accomplish partial mitigation of
indirect impacts) will be to restore (where feasible) indirectly impacted wetlands to their pre-
construction ("existing") condition. This initial management method provides mitigation for a
portion of the indirect impacts; it does not address any of the direct impacts. The second
mitigation effort will be to create a small amount of new wetlands in two currently vacant areas
with the potential for establishing appropriate wetland hydrology. To mitigate the remaining
indirect and direct impacts, a preliminary wetlands enhancement plan has been developed for
the District, and is summarized below. It is important to note that no single enhancement or set
of enhancements are tied to construction at any particular site. The plan is presented at a
programmatic level to mitigate the wetland impacts of the entire Preferred Alternative, to assure
no net loss of wetland functions and values. It will be the duty of the SAMP implementation
agencies to determine specific enhancement actions to be performed in conjunction with each
development. It is also important to note that several wetlands for mitigation and enhancement
have been identified as potential threatened or endangered species (T/E) habitats (see Section
5.4). A federal biological assessment (BA) has been conducted to determine the extent of
possible disturbance to T/E habitats in areas selected for mitigation and enhancement (see
Section 5.4). In important habitats (for both federally-listed and state-listed T/E species) that
have been identified in this study (or future studies), mitigation plans will be designed and
implemented to avoid actions that might adversely impact existing T/E habitats, as is
recommended by the BA. Actions that will improve or expand T/E habitats will be encouraged.
Examples of these actions include creation of nesting islands for Least Tern, and construction of
5-13
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
platforms for Osprey. Specific mitigation actions that can improve Peregrine Falcon feeding
habitat are discussed in Section 5.4.3.
Partial Mitigation of Indirect Impacts
Partial mitigation of indirect impacts is included to restore or replace lost wetland functional
indicators in wetlands impacted by adjacent Planning/Satellite Areas. Several of the indicators
that are predicted to be lost through indirect impact, while not avoidable or minimizable (see
minimization discussion above), can be restored to their pre-construction condition. For
example, if an existing wetland had a vegetation class interspersion of "intermediate" (WET
question 16.B, indicating that more than one vegetation type was present in a partially mosaic
pattern), it is likely that temporary impacts from construction activities for an adjacent
development (e.g., temporarily increased sediment loadings) would cause the vegetation class
interspersion to become more "solid" (WET question 16.A). This indirect impact would not be
avoidable or minimizable, except by removing the Planning/Satellite Area from the Preferred
Alternative. However, after the construction activities are completed, plantings could be made
in the wetland to restore the "intermediate" nature of the vegetation class interspersion.
Appendix O discusses, in more detail, the specific indicators that would be mitigatable in this
manner.
Table 5-1 shows the reduction in wetland impacts associated with partial mitigation for adjacent
indirectly impacted wetlands, measured using the IVA method. These increases represent
between 0.3 and 2 percent of the existing attribute indicator values in the District. Increases to
water quality improvement attribute indicator values represent 0.8% of the existing value;
increases to wildlife habitat attribute indicator values represent 0.3% of the existing value;
increases to social significance attribute indicator values represent 2.1% of existing value. While
this does not provide complete mitigation for the predicted wetland impacts, it does serve to
restore many of the indirectly impacted wetlands to their pre-construction condition. Mitigation
for the remaining wetland impacts will occur through wetland creation and enhancement as
discussed below.
Wetland Creation and Enhancement
In order to mitigate for the wetlands impacts that cannot be either avoided, minimized or
mitigated via the techniques presented above (replacement or restoration of lost indicators), a
preliminary wetland enhancement plan has been developed for the District to provide the
necessary mitigation (to assure no net loss of wetland functions and values). What follows is a
synopsis of the wetland enhancement plan—please refer to Appendix O for more detailed
information about the development and implementation of the wetland enhancement plan. As
mentioned above, no single enhancement or set of enhancements are tied to any construction at
any particular site.
The preliminary wetland enhancement plan includes two components: creation of
approximately 45 acres of new wetlands, and enhancement of about 3,360 acres of the District's
existing wetlands. There are two wetland creation projects that are part of the wetland
enhancement plan (see Figure 5-3). The first proposed wetland creation site is approximately 25
acres in size, located in North Arlington. This area is adjacent to AVID assessment area numbe
312 (see Section 3.1 for the locations of the AVID assessment areas). This site is adjacent to the"
5-14
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Erie landfill, which is proposed for landfill mitigation and closure (see Section 5.17). The second
proposed wetland creation site is approximately 19.5 acres in size, located in East Rutherford.
This site is west of the Hackensack River and east of the NJ Turnpike western spur,
predominantly between and under the two bridges that convey Route 3 over the Hackensack
River. The site is adjacent to AVID assessment areas 2-1 and 2-Z.
Both of these sites are locations that historically were covered by wetlands. In order to value the
created wetlands in terms of their mitigation offset, the IVA scores for adjacent wetlands (after
enhancement, see below) were multiplied by the acreage of created wetland. This is based on
the assumption that, because these areas used to be wetlands, the newly recreated wetlands will
be at least as valuable as adjacent wetlands.
It is estimated that the remaining wetland impacts will be mitigated by enhancing about 3,360
acres of the District's existing wetlands. (It should be noted that these enhanced wetlands,
because they have been used as Section 404 mitigation for wetland impacts, cannot be used in
the future for wetland fill.) Several enhancement techniques have been identified as appropriate
for improving the quality of wetlands in the District. Examples of the proposed wetland
enhancement techniques include: re-establishing or improving tidal flow; creating meandering
channels (with pools and riffles where appropriate); and replacing monotypic stands of
Phragmites with a diversity of wetland plants. Because not all enhancement techniques are
relevant for every wetland, each wetland not proposed for development was examined
individually and assigned relevant mitigation techniques. Changes were then made to the
existing set of wetland functional indicators to reflect the effects of the selected enhancement
and creation techniques for each wetland. Appendix O provides a detailed list of the specific
enhancement strategies and techniques that were selected for each wetland in the District, as
well as wetland functional indicator changes associated with each enhancement strategy and
technique.
The IVA method was used to score the increase in attribute indicator value associated with the
various enhancements selected for each wetland. The changes in the three attribute scores
calculated by using the IVA method (after changing the appropriate wetland functional
indicators to reflect the enhancement actions) were multiplied by the area of the wetland over
which the enhancement actions were expected to have an effect on the wetland functions and
values. This area was taken as the acreage of the wetland above the six foot depth contour
(relative to mean low water), to include all intermittently and permanently flooded wetlands
near shore/shallow aquatic environments. Approximately 860 of the 8,530 acres of wetlands in
the District identified during the AVID are below (deeper than) the six foot depth contour, and
the SAMP proposes development of 842 acres of wetlands, leaving a total of approximately 6,830
acres of wetlands available for enhancement. Approximately 835 acres of these wetlands were
not assessed during the WET/AVID, so effects of enhancement could not be quantified. Thus,
approximately 6,000 acres of wetlands in the District are available for enhancement.
Approximately 2,215 acres of these "enhanceable" wetlands are located in areas of suspected
contamination, making enhancement actions in them uncertain during the 20-year planning
period of the SAMP. These wetlands were not considered for enhancement as SAMP wetlands
mitigation. Of the remaining 3,780 acres of wetlands, 3,360 acres of wetlands were chosen that
provided an increase in attribute indicator value, on a District-wide basis, commensurate with
5-15
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
the reduction in wetland attribute indicator values not avoidable/minimizable, mitigatable
on-site, or mitigated through creation. Figure 5-3 shows the locations of the wetlands selected as
part of the mitigation plan, and Table 5-1 presents the increase in attribute indicator value
associated with the wetland mitigation plan. The wetland enhancement plan comprises direct
enhancement (including creation) to approximately 3,400 acres of wetlands, which is
approximately 4 times the acreage projected to be filled (directly impacted) during the 20-year
planning period under the Preferred Alternative. As shown in Table 5-1, the reduction in
attribute indicator values for the direct enhancement is at least equal to projected loss in
attribute indicator values due to both direct and indirect impacts (which have been minimized
using appropriate management techniques). Other positive indirect effects from the overall
enhancement of wetlands in the District are expected to occur, but they are not quantified in this
EIS.
Mitigation of Wetland Habitat Fragmentation Impacts
Section 5.1.3 discussed the potential for fragmentation of the larger wetland complexes in the
District, along with mitigation strategies applicable to each impact area. These mitigation
strategies can be grouped into two categories: (1) strategies applicable to linear features
(primarily transportation improvements), that require the use of bridges and/or culverts to
maintain hydrologic and habitat connectivity; and (2) strategies applicable to Planning/Satellite
Areas exhibiting wetland fragmentation potential, that require site designs in which
development is shifted into wetlands that would otherwise be left fragmented (and out of
connected wetlands), or site designs that provide wildlife corridors through the area as part of
the site's open space requirements. These fragmentation mitigation strategies, together with the
wetland enhancement and creation plan, will either eliminate or offset potential impacts of
fragmentation of the wetland ecosystem.
5.2 Other Aquatic Resources
Direct impacts to other aquatic resources (other than wetland resources) from the Preferred
Alternative are relatively minor, because no filling of existing open water is proposed. Where
new roads, new railroads, and road widenings cross existing channels, bridges will be used to
span the channel. However, indirect impacts to other aquatic resources from the Preferred
Alternative may occur as a result of the loss of estuarine wetlands, which provide a source of
primary productivity for the aquatic food chain, as described below. Mitigation for the indirect
impacts would occur through enhancement of remaining estuarine wetlands to increase their
value to the aquatic food chain.
The aquatic resources in the Meadowlands include the estuarine and marine fauna and the flora
that inhabit the main channels and permanently flooded estuarine areas of the Hackensack River
and its major tributaries. The permanently flooded areas provide a habitat that is distinct from
but ecologically linked to the wetlands. For example, wetlands provide a source of primary
productivity for the aquatic food chain. Also, during high tide many aquatic species will move
into a tidal wetland for food and shelter. The wetland and aquatic resources are different
however, because their basic habitat characteristics such as temperature, hydrology and
substrate are different.
5-16
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Based on an analysis of the geographic extent of the Planning/Satellite Areas identified for the
Preferred Alternative, none of the proposed growth areas involve the filling of major streams or
rivers. The direct impacts to the aquatic resources in terms of lost aquatic habitat are thus
predicted to be minimal. Impacts to aquatic resources will be indirect, and will result from the
following changes in existing conditions:
¦	discharge of storm runoff containing potentially harmful levels of contaminants and
sediments that can affect the growth or metabolism of aquatic organisms (see Section 5.5);
¦	loss of wetlands that may be used by aquatic species as habitat during various stages of
their life cycle; and
¦	loss of primary productivity in filled estuarine wetlands that support the aquatic food
webs through the export of organic matter.
In the first case, the impact of stormwater discharges on aquatic resources is discussed in the
water quality impact analysis. In the second case, direct and indirect impacts to wildlife habitat
(including fish habitat) have already been assessed in the wetland impacts section (Section 5.1).
In the third case, the loss of primary productivity of estuarine wetlands was assessed on the
basis of the total area of estuarine wetlands that would be filled. Loss of primary productivity is
an indirect effect on aquatic ecosystems resulting from the reduction of export of biomass to
downslope waters that occurs when estuarine wetlands are lost. The biomass (organic matter)
serves as a food source for aquatic organisms and supports the aquatic food chain. This
category of impact is evaluated in addition to the direct and indirect impacts assessed to
wetlands (Section 5.1), because it provides a measure of indirect and cumulative potential
impact to the aquatic ecosystem, for the reasons stated above. Thus, impacts to other aquatic
resources were quantified by calculating the acreage of estuarine wetlands that would be filled.
In addition, minor impacts may occur during construction activities, consisting of increased
sediment loads to water bodies. For a discussion of these temporary construction impacts,
please see Section 5.5.
5.2.1 Impacts to Other Aquatic Resources from Planning/Satellite Areas
Based on the footprints delineated, the various Planning/Satellite Areas impact approximately
330 acres of estuarine wetlands. This represents a five percent reduction in the 6,583 acres of
existing estuarine wetlands in the District. Assuming that all estuarine wetlands provide similar
amounts of primary productivity (over 99 percent of the estuarine wetlands in the District were
found to have a moderate probability of performing the WET "Production Export" function
during the WET/AVID study), this means that approximately five percent of the existing
primary productivity provided by estuarine wetlands would be lost. Table 5-3 presents the
estuarine wetland acreage impacted by the various Planning/Satellite Areas. This reduction in
estuarine wetland acreage may result in the slight reduction of an important source of primary
productivity to the aquatic food chain.
5-17
-------
TABLE 5-3
AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Estuarine

Estuarine
Planning
Wetland
Satellite
Wetland
Area
Acreage
Area
Acreage
3
0.1
f
7.1
5
8.9
h
7.8
7
72.7
J
37.5
10
65.1
P
6.5
13
9.1
V
23.3


w
32.1
Subtotal
155.9
X
35.9


aa
9.5


av
2.5


bb
11.5
Subtotal	173.7
Transportation Improvements	46.5
Total	376.1
aquatic.wkl
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.2.2	Impacts to Other Aquatic Resources from Transportation Improvements
As reported in Table 5-3, the various transportation improvements impact approximately 47
acres of estuarine wetlands. This represents an additional one percent reduction in the 6,583
acres of existing estuarine wetlands in the District. This should have a minimal effect on the
source of primary productivity to the aquatic ecosystem. Additional indirect impacts to the
aquatic ecosystem may occur from construction of new bridges over existing channels, by
potentially creating additional shading and localized alterations in stream flow. However, only
a small number of new bridges are proposed (two over the Hackensack River—Paterson Plank
Road and the West Shore Line railway—as well as a few small bridges over minor streams and
channels). Thus/ these indirect impacts are expected to be minimal.
5.2.3	Impacts to Other Aquatic Resources from the Environmental Improvement
Program
The EIP will have no direct impacts on other aquatic resources (other than the preservation of
wetlands, see Section 5.1.4). Incidental direct impacts to aquatic resources may occur in the
performance of many of the initiatives of the EIP. Indirect impacts will consist of benefits to the
aquatic food chain by reducing pollution from landfill leachate (see Section 5.17.3), from
hazardous waste sites (see Section 5.18.3) and from other non-point sources (see Section 5.5.3).
All of these actions serve to improve water quality in the District, which will improve the
aquatic ecosystem.
5.2.4	Mitigation of Aquatic Resource Impacts
The impact analysis above concludes that approximately six percent (376 acres) of the existing
estuarine wetlands would be lost from development of the Preferred Alternative, which may
have a minor impact on the primary production that supports the aquatic food chain. Mitigation
for this impact would be included with, and accomplished through wetland enhancement under
the wetland mitigation plan (see Section 5.1.5). By creating or enhancing 3,400 acres of wetlands,
and improving the circulation in and communication with open water areas, the predicted
reduction in estuarine wetland acreage would be more than compensated for by the increased
productivity of the remaining wetlands, as a result of enhancement activities.
5.3 Terrestrial Ecosystems
The Preferred Alternative impacts a substantial percentage of the existing "vacant" upland
acreage in the District, which is the predominant terrestrial habitat in the District. The major
terrestrial resources in the District (except for the remnant and unique habitats discussed in
Section 5.4) are habitats on open vegetated areas in the District that have evolved on portions of
wetlands filled in the past for solid waste disposal. These areas both provide a habitat for
numerous terrestrial species that have relocated when nearby vacant uplands (outside the
District) were built on, and provide a habitat for species that use both wetlands and uplands.
Because the majority of the terrestrial habitats that would be potentially impacted under the
Preferred Alternative are located on areas filled over the last century, there are virtually no
potential impacts upland habitats that can be considered indigenous. Furthermore, the
dominant community of these open spaces is one that can be characterized as "early
successional"—because most of the fill is recent, the local upland climax community has not had
5-19
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
sufficient time to develop. Many open spaces have also been subject to continuous disturbances,
such as vehicular traffic and fire which have slowed the natural process of succession.
The dominant vegetation in the early successional community is mixed scrub /shrub and
grasses, with some young trees. In some existing terrestrial habitats the vegetation is thinner
because of vehicular traffic (i.e., dirt roads currently crisscross many of the vegetated areas).
None of the Planning/Satellite Areas include fully developed, mature grasslands or forests.
A comparison of aerial photographs taken in 1985 with land use mapping developed by HMDC
indicated that terrestrial habitats in the District correspond well with HMDC's "vacant" land use
category. Thus, those areas not in wetlands that were characterized by HMDC as "vacant" land
were used as the basis for assessing potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative on terrestrial
resources.
5.3.1	Impacts to Terrestrial Ecosystems from Planning/Satellite Areas
For this impact analysis it was assumed that all of the terrestrial vegetation and its associated
community would be removed within each Planning/Satellite Area. The impacts on terrestrial
resources were, therefore, assessed on the basis of the area of vacant upland (and thus the area
of the early successional community) that will be removed or impacted in each Planning/
Satellite Area.
The Planning/Satellite Areas will potentially impact approximately 620 acres of upland habitat.
This represents approximately 28 percent of the existing 2,176 acres of vacant uplands in the
District. The remaining vacant upland habitat consists primarily of historic landfills and
contaminated sites. Table 5-4 presents the area of potential terrestrial habitat within each of the
Planning/Satellite Areas. Figure 5-4 illustrates the locations of upland habitat impact. All of
these upland areas are approximately equal in importance to the wildlife ecosystems in the
Meadowlands, except for the upland areas that are identified as habitats for threatened or
endangered species, or that are considered remnant or unique. Such locations are discussed in
the following section (Section 5.4).
5.3.2	Impacts to Terrestrial Ecosystems from Transportation Improvements
The transportation improvements will potentially impact about 42 acres of vacant upland
habitat. This represents approximately two percent of the existing 2,176 acres of vacant uplands
in the District. This area is shown on Table 5-4, and is represented graphically on Figure 5-4.
5.3.3	Impacts to Terrestrial Resources from the Environmental Improvement
Program
As part of the solid waste improvements included in the EIP, abandoned or closed landfills will
be reclaimed as upland habitats for plants and animals. There are approximately 960 acres of
historic, closed or abandoned landfills in the District identified in the EIP for habitat reclamation.
For approximate locations of these landfills, please refer to Figure 5-8, in Section 5.12.3.
As part of the EIP, clusters of desirable native plantings will be established on select areas on the
landfills. These "planting islands" will function as seed sources which will be naturally
5-20
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 5-4
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Vacant

Vacant
Planning
Upland
Satellite
Upland
Area
Acreage
Area
Acreage
1
12.1
a
3.0
2
6.9
b
2.0
3
0.7
c
9.4
4
4.4
e
11.9
5
4.3
f
4.9
7
30.0
h
2.6
10
9.9
i
33.5
11
80.2
J
6.8
13
8.7
k
6.2
14
127.2
n
6.2


0
1.7
Subtotal
284.5
P
3.6


s
20.7


V
6.5


w
1.6


X
4.0


y
0.6


z
20.0


aa
3.7


ab
7.2


ae/af
52.6


ag
33.6


ah
8.1


aj
22.9


am
2.9


aq
3.8


ar
13.0


as
12.4


at
0.2


av
2.8


aw
9.0


ay
1.9


az
0.2


ba
14.2


Subtotal
333.6

Transportation Improvements

42.4
Total
660.5
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
dispersed by wind, animals, and insects to vegetate the landfill. This newly created habitat will
serve as a valuable refuge for birds, mammals, and insects that require upland ecosystems.
Thus, the EIP will provide a positive impact to terrestrial resources by creating or enhancing
approximately 960 acres of upland habitat in the District.
5.3.4 Mitigation of Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts
The Preferred Alternative impacts a substantial percentage (31 percent, or 660 acres) of the
existing "vacant" upland acreage, which is the predominant terrestrial habitat in the District.
However, there are other upland areas in the District classified as non-"vacant" by
HMDC—existing and historic landfills—that could serve as important terrestrial habitats. As
discussed above, many of these landfills (approximately 960 acres) are to be improved for
wildlife habitat through the EIP. To the degree possible, new terrestrial habitats will be
designed to serve as replacements for the habitat lost due to implementation of the Preferred
Alternative.
5.4 Threatened and Endangered (T/E) Species and Remnant
and Unique (R/U) Habitats
Several species among the state and federally listed endangered or threatened species have been
reported to use open space locations within the District (see Section 3.3.1). State and federal
laws seek to preserve the habitats of the threatened or endangered species. Existing remnant or
unique habitats were discussed in Section 3.3.2. Remnant habitats are those which were more
common in the past but which have since dwindled to remnants of their former areal range.
Unique habitats are those that developed under unusual circumstances and now provide
valuable habitat. Remnant habitats provide scientists with an opportunity to study and
understand the mechanisms that led to the reduction of these habitats. Remnant and unique
habitats in the Meadowlands provide a local diversity of plants and animals which may supply
the stock to recolonize other areas of the Meadowlands at some future time.
Impacts to threatened or endangered (T/E) species and remnant or unique (R/U) habitats were
assessed by measuring direct loss of, or indirect effects on these important habitats. The analysis
was conducted regionally for the District. Except for the field work conducted in support of the
biological assessment (BA) for determining impacts to Peregrine Falcon, site-specific evaluations
were not conducted; instead the analysis relies principally on the resource inventories
conducted for the AVID, and those available from the NJ Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP). In addition, a federal biological assessment (BA) was conducted to identify
potential impacts to Peregrine Falcon, a federally-listed endangered bird. Peregrine Falcon is
the only federally-listed threatened or endangered species known to occur in the District (see the
discussion of the Peregrine Falcon below).
The identification and evaluation of T/E and R/U impacts are based on the potential for
displacement of T/E species or loss of R/U habitats. These habitats were previously identified
using federal, state, and local sources (see Figure 3-7). Because the identified T/E species and
R/U habitats include both wetland and upland areas, the analysis differentiates between
wetland and upland areas. Habitat areas, as identified from federal, state, and HMDC sources,
5-22
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
generally cover broad expanses of territory, in which some localized use, or uses, have been
observed. Thus, the impact analysis for T/E species uses the term "potential" impact, because
impacts to specific areas of nesting/breeding/feeding within the broad areas of use will need to
be conducted in the future once specific site designs, and hence more realistic estimates of
disturbance, are known.
Two types of impacts to T/E habitats have been assessed—direct and indirect. Only direct
impacts were assessed for R/U habitats, because the identified R/U habitats in the District are
primarily defined based on their hydrology and vegetation. No significant indirect impacts
which would alter the defining characteristics of these habitats are expected. As with the
wetland analysis, direct impacts are caused by land disturbance activity in a T/E or R/U habitat,
and involve the loss of habitat suitability previously present in that area. Direct impact area is
assessed by determining the area of T/E or R/U habitats that would be disturbed under the
Preferred Alternative. Such areas are assumed to lose their T/E and/or R/U habitat
characteristic(s).
Indirect impacts are assumed for certain T/E habitats that are within 150,100, or 50 meters
(depending on the species) of a Planning/Satellite Area. The "buffering" distance used for each
species was determined based on the sensitivity of that species to nearby human activity, based
on available information. In addition to determining the general sensitivity of each species to
human disturbance, if a species is known or is likely to nest in the District, the nesting habitat
was considered to be at least minimally sensitive to human activity, and a buffering distance of
at least 50 meters was used. Within this buffering distance (defined by the sensitivity of that
species to human disturbance), substantial disturbance and activity in the Planning/Satellite
Area may indirectly impact T/E habitats, depending on the species. Therefore, indirect impacts
are assessed by determining the areas of T/E habitats that are within 150,100, or 50 meters of
the perimeter of disturbed areas. In addition, indirect impacts to T/E habitats might occur as a
result of habitat fragmentation or loss of important wildlife corridors. Section 5.1.3 identifies
potential fragmentation issues for the wetland ecosystem as a whole. While regional in nature,
the issues of habitat fragmentation and loss of wildlife corridors for individual species in specific
locations can be addressed only when site-specific data on actual species habitat locations is
collected during future project review, using the analysis presented in Section 5.1.3 as a basis.
To ensure that actions taken for wetlands mitigation will not adversely impact T/E habitats, the
federal biological assessment conducted for this project identified habitats for federal T/E
species within areas identified in the wetlands mitigation plan (see Section 5.1.5). The wetland
mitigation actions taken will avoid disturbance to existing nesting sites, or other actions which
might destroy existing habitats for both federal and state T/E species. It should be noted,
however, that one of the goals of the wetlands mitigation program is to improve existing
habitats such that the existing T/E habitats in the District will expand, as is discussed in Section
5.4.3.
5-23
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.4.1 Impacts to T/E Species and R/U Habitats from Planning/Satellite Areas and
Transportation Improvements
T/E Species Habitat Impacts
As discussed above, T/E habitat impacts have been assessed based on existing available data.
These data do not provide site-specific locations of species habitats; instead, they provide
general areas of potential habitat. Using this generalized data on potential T/E habitat areas the
Preferred Alternative has the potential to impact, to some extent, general habitat locations for all
of the avian and floral threatened and endangered species reported in the District. Actual
impacts may be substantially lower than those presented here, due to the uncertainty of habitat
locations. The following sections discuss the potential impact to each species. Because a federal
biological assessment (BA) was conducted to further determine impacts to Peregrine Falcon in
the District, the analysis for assessing impacts to falcon habitats is different from that used for
the remaining T/E species. The potential impacts to the non-federally listed species are
presented on Figure 5-5 and in Table 5-5, and Figure 5-6 and Table 5-6 present impacts to
Peregrine Falcon as determined by the BA. The acreages of impact reported in Table 5-5 are
presented by species. Because several habitat locations may provide habitat for numerous
species, the total impact to all T/E species is not the sum of the individual species impacts
Peregrine Falcon- The Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) is listed as an endangered bird species
in both federal and state regulations. Owing to the known regional occurrence of the Peregrine
Falcon, a Biological Assessment (BA) was performed to determine potential effects of the SAMP
activities on this species. The results of the BA are summarized below (please see Appendix G
for the complete BA report).
No peregrines were observed in the District during the fieldwork conducted for the BA.
However, as is reported in Section 3.3.1, the research conducted for the BA found
documentation of several observations of peregrines in the District, predominantly in the
Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area; in Kearny Marsh and Kingsland Marsh; and in the
wetlands and upland landfills near lower Berrys Creek (around the Hackensack Meadowlands
Environment Center).
Because no peregrines are known to nest within the District, the use of the District by peregrine
is for feeding (and possibly wintering). The extensive wetlands found within the District S
support numerous wetland-associated prey species commonly hunted by peregrines and
therefore might represent important foraging areas for both the regional breeding population of
peregrines and for migrants and wintering birds. Alterations of these sites, either for
development or mitigation, could therefore have adverse impacts on the Peregrine Falcon
Between April 22 and September 26,1994, the various components of the Preferred
Alternative—Planning/Satellite Areas (P/SAs), mitigation areas (MAs), and transportation
improvements (TIs)—were field-inspected and evaluated with regard to their present suit bT
as habitat for Peregrine Falcon. The food resources available in the District may be criticalV ^
peregrines breeding in the region, as well as for migrating and wintering peregrines, thereto*
the BA focused on evaluating the current importance of the various P/SAs, MAs and TIs ' ^
terms of their quality as foraging (i.e., hunting) habitat for Peregrine Falcon and on assessing th
probable impact on this species of altering these sites as proposed in the Preferred Alternati
5-24
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE5-5
T/E SPECIES AND RAJ HABITAT IMPACTS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Existing Planning
T/E Species' Acres Area(s)
Direct
Impact
Indirect
Impact
Remaining
Acres Habitat Locations
Peregrine Falcon—Federal & State Endangered'
Black Skimmer	State Endangered —150 meter buffer
Wetland 14193 am,TR
Upland 7.7 TR
1.2
0.0
63.6
0.5
belleville Tpk, Kingsland Marsh,
1354.6 Saw Mill Creek
7.3
Least Tern—State Endangered —150 meter buffer
Wetland 1415.6 2,10,TR
Upland 7.7 TR
71.6
0.0
90.2
0.5
Kingsland Marsh, Mill Creek,
1253.9 Saw Mill Creek, Vinee Lombardi
7.3
Sedge Wren—State Endangered—100 meter buffer
Wetland 731.9 7,x,y,TR
Upland 405.8 7,x,y,TR
110.9
37.9
123.0
38.2
Berrys Creek
498.5
330.1
Dog Fennel—State Endangered—no buffer
Wetland 261.3 TR
0.8
0.0
Belleville Tpk
260.4
Salt Marsh Bullrush—State Endangered—no buffer
Wetland 731.9 7,x,y,TR
110.9
0.0
Berrys Creek
620.6
Northern Harrier—State Breeding Endangered —100 meter buffer
Wetland 731.9 7,x,y,TR 110.9
Upland 405.8 7,x,y,TR 37.9
123.0
38.2
Berrys Creek
498.0
329.8
Pied-Billed Grebe — Stale Breeding Endangered — 50 meter buffer
Wetland 703.6 TR 4.8
43.9
Belleville Tpk, Kearny Marsli,
655.0 Kingsland Marsh
Bobolink — State Threatened — 50 meter buffer
Wetland 731.9 7,x,y,TR
Upland 405.8 7,x,y,TR
110.9
37.9
60.8
22.0
Berrys Qeek
557.8
347.1
Osprey—State Threatened—50 meter buffer
Wetland 442.4 TR
3.9
29.4
Kearny Marsh, Kingsland Marsh
409.1
Savannah Sparrow—State Threatened—50 meter buffer
Wetland 1818.7 7,x,y,TR
Upland 412.9 7,x,y,TR
110.9
37.9
60.8
22.0
Berrys Creek, Saw Mill Creek
1644.6
354.2
Yellow-Q-owned NightHeron — State Threatened —100meter buffer
Wetland 1790.4 aj.TR 4.8
Upland 115.7 TR 3.8
89.0
19.0
Kearny Marsh, Saw Mill Oeek,
1696.7 Kingsland Marsh, Belleville Tpk
92.9
Grasshopper Sparrow—State Threatened—no buffer
Wetland 616.9 TR
Upland 68.7 TR
0.0
7.9
0.0
0.0
Teterboro Airport
616.8
60.9
American Bittern — State Breeding Threatened — lOOmeter buffer
Wetland 2716.9 2,7,10tx,y,aj,am,TO 183.0
Upland 520.9 7,x,y,TR 38.9
241.6
57.2
Belleville Tpk, Berrys Creek,
2292.8 High Salt Marsh, Kearny Marsh,
422.5 Mill Creek, Saw Mill Q-eek
American Coot—Listed in NJNHP Report—no buffer
Wetland 442.4 TR
3.9
0.0
Kearny Marsh, Kingsland Marsh
438.4
American Shad—Listed as T/E in AVID—no buffer
Wetland 1217.7
0.0
0.0
Hackensack River
1217.7
Atlantic Tomcod	Listed as T/E in AVID — no buffer
Wetland 1695.6
0.0
0.0
Lower Hackensack River,
1695.6 Saw Mill Qeek
Existing Planning
R/U Habitat1 Acres Area(s)
Direct
Impact

Remaining
Acres Habitat Locations
High Salt Marsh
Wetland 175.8 TR
4.3

High Salt Marsh
171.5 (see Section 3.Z2)
Fresh Water Meadows
Wetland 606.4 3,TR
70.3

Losen Slote, Moonachie Creek,
536.1 Kingsland Marsh, Kearny Marsh
Forested Wetlands
Wetland 166.0
0.0

Teterboro, Losen Slote
166.0
Rock Outcropping
Upland 33.2 14
0.0*

Snake Hill, Little Snake Hill
33.2
Notes: 'impacts between species habitats are not additive, because several species may share the same habitat.
'impacts to Peregrine Falcon habitats are shown in Table 5-4a
STR = Transportation Improvements
'Although 22.6 acres of this R/U habitat are within the footprint of Planning Area "14*, site planning at this Planning Area will
avoid disturbance of this habitat area.
terunew.wkl
-------
TABLE 5-6
POTENTIAL PEREGRINE FALCON HABITAT IMPACTS
	Potential Habitat Value	
Planning/	Below	Above
Satellite Area Poor Average Average Average
I—Wetland	2.3
Upland 12.1
2 - Wetland	
Upland 6.9
Wetiand		165.0
Upland 0.7 		
4—Wetland	119.6
Upland 4.4
5—Wetland	15.0
Upland 4.3
"7—Wetland		
Upland	30.0
10—Wetland
Upland
II—Wetland
Upland	80.2
12—Wetiand	
Total
Acres
2.3
12.1
"0.0"
6.9
165.0
0.7
119.6
4.4
15.0
4.3
72.7
30.0
65.1
9.9
	0.0
80.2
	49.7
Poor
20.7
Planning/
Satellite Area
s—Wetland
Upland
v—Wetland
Upland 6.5
w—Wetland 9.0
Upland 1.6
x—Wetland
Upland 4.0
y—Wetland
Upland 0.6
z—Wetland
Upland 20.0
aa—Wetland
Upland 3.7
ab—Wetland
Upland 7.2
ac—Wetland
Potential Habitat Value
Above
23.3
Below	Above Total
Average Average Average Acres
0.0
20.7
23.3
6.5
35.0
1.6
35.9
... 4 0
0.0
0.6
0.0
20.0
	9.5 *
3.7
"0.0"
	7,2
2.9
0.0
26.0
14.8
21.1
72.7
65.1
9.5
9.9
49.7
2.9
13—Wetland
9.1


Upland

52.6

52.6
14—Wetland



Upland 33.6


33.6
a—Wetland



Upland
8.1


8.1
b—Wetland



Upland

22.9

22.9
c—Wetland



Upland
2.9


2.9
e—Wetland



Upland
3.8


3.8
f—Wetland
7.1


Upland
13.0


13.0
h—Wetland
7.8


Upland
12.4


12.4
j—Wetland



Upland
0.2


0.2
j—Wetland


6.8
Upland
2.8


2.8
—Wetland


6.2 1
Upland
9.0


9.0
n—Wetland


6.2
Upland
1.9


1.9
0—Wetland


1.7
Upland
0.2


0.2
p—Wetland
6.5

3.6 I
Upland
14.2


14.2
q—Wetland
1.8

0.0 j
Upland



0.0




I Total—Wetland
Upland
46.5
264.9
106.0
226.0
524.6
0.0
72.7 749.8
149.7 640.6
(o;
AhmdcN tab)es\ tab5-6)
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
In addition, published records and other sources of information were searched to assist in
determining the falcon's extent and pattern of occurrence in the District. Using the above
information, an evaluation was made of the habitat quality of the potential disturbed sites
(which covered much of the District's wetlands) for use by hunting peregrines. The evaluated
wetlands were classified as either poor, below average, average, above average, good, or
excellent for peregrine feeding (see Section 3.3.1).
The site evaluations were then analyzed to determine the direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts of the development and mitigation scenarios on Peregrine Falcons that utilize the
District.
No peregrines will be directly impacted by any of the proposed actions, because no activities
proposed by the SAMP would directly cause mortality of any of these birds, and no nesting sites
will be destroyed (no Peregrine Falcon nests are known to exist in the District).
The potential indirect impact to Peregrine Falcon from development consists principally of
elimination of feeding habitat, which in turn might reduce the diversity and abundance of
available prey. It is unlikely that size of food supply is a limiting factor in the Meadowlands
region, as this species readily utilizes prey species associated with heavily developed habitats
(such as Rock Dove and European Starling) as well as species associated with wetlands and
other open spaces. However, the fact that peregrines are known to regularly utilize the District
(and may actually breed at two locations just outside its boundaries) suggests that the
environment and food supply provided by this area represent an important resource. For
example, these wetlands, waters, and tidal flats may be particularly attractive to migrants from
the tundra who are not accustomed to hunting in city environs and prefer more natural habitats.
The wetland areas, in particular, also attract significant concentrations of shorebirds that may be
heavily hunted during the peregrines' late summer and fall dispersal/migration period. The
District also attracts waterfowl and gulls during the winter, when physiological stresses on the
Peregrine Falcon may make it especially critical for them to be able to hunt successfully.
Therefore, development of habitat in the District (without proposed mitigation) that
consequently reduces the prey supply that the District provides to Peregrine Falcons would
probably have at least a minor impact on the survival of migrants and wintering birds, and
possibly of young of the year from the regional population dispersing from their parents'
nesting territories.
The severity of the impact from developing a given P/SA depends on the intensity of a site's use
by peregrines (of which the evaluation of site habitat quality, see Section 3.3.1, is an estimate),
the type and extent of alteration of the site (it is conservatively assumed that all sites will be
100% developed—a worst-case scenario), the percentage of local similar-quality habitat
represented by the site, and the type and extent of additional indirect impacts (which are
difficult to estimate without knowing the specific type of development involved).
Additional indirect impacts of development on Peregrine Falcon include possible degradation of
water quality that could reduce the food resources for waterfowl and shorebirds in adjacent
remaining wetlands; changes in the hydrologic regime of adjacent wetlands that consequently
change the use by prey species; and various forms of disturbance that could reduce the use of
adjacent wetlands by potential prey species. It is possible that buildings or bridges to be
5-27
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
constructed could provide nest sites, which would be a direct positive impact; however, thus far
peregrines have not nested on any of the buildings constructed in the District.
Although individually none of the impacts of developing the P/SA sites is considered greater
than low, collectively the P/SAs involve the development of approximately 750 acres of wetland
and 940 acres of upland (approximately 640 acres of which are classified as vacant), and in
probable indirect impacts to additional acreage. Of the total area proposed to be developed in
the Preferred Alternative, approximately 600 acres of wetlands and 150 acres of upland have
been classified in the BA as Average or better feeding habitat for Peregrine Falcon. Without
compensating mitigation, the total area subjected to impacts would represent more than 10% of
the total wetland habitat in the District and 30% of the undeveloped upland habitat, and the loss
of this amount of foraging habitat could slightly reduce the carrying capacity of the
Meadowlands system for this species. This reduction would be unlikely to adversely affect the
stability of the regional population. Effective mitigation of these losses, however, would offset
this small adverse impact and possibly provide net benefits to Peregrine Falcon (see Section
5.4.3).
Effects on peregrines of constructing TIs would be essentially the same as for the Planning/
Satellite Areas—i.e., reduction in habitat for prey species; possible reduction in habitat quality of
adjacent areas for prey due to disturbance or pollution effects emanating from the TIs; and
changes in hydrologic regimes of adjacent wetlands. Adverse impacts on Peregrine Falcon from
construction of most of the proposed transportation improvements (TIs) would generally be
negligible. Of the 34 proposed actions, 3 involve no wetland or vacant upland impact, and
another 11 involve less than 0.1 acre of wetland impact or less than 2 acres of vacant upland
impact (which is here considered negligible). Where the corridors encroach on wetlands
evaluated as suitable peregrine hunting habitat, the impact usually involves very narrow strips
along the perimeter of larger wetlands and adjacent to existing corridors so that the resulting
indirect effects are less than if the larger wetland were fragmented by a new corridor transecting
it. The few TIs for which impacts are slightly greater than negligible are discussed in Appendix
G.
Because of the relatively low total acreage impacted (less than 100 acres of wetland and less than
50 acres of vacant uplands), and the location of many proposed corridors peripheral to the
affected wetlands and along already-disturbed existing corridors, the unmitigated cumulative
impact to Peregrine Falcon of the SAMP transportation improvements would probably be no
greater than very lev/—that is, it would not remove enough habitat to affect the survival of
healthy individuals under normal conditions.
In addition to impacts from the proposed development, impacts to Peregrine Falcon might occur
if changes are made to wetlands in order to mitigate for wetland impacts (see Section 5.1.5). To
ensure that actions taken for wetlands mitigation will not adversely impact Peregrine Falcon
habitat, the BA conducted for this project also identified examined habitats for falcons within
areas identified in the wetlands mitigation plan.
As with the proposed development sites, the mitigation sites in their current condition generally
represent less than optimum habitat for Peregrine Falcon. Of the 51 sites (ranging in size from 1
to 347 acres), four (covering 54 acres) were ranked as Poor, 15 (516 acres) as Below Average, 15
5-28
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
(745 acres) as Average, 16 (1,803 acres) as Above Average, and only 1 (Kearny Marsh, 347 acres)
as Good. The proposed SAMP mitigation plan(described in Section 5.1.5 and Appendix O) is
designed to improve overall habitat diversity and wildlife habitat value in the District. By
allowing the District to support larger populations of birds (and other wildlife), and possibly a
greater diversity of species, such mitigation will increase the prey base available to raptors, and
thus would have a substantial positive indirect impact on the peregrines that utilize the District.
Specific enhancement techniques that would provide the greatest benefit to Peregrine Falcon are
discussed in Section 5.4.3.
Actual mitigation construction activities should have virtually no impact on peregrines.
Although prey availability might temporarily decrease in mitigation areas due to the
disturbance associated with construction, it is unlikely that the area affected at any one time
would be large enough to decrease hunting opportunities substantially. It is anticipated that
completion of the entire mitigation scenario will require many years, thus avoiding a too-rapid
implementation of drastic, large-scale changes that could seriously disrupt the Meadowlands
ecosystem (including peregrines).
The impact on Peregrine Falcon of implementing each individual mitigation project is
anticipated to be positive. Likewise, the cumulative impacts of 3,400 acres of such mitigation
could markedly increase breeding, transient, and wintering populations of the numerous prey
species utilized by peregrines and, consequently, would be highly beneficial to the conservation
of this raptor. The cumulative positive mitigation impact, in fact, would probably be more than
the sum of the individual mitigation projects. Because the overall plan includes numerous
hydrological enhancements (new, improved, or re-established connections between various
elements), and greatly increased vegetation diversity, it would probably improve the
functioning of virtually the entire wetland system in the District. This, along with the proposed
wildlife habitat enhancements in uplands (as part of the EIP), could enable the system to
support a greatly increased prey base for Peregrine Falcon, and thus the system could
potentially support more individual falcons, contributing to the conservation of the Eastern
population. Because mitigation is a required element of the SAMP, and because the benefits
provided by the wetland mitigation will far outweigh the current habitat value of the potentially
impacted development and transportation sites, the cumulative impact of the SAMP (including
development, wetland mitigation, and the EIP) on Peregrine Falcon will be highly positive.
Black Skimmer. Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger) is a state endangered bird in New Jersey.
Within the District, the Black Skimmer's habitats include the wetlands along Belleville Turnpike,
Kingsland Marsh, and Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area, and encompasses 1,419 acres
of wetlands and eight acres of uplands. Potential direct impacts from the Preferred Alternative
involve development of approximately one acre of the identified wetland habitat (in the
wetlands along Belleville Turnpike).
Black Skimmer is known to be somewhat sensitive to human activity, especially in its selection
of nesting sites. To reflect this sensitivity, a large buffer (150 meters) was used around the
Planning/Satellite Areas and transportation improvements to estimate indirect impacts.
Approximately 64 acres of identified wetland habitat for the skimmer is within 150 meters of a
Planning/Satellite Area or transportation improvement. Thus, an additional five percent of the
5-29
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
wetland habitat of the Black Skimmer may be indirectly impacted by development of the
Preferred Alternative. In addition, approximately half of an acre of .dent,fed upland skimmer
habitat is within 15(1 meters of a transportation improvement. I his represents six pt rccnt of the
identified upland Black Skimmer habitat in the District.
		 Th, I.cast 		
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Salt Marsh Bulrush. The Salt Marsh Bulrush (Scirpus maritimus) is a wetland plant on New
Jersey's endangered species list. Within the District, it has been found in the wetlands around
lower Berrys Creek. Although the specific location(s) of Salt Marsh Bulrush occurrence is not
currently available, the wetlands in the lower Berrys Creek area comprise 732 acres. Because the
Preferred Alternative includes development in 111 acres of these wetlands (by both Planning/
Satellite Areas and transportation improvements), approximately fifteen percent of the bulrush
habitat could be lost. However, the actual impact on this species will not be known until
specific surveys are conducted to identify the actual habitat of this species within this broad
area. Additional (indirect) impacts could occur due to changes in hydrology that might result
from development (e.g., storm sewer outfall pipes). However, avoidance and minimization of
these indirect wetland impacts (to be required by the SAMP, see Section 5.1.2) should remove
any potential indirect impacts to the habitat of the Salt Marsh Bulrush.
Northern Harrier. The breeding population of the Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) is listed as
endangered in New Jersey. In the District, the identified habitat for this bird is the wetlands and
uplands around lower Berrys Creek (732 acres of wetlands and 406 acres of uplands).
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the loss of approximately fifteen
percent (111 acres) of the wetlands and nine percent (38 acres) of the uplands in this area.
The Northern Harrier is not especially sensitive to human activity, but because the breeding
population is endangered in New Jersey, a medium-distance buffer (100 meters) was used to
determine indirect impacts from the Preferred Alternative. Approximately 123 additional acres
of wetland habitat around lower Berrys Creek (26 percent of the existing wetland habitat), and
38 additional acres of upland habitat (nine percent of the existing upland habitat) are within 100
meters of the directly impacted areas.
Pied-billed Grebe. The breeding population of the Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) is
listed as endangered in New Jersey. Within the District, habitat for this bird has been identified
as including approximately 704 acres of wetlands—along Belleville Turnpike, in Kearny Marsh,
and in Kingsland Marsh. Development of transportation improvements within the Preferred
Alternative involves filling of approximately five acres of these wetlands, along their periphery.
Because of the nature of the potential development near identified Pied-billed Grebe habitat
(widening and building of roads along the already developed edges of these wetland habitats),
minimal indirect impacts are anticipated. However, because the breeding population is listed as
endangered in New Jersey, a small buffer (50 meters) was used to quantify potential indirect
impact to nesting habitat for the Pied-billed Grebe. Approximately 44 acres of wetlands are
within 50 meters of the transportation improvements in the areas around Belleville Turnpike,
Kearny Marsh and Kingsland Marsh. This represents approximately six percent of the existing
wetlands in this area.
Bobolink. The Bobolink (Doliconyx oryzivorus) is listed as a threatened bird in New Jersey.
Within the District, the habitat identified for Bobolink includes 732 acres of wetlands and 406
acres of upland around lower Berrys Creek. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative
includes approximately fifteen percent (111 acres) of the wetlands and nine percent (38 acres) of
the uplands in this area.
5-31
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Although the Bobolink is not known to be sensitive to human activity, it may nest in the District,
thus a small buffer (50 meters) around the footprints of the Preferred Alternate growth areas
was usedl estimate indirect impact, Approximately 61 additional acres
around lower Berrys Creek (nine percent of the existing wetland habitat), and 22 add o al
acres of upland habitat (five percent of the existing upland habitat) are within 50 meters of the
directly impacted areas.
Osprev The Osprey (PaMon tovetus) is listed as a threatened bird in New Jersey. Within the
SS Kearny Mamh and Kmgsland Marsh (which total 443 acres of wetlands) have been
identified as potential habitat areas for Osprey. Transportation improvements w.thin the
Preferred Alternative may involve filling of approximately 4 acres along the edges of these
wetlands.
Osprey are not especially sensitive to human activity, but the decline in population has been
par, y at"Lted to man's encroachment on the Osprey's estuarine and seacoast nesting habitats.
A mall buffer distance (50 meters) has been used to estimate indirect impacts from
development of the Preferred Alternative. Approximately 29 additional aces of wetlands m
Kearny and Kmgsland Marshes are within 50 meters of a proposed road or road widemng.
Co,rannaVi Harrow. The Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) is included on New
fer se VsUst of threatened birds. Within the District, approximately 1,819 acres of wetlands and
413 acres of uplands around lower Berrys Creek and the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management
Area have been identified as habitats for Savannah Sparrow. Implementation of the Preferred
Alternative (in the lower Berrys Creek area) would directly impact approximately six percent
fill acres) of the wetland habitat and nine percent (38 acres) of the upland habitat identified for
the savannah sparrow.
A small buffer distance (50 meters) has been used to estimate indirect impacts from the
Purred Alternative on Savannah Sparrow habitat. Approximately 61 acres of wetlands and 22
acres of uplands are within 50 meters of the Preferred Alternative growth locations.
x/ „ r rmwnpd Nieht Heron. The Yellow-crowned Night Heron (Nyctanass violacea) is listed as
Within the Meadowlands District, identified habitats for the
wnn include Kearny Marsh, Kingsland Marsh, Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area, and
IhP wetlands along Belleville Turnpike (1,790 acres of wetlands and 116 acres of uplands). Direct
acts from the Preferred Alternative comprise less than five acres of wetlands and four acres
oTupkmds in the identified habitat areas.
Tho Yellow-crowned Night Heron is somewhat sensitive to human activity, and may nest in the
rvlirt Thus a medium-distance buffer (100 meters) has been used around the Preferred
a Amative areas to estimate indirect impacts. Approximately 89 acres of wetlands and 19 acres
f mlands in Kearny Marsh, Kingsland Marsh, and around Belleville Turnpike are within 100
meters of the Planning/Satellite Areas and transportation improvements of the Preferred
Alternative.
The Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is listed in New
^aSS^C*1^Łt^me^^hreatened birds Within the District, the wetlands and vacant uplands
Jersey s catalogue ui
5-32
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
around Teterboro Airport (617 acres of wetlands and 69 acres of uplands) have been identified
as habitat for Grasshopper Sparrow. Proposed road widenings in this area involve the
development of approximately 8 acres of the identified upland habitat for the grasshopper
sparrow.
The Grasshopper Sparrow is not known to be especially sensitive to human activity, and the
proposed activity involves widening of existing roads adjacent to the identified habitat. Thus,
no additional indirect impacts are expected to occur to the habitat of the Grasshopper Sparrow.
American Bittern. The breeding population of American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) is listed
as threatened in New Jersey. Within the District, the identified habitat for this bird includes
2,717 acres of wetlands and 521 acres of uplands, including: wetlands along Belleville Turnpike,
Mill Creek, and the "high salt marsh" near the Hackensack River south of Route 3; and wetlands
and uplands near lower Berrys Creek, Kearny Marsh, and Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management
Area. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would involve direct impacts to seven
percent (183 acres) of wetland habitat and eight percent (39 acres) of upland habitat for the
American Bittern.
The American Bittern is usually found hidden deep in a wetland amongst emergent plants. It
also may nest in the Meadowlands. In order to estimate indirect impacts from the Preferred
Alternative, a medium-distance buffer (100 meters) was used around proposed disturbed areas.
Within the identified habitat of the American Bittern, approximately 242 acres of wetlands and
57 acres of uplands are within 100 meters of the Preferred Alternative areas.
American Coot. The American Coot (Fulica americana) was listed in the NJ National Heritage
Program report of T/E species, but is not officially listed as a threatened or endangered bird in
New Jersey. In the District, the identified habitat for the American Coot includes 442 acres of
wetlands in Kearny and Kingsland Marshes. Development of the Preferred Alternative could
result in a direct impact to 4 of these acres.
The American Coot is not overly sensitive to human disturbances, and utilizes only open water
areas. Furthermore, the proposed development adjacent to the identified coot habitat involves
widening of existing roadways. Therefore, no additional indirect impacts should be felt on the
habitat of the American Coot.
American Shad. The American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) was listed as a T/E species in the AVID
(EPA, 1989), but is not officially listed as a threatened or endangered fish in New Jersey. Within
the District, the entire length of the Hackensack River has been identified as habitat for
American Shad. No development is being proposed that would directly impact the habitat of
the shad. Indirect impacts might occur due to increases is solids loading to the Hackensack
River (please refer to the water quality impact analysis, Section 5.5).
Atlantic Tomcod. The Atlantic Tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) was listed as a T/E species in the
AVID (EPA, 1989), but is not officially listed as a threatened or endangered fish in New Jersey.
Within the District, the Hackensack River south of Route 3 and the deeper channels in the
Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area have been identified as habitat for Atlantic Tomcod.
No development is being proposed that would directly impact the habitat of the tomcod.
5-33
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
indirect impacts might occur due .0 increases in solids loading to the Hackensack River (please
refer to the water quality impact analysis, Section 5.5).
R/U Habitat Impacts
,	. 11. •„ ^ onmp pvtpnt three of the four remnant
Thd	^ -
habitat. These potential impacts are also presented in Table 5-5.
Hieh Salt Marsh This R/U habitat is dominated by Spartina patens and/or Disttchlis spicata, and
High SflltMarstv nis /	m t of the Hackensack River, south of Berrys
is found in the District in o	•	^ north of the Hackensack
Creek, and east of the NJ Turnpi e wes er p ,	^ ^ ^.g habitat in the District is
River, and south of NJ Transit s	of thg Preferred Alternative (widening of the Northeast
Cor^
roadway. ^there
should be no significant impact on the high salt marsh habita .
F„h	Meadows. Wetlands dominated by fresh water cover approximately 606 acres in
flTrasbteT These wetlands are located along Losen Slote and Moonachie Creek and m
Kmgsland and Kearny Marshes. Development of the Preferred Alternative has the potenbal to
2 impact twelve percent (70 acres) of this type of wetland, primarily along Moonachie
Creek, but also along the edges of Kearny and Kingsland Marshes.
Wetlands. There is no projected development in the remaining 166 acres of forested
w^ands^whichare found along Losen Slote creek and around Teterboro Airport.
d v OntcroDDine There are two forested diabase intrusions in the District, Snake Hill (also
Rock") and Little Snake Hill. They cover approximately 33 acres of
Zd The footprint of Planning Area "14" includes 68 percent (23 acres) of this area.
However, site planning at this location will avoid development in this remnant/unique habitat.
5 42 Impacts to T/E Species and R/U Habitats from the Environmental
Improvement Program
In addition to enhancing, managing, and protecting the general wetland resources of the
n owt the EIP will establish a program to enhance and manage remnant and unique (R/U)
1 nt and animal habitats in the District. The program will address over 225 acres of R/U
Estate including Little Snake Hill, Losen Slote Creek, and the Teterboro woodlands. The
lack of management and control over many of the District's remnant habitats could
°U7 hallv lead to degradation and ultimately loss of these habitats from vandalism and neglect.
Potection of these sites can reduce the threat of vandalism; management and enhancement can
prevent and reverse the trend of neglect.
5-34
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Anticipated enhancement efforts include the establishment of indigenous plant species which
represent the native community structure thus increasing wildlife diversity; restoration of
endangered plant species; and the preservation of unique, physical site features.
Additionally, the Environmental Improvement Program, by remediating water quality impacts
from landfill leachate, controlling non-point source pollution, and improving flood control and
stormwater management, is likely to result in substantial improvements to water quality in the
District. This will enhance the functioning of the Meadowlands ecosystem starting at the bottom
of the food chain, and ultimately could benefit all T/E species. It could also reduce pollutant
loads ingested by T/E species. Proposed reclamation of landfills for wildlife habitat values will
expand the prey base for carnivores, such as Peregrine Falcon, by increasing the diversity of
birds and other wildlife inhabiting the District. The Program's natural-resource management
goals of improving the preservation, control, enhancement, management, and maintenance of
the District's wetlands will provide similar benefits. Furthermore, there is a significant
opportunity for implementation of additional conservation measures in the District to promote
use of the District by all T/E species. A conservation Memorandum of Agreement (see Section
5.4.3 and Section 6) will help assure that conservation measures will be realized through the
SAMP.
5.4.3 Mitigation of T/E Species and R/U Habitat Impacts
Avoidance of direct impacts on T/E species and R/U habitats (i.e., loss of habitat) was a guiding
factor in the development of the Preferred Alternative. This effort was somewhat hampered by
the lack of site-specific data on the locations of T/E habitats. Site-specific identification of actual
T/E habitats will need to be performed for projects that may potentially impact T/E species.
If actual T/E habitats are located adjacent to a project, mitigation of indirect impacts can be
accomplished by implementing appropriate site planning and construction measures (e.g.,
adjusting locations of high-intensity land uses away from important habitats, and scheduling
construction to avoid important breeding or migrating seasons) during site-specific
development. If actual T/E habitats are located within a project, the mitigation conducted for
that project should also serve to replace the impacted habitat in order to ensure the conservation
of T/E species within the District. In particular, suitable nesting sites for least tern can be
created, osprey platforms can be constructed, and plantings of T/E flora can be established and
maintained. In addition, it is anticipated that the wetlands enhancement plan (see Section 5.1.5)
and the Environmental Improvement Program (see Section 2) will increase potential habitat for
threatened and endangered species throughout the District.
For additional enhancement of the District to protect Peregrine Falcon, the BA identified specific
conservation measures that could be taken to increase the use of the District by Peregrine Falcon.
In consultation with the NJ Endangered and Nongame Species Program and the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), peregrine nest platforms could be installed on tall buildings, bridges,
towers, elevated highways and other structures in the District. If the Meadowlands system has
additional carrying capacity for breeding birds, such a program could help to further expand the
peregrine population of the Mid-Atlantic Coast region. The existence of known nest sites in
accessible locations could facilitate research on productivity, current pollutant loads, and other
aspects of the biology of urban peregrines.
5-35
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
To further promote conservation of peregrines in the District by enhancing feeding habitat, the
following mitigation techniques are recommended when implementing wetland improvements:
reerading of edges of wetlands to decrease slope (specifically to produce mudflats usable by
shorebirds), creation of pools (the larger the better) where waterfowl can concentrate, grading of
pool perimeters (to very flat configurations usable by shorebirds), replacement of Phmgmites
monocultures with a diversity of tidal plants (the lower stature of tidal plants and possible use
of such areas as shorebird roosts would greatly improve hunting opportunities for peregrines),
creatine special habitats (such as shorebird flats), planting vegetation of special value to
waterfowl and creation of fairly large upland islands-preferably with freshwater pools (which
would provide shorebird roosts and increase diversity of other prey species). In addition, the
BA recommended that the signatory agencies to the SAMP Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with USFWS for the investigation and
implementation of T/E species conservation measures as part of the SAMP. This conservation
MOA will help assure that T/E species conservation measures will be realized through the
SAMP.
To best protect the interests of Peregrine Falcon in the District it is recommended that mitigation
of appropriate acreage be implemented and its effectiveness established (in tejmsof
enhancement of peregrine prey resources) before allowing development of SAMP development
parcels that now serve as average or better peregrine feeding habitat. To this extent, permit
authorizations for SAMP projects will require that wetland mitigation be performed m advance
of or concurrently with, the respective project. In addition, long-term monitoring and
maintenance will be required to assure that enhancement goals are realized.
Mitieation for remnant and unique (R/U) habitat impacts is not required under any federal or
state statute However, the major R/U habitat impact from the Preferred Alternative is the
predicted loss of approximately 70 acres of freshwater meadows. The proposed plan for
mitigating wetland impact includes the conversion of over 100 acres of existing brackish
wetlands to freshwater wetlands. Thus, the overall acreage of freshwater wetlands in the
District is anticipated to increase upon full realization of the Preferred Alternative.
5.5 Water Quality
5.5.1 Impacts to Water Quality from Planning/Satellite Areas
There are three sources of potential impact to water quality from the Planning/Satellite Areas.
One source of potential impact is additions to the existing wastewater loadings to the
wastewater treatment plants that serve the District. This increased source of wastewater may
It in increases in the volume of discharges from wastewater treatment facilities to the
Hackensack River and its tributaries, and to the Passaic River, along with increases in the mass
loading of treated wastewater constituents (point sources). The second source of potential
• pact results from increases in stormwater runoff (non-point source) to the Hackensack River
l^d its tributaries as a result of an increase in impervious surfaces. The third source of potential
water quality impact is from temporary construction activities (both point and non-point
urces) These three classes of water quality impacts, resulting from both point and non-point
S° rce runoff increases, are discussed in the following sections. Additionally, as discussed in
Setion 51 impacts to wetlands include reductions in the Water Quality Improvement attribute
5-36
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
indicator value of the District's wetlands. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of this
impact is discussed in Section 5.1.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow Increases
There are four separate authorities that collect and provide secondary-level treatment for
wastewater generated in the District (see Section 3, Description of the Affected Environment).
The Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA) operates the largest facility in the District, and
discharges approximately 70 million gallons per day (mgd) of secondary-level treated
wastewater into the Hackensack River. This plant has a design capacity of 100 mgd. BCUA
serves the municipalities west of the Hackensack River and north of Route 3 (Rutherford, East
Rutherford, Carlstadt, South Hackensack, Little Ferry and Teterboro) and Ridgefield.
Wastewater generated in the municipalities west of the Hackensack River and south of Route 3
(Lyndhurst, North Arlington, and Kearny) is now pumped to the 330 mgd capacity treatment
plant in Newark operated by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC), where it is
treated and discharged to the Passaic River.
Wastewater generated in North Bergen and Secaucus flows to the treatment plants operated by
each of these towns. North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority (NBMUA) operates a 10 mgd
capacity treatment plant that discharges to Chromakill Creek. Currently, the plant is treating
and discharging approximately 5.0 mgd. Secaucus Municipal Utilities Authority (SMUA)
operates a 5.1 mgd capacity treatment plant that discharges to Mill Creek. Currently, the plant
is treating and discharging approximately 3.6 mgd.
Projected flow increases to the four wastewater treatment plants have been calculated based on:
the Planning/Satellite Area locations (to determine which plant is most likely to serve each
Planning/Satellite Area); the amount of development projected for each Planning/Satellite Area;
and wastewater generation factors (generally in accordance with NJDEP wastewater generation
factors). Although NJDEP does not provide a wastewater generation factor for warehousing
land use, the rates for warehousing are typically about twenty percent of the generation rate
prescribed for office and commercial use (employee density and wastewater requirements are
approximately twenty percent lower in warehousing buildings, and the wastewater generated
per square foot of building space is proportionally lower). Because the NJDEP-prescribed
wastewater generation rates for residential use are given on a per person basis, a household size
of 2.4 persons per dwelling was used to convert growth projections from residential units to
residents. This factor is consistent with projected household sizes for the area. (Hackensack
Water Company uses a household size of 2.25 for their future water demand projections.)
The projected increases in wastewater flow to the four treatment plants are presented in Table
5-7. Wastewater flows are projected to increase by 6.1 mgd for the growth anticipated under the
Preferred Alternative.
Wastewater flows are projected to increase by 2.7 mgd to the BCUA treatment plant, by 0.5 mgd
to the NBMUA treatment plant, by 2.6 mgd to the SMUA treatment plant, and by 0.3 mgd to the
PVSC treatment plant. An increase of 2.7 mgd to the BCUA treatment plant resulting from new
growth would increase that plant's average flow 4 percent to approximately 72.7 mgd, below the
facility's 100 mgd capacity. An increase of 0.5 mgd to the NBMUA treatment plant would
5-37
-------
TABLE 5-7
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER FLOWS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Totals
Use	Quantity Units	Rate (gal/unit) Wastewater (m^d)
Office 17,750,700	sq.ft. 0.125 2.22
Commercial 2,700,720	sq.ft. 0.125 0.34
2nd Office 6,049,613	sq.ft. 0.125 0.76
Warehouse 9,074,419	jq.ft. 0.025 0.23
Residential	33,408 people	75 	2.51
6l)5~
To BCUA
(P/SAs l.S^.S^^.d.a.b.c^.f.h.ij.k.n.o.p.q.w.ar^t.av)
Use
Quantity Units
Rate (gal/unit) Wastewater (mgd)
Office
Commercial
2nd Office
Warehouse
Residential
7,938,810
2,265,120
1,994,177
2,991,265
14,292
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft
sq.ft.
people
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.025
75
0.99
0.28
0.25
0.07
1.07
2.67
To SMUA
(P/SAs 2,10,11,13,14,ag,ah,aw,ay,ba)
Use
Quantity
Units
Rate (gal/unit)
Wastewater (mgd)
Office
8,178,390
sq.ft.
0.125
1.02
Commercial
435,600
sq.ft.
0.125
0.05
2nd Office
804,118
sq.ft.
0.125
0.10
Warehouse
1,206,176
sq.ft.
0.025
0.03
Residential
18,060
people
75
1.35
2.56
To NBMUA
(P/SAs 12,s,vlaa,ab,ac,ae/af,az,bb)
U»e	Quantity Units	Rate (gal/unit) Wastewater (mgd)
Office 1,633,500	sq.ft. 0.125 0.20
Commercial 0	sq.ft 0.125 0.00
2nd Office 1,646,568	sq.ft. 0.125 0.21
Warehouse 2,469,852	sq.ft. 0.025 0.06
Residential	0 people	75	0.00
047"
To PVSC
(P/SAs 15(x,y,z,ajlak,am,aq,as)
Use
Quantity
Units
Rate (gal/unit)
Wastewater (mgd)
Office
0
sq.ft
0.125
0.00
Commercial
0
sq.ft.
0.125
0.00
2nd Office
1,604,750
sq.ft.
0.125
0.20
Warehouse
2,407,126
sq.ft
0.025
0.06
Residential
1,056
people
75
0.08
0.34
wastewpr.wkl
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
increase that plant's average flow 10 percent to approximately 5.5 mgd, below the facility's 10
mgd capacity. An increase of 2.6 mgd to the SMUA treatment plant would increase that plant's
average flow 72 percent to approximately 6.2 mgd, above the 5.1 mgd capacity of the SMUA
facility. An increase of 0.3 mgd to the PVSC treatment plant represents less than 0.1 percent of
that plant's capacity and would not significantly impact the treatment plant. Thus, except for
SMUA, the existing wastewater treatment facilities appear capable of accommodating projected
growth within their current design capacity and permit requirements. The lack of available
capacity at the SMUA facility can be solved in one of three ways: (1) the plant could expand to
accommodate the anticipated increase in flow, (2) a new treatment facility could be constructed
(e.g., in the southern Secaucus area), or (3) the developers or the town could arrange to pump
wastewater from some of the Planning Areas to other treatment plants (e.g., to PVSC, through
Jersey City).
BCUA has completed a major study of the impact of their discharge on the water quality of the
Hackensack River in 1990 (CBA, 1990). This study utilized a state-of-the-art computer model
(including EPA's SWMM and MIT-DNM) that included inputs from both point sources (e.g.,
wastewater treatment plant discharges, industrial discharges) and non-point sources (e.g.,
stormwater and combined sewer overflows, landfills, and Newark Bay). In this study, several
future alternatives were modeled, all of which assumed that each of the three treatment plants
discharging to the lower Hackensack River (BCUA, NBMUA, and SMUA) were discharging at
their design capacity.
The increases in flow to the three treatment plants under the Preferred Alternative are for the
most part lower than or equal to the increase that would bring the treatment plants to their
respective capacities. Thus, the results of all future alternatives modeling in the BCUA study
were used as an upper limit for the impacts from the increased wastewater loadings from the
Preferred Alternative. In other words, the projected impacts from the Preferred Alternative will
be less than the projected impacts from the future condition modeling performed for the BCUA
study. The projected impacts for various scenarios modeled on the BCUA study are discussed
below.
The BCUA study evaluated several future alternatives based on their impact to dissolved
oxygen (DO) in the lower Hackensack River. Dissolved oxygen is very important to the aquatic
ecosystem, and is an indicator of the overall water quality as it relates to the aquatic ecosystem.
Although low IX) is not the only water quality problem in the lower Hackensack River, DO
levels reflect the amounts of other nutrients and pollutants in the system. Thus, because the
only available information on future conditions in the Hackensack River is presented in terms of
dissolved oxygen, DO levels are being used in this EIS as a surrogate for most other wastewater-
related contaminants.
According to the BCUA study, under present conditions, the dissolved oxygen (DO) standard
(4.0 mg/1) was violated 19.0 percent of the time from June through September in the critical
reach of the Hackensack River (approximately two miles downstream of the BCUA discharge,
between Chromakill Creek and Berrys Creek Canal). In the BCUA study, a "Future No Action"
scenario was modeled, in which no wastewater treatment plant improvements would be made,
and the only change from present conditions being that BCUA, NBMUA, and SMUA treatment
5-39
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
plants would bo discharging at their design capacities. Under this "Future No Action" scenario,
the DO standard would be violated 21.3 percent of the time during the summer. Thus, the
future scenario with no plant improvements (and thus the maximum impact of the Preferred
Alternative) would increase by 2.3 percent the amount of time during the summer that the
Hackensack River would experience low DO concentrations.
BCUA realizes that, even under existing condition, there are water quality problems in the lower
Mackensack River. Thus, several modifications to the "Future No Action" scenario were also
modeled in the BCUA study to determine the effect that the major sources of pollutants to the
I lackensack River have on the water quality of the river. The BCUA study determined that the
major source of pollutant loading to the lower Mackensack River was tidal flows from Newark
Bay (contributing about 67% to 70% of the total pollutant load entering the lower Mackensack
River Basin). However, the BCUA study also concluded that this source of pollutants did not
have a significant effect on the water quality in the critical reach of the Hackensack River.
Modeling the future condition scenario without the inputs from the Newark Bay reduced the
percent of time the DO standard would be violated during the summer from 21.3 percent to 21.1
percent, an insignificant reduction.
The BCUA study determined that combined sewer overflows (CSOs), landfills, and stream
sediments contributed about 15% to 17% of the total nutrient and pollutant load (and thus the
oxygen demand) entering the lower Hackensack River Basin. These inputs were determined to
have a significant impact on the water quality in the critical reach of the Flackensack River.
Modeling the future condition scenario without the inputs from CSOs, landfills, and stream
sediments reduced the percent of time the DO standard would be violated in the summer from
21.3 percent to 13.8 percent. This represents almost a halving of the amount of time the
Flackensack River would experience low DO.
Another important component of the water quality degradation in the Hackensack River is the
discharge from the cooling water system for PSE&G's three power generating facilities. The
PSE&G Bergen County Generating Station discharges 639 mgd of once-through non-contact
cooling water to the Hackensack River just south of Overpeck Creek. The increased
temperature of the discharged water increases microbial activity, which in turn reduces the
dissolved oxygen in the river. The BCUA study concludes that PSE&G's thermal discharge
significantly impacts the water quality in the critical reach of the Hackensack River. Modeling
the future condition scenario without the thermal input from the PSE&G power plant reduced
the percent of time the DO standard would be violated from 21.3 percent to 13.8 percent, again
almost halving the amount of time the Hackensack River would experience low DO.
The BCUA treatment plant discharge was also determined by the BCUA study to have a
significant impact on water quality in the critical reach of the Hackensack River. Modeling the
future condition scenario without the discharge from the BCUA treatment plant reduced the
percent of time the DO standard would be violated from 21.3 percent to 3.8 percent.
The BCUA study also modeled a future condition scenario without both the BCUA and PSE&G
discharges. The result of this future condition scenario was that the percent of time the DO
standard would be violated was reduced from 21.3 percent to 0.8 percent. This indicates that
without the two largest discharges to the Hackensack River, the river would only occasionally
5-40
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
experience low DO concentrations, resulting from other sources of contaminants to the
Hackensack River, and low flows passing Oradell Dam that are insufficient to flush the river.
Based on the results of the BCUA study, there are three major sources of pollutants to the
Hackensack River which significantly affect the water quality of the Hackensack River: (1)
discharges from the BCUA treatment plant, (2) discharges from the PSE&G power plant, and (3)
non-point source discharges including CSOs, landfills, and benthos. Eliminating one (or even
two) of these sources will not achieve water quality standards in the Hackensack River.
Alternative modifications to the BCUA plant to increase the water quality of the Hackensack
River were evaluated in the BCUA study. The alternatives considered by BCUA included
relocating the outfall downstream to a point near Berrys Creek, increasing treatment of the
wastewater, and relocating the outfall to the Hudson River. The BCUA study recommends
relocating the outfall to near Berrys Creek, which would decrease the DO violation time (under
future plant-at-capacity conditions) to 5.5 percent. The study also recommends that NJDEP
determine the need to abate the thermal discharge from the PSE&G power plant, in order to
further improve the water quality of the lower Hackensack River.
NJDEP has an "anti degradation policy" towards waters in the state, such that, "...water quality
characteristics that are generally better than, or equal to the water quality standards shall be
maintained within a range of quality that shall protect the existing/designated uses ...Water
quality characteristics that are generally worse than the water quality criteria shall be improved
to meet the water quality criteria" (NJ Administrative Code (NJAC) 7:9B-1.5(d)6.iv). To this
extent, the SAMP embraces the ongoing water quality improvement efforts being taken by the
two principal point source dischargers into the lower Hackensack River—BCUA and PSE&G.
Based on current information, the most likely future scenario would involve relocation of
BCUA's outfall to near Berrys Creek, along with a major reduction in (and possible elimination
of) the thermal discharge from PSE&G (through re-powering of their plants). The BCUA study
did not model this scenario. However, the potential improvements in IX) can be bracketed by
the scenario involving relocating the outfall near Berrys Creek with no reduction of thermal
discharges (which would decrease the DO violations to 5.5 percent during the summer) and the
scenario involving removing the BCUA discharge from the Hackensack River entirely and also
eliminating 100% of PSE&G's thermal discharge (which would decrease the DO violations to 0.8
percent during the summer). Thus, the most likely future scenario would reduce DO violations
during the summer from an existing 19 percent of the time to between 0.8 and 5.5 percent of the
time.
In addition to water quality problems indicated by low dissolved oxygen, heavy metals and
toxics can be present in wastewater discharges. Given the nature of the proposed development,
however (predominantly office, commercial, and residential), significant additional heavy metal
or toxic loadings are not anticipated. However, industrial wastewater containing heavy metals
and/or toxics may require pretreatment to ensure that discharges of effluents from wastewater
treatment plants do not result in significant adverse impacts to surface waters.
5-41
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Stormwater Discharge Increases
Stormwater runoff would increase from the Planning/Satellite Areas as a result of the creation
of additional impervious surfaces in the District. Pollutants most frequently associated with
storm water include sediment, nutrients, bacteria, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease,
heavy metals, other toxic chemicals, and floatables. These pollutants and their impacts on water
quality and aquatic habitat are described as follows:
¦	Sediment is a common component of storm water, and is a pollutant in its own right.
Excessive sediment can be detrimental to aquatic life (primary producers, benthic
invertebrates and fish) by interfering with photosynthesis, respiration, growth, and
reproduction. In addition, the sediment can transport other pollutants that are attached to
it including nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons.
¦	Nutrients including nitrogen and phosphorous are found in storm water. These nutrients
can result in excessive or accelerated growth of vegetation or algae resulting in impaired
use of water. In addition, un-ionized ammonia (one of the nitrogen forms) can be toxic to
fish.
¦	Bacteria and viruses are common contaminants of stormwater. Main sources of these
contaminants are animal excrement and sanitary sewer overflows.
¦	Oxygen demanding substances including plant debris (such as leaves and lawn-clippings),
animal excrement, street litter, and organic matter are commonly found in stormwater.
Such substances depress the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in estuaries. Low DO levels can
be detrimental to fish and other oxygen-dependent aquatic organisms.
¦	Oil and grease contain a wide array of hydrocarbon compounds, some of which are toxic to
aquatic organisms at low concentrations. The main sources of oil and grease are leakage
from engines, spills at fueling stations, overfilled tanks, restaurant grease traps, and waste
oil disposal.
¦	Lead, zinc, cadmium, and copper are the heavy metals found most commonly in stormwater.
Chromium and nickel are also frequently present. Heavy metals are of concern because
they are toxic to aquatic organisms and can be bioaccumulative.
¦	Other toxic materials (priority pollutants) may be found in stormwater in low concentrations.
Pesticides, phenols, and polynuclear or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the
organics most frequently found in stormwater.
¦	Floatables in stormwater are pollutants that may contain significant amounts of heavy
metals, pesticides, and bacteria. Typically resulting from street refuse or industrial yard
waste, floatables also create an aesthetic "eye sore" in waterways or detention basins.
The primary sources of stormwater pollution in urban areas include automobiles and activities
associated with automobile use (pavement, bridges), housekeeping and landscaping practices,
industrial activities, construction, non-storm water connections to the drainage system,
accidental spills, and illegal dumping.
5-42
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
For the impact analysis it was assumed that stormwater runoff would be discharged from a
Planning/Satellite Area into the nearest stream or tidal channel without any structural or non-
structural controls. This provides an indication of the theoretical maximum potential impact
from stormwater flows. However, it should be noted that Best Management Practices for
stormwater control will be required as part of SAMP implementation (during site-specific
project review) to reduce water quality impacts in addition to wetland impacts (see Section
5.1.2).
The potential impact of stormwater discharges on water quality in the District was assessed by
estimating the impacts of specific pollutants to be discharged from each Planning/Satellite Area.
The mass of pollutants discharged during an average storm event was estimated using the
regression models that have been developed from the data collected in the National Urban
Runoff Program [NURP] (Tasker and Driver, 1988). These regression equations calculate the
mass contribution to a waterway in units of "pounds of contaminant per storm" discharged for
each modeled Planning/Satellite Area. These mass loadings were then converted into
concentrations based on the volume of water discharged during an average rain event from each
modeled area. The volume of rain during an average storm was based on an annual average
rainfall of 43 inches and an average of 50 rain events per year.
Of the ten contaminants for which NURP regression models have been developed, seven have
the potential to impact water quality in the District. These parameters are also good indicators
of overall water quality. They are:
¦	Chemical oxygen demand (COD) as a substitute for, and indicator of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), which was not modeled in the NURP analyses
¦	Total Suspended Solids (SS)
¦	Nitrogen (evaluated as total Kjeldahl nitrogen)
total nitrogen (TN)
ammonia (AN)
¦	Toxic metals
lead (Pb)
copper (Cu)
zinc (Zn)
Three contaminants for which NURP regression equations are available (dissolved solids, total
phosphorus, and dissolved phosphorus) were not evaluated in the impact analysis because they
are not considered to cause major impacts in estuarine areas as a result of high primary
productivity, such as that which presently occurs in the Meadowlands. Also, phosphorus is not
usually the limiting nutrient in estuarine areas (see discussion of nitrogen).
The predicted mass loadings (in terms of tons per year) and resultant average concentrations of
contaminants in the runoff (as calculated from the regression equations) were then compared
with the available data on ambient water quality values in the Hackensack River and its
tributaries. Where the estimated concentrations are greater than background, there is a potential
5-43
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
for some impact to w* quality in the vic^ -
^ "• maT Jft (,QuaU,ytCriteria
for Water EPA 440/5-86-001) and New Jersey water quality standards for SE21 class wa ers
(wfrchthe Hackensack Rive, between Overpeck Creek and Routes 1 and 9 » des.gna.ed),
;VN ^r^'C,Cd	A^hldy 0^the'hweTHackensack R^ver^CRA,3!?!^1 TIiVbCUA*
AN determmed in	s Jmwater contributed approximately 1,630 tons per year of
BOmo'he HaAensack River while benthos contributed 780 tons per year, landfills contributed
BOD to the Hacxe	. gs contributed 4,970 tons per year, and other sewage
treatment ^"combined sewer overflows, and dry weather overflows contributed 2,200 tons
per year of BOD.
mmnnia nitroeen loadings to the Hackensack River from the same
Determ.nat.ons °'^"m™^Xrmined 'hat ex,sting stormwater contributed
sources were also m •	Hackensack River, while benthos contributed 1,350
- Per y- BCUA d.scharges contributed 2*0 tons
peTyear S other sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, and dry weather
overflows contributed 330 tons per year of AN.
Mass loadings were determined in the BCUA study only for BOD and AN because these
fonsHwls most affect the dissolved oxygen concentrations >n the Hackensack R.ver, whtch
w«r subject of the BCUA study. The mass loadings calculated or th.s .mpact assessment
i ,1 COD suspended solids, total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen (AN), copper, lead, and zinc.
Thus fte only constituent that can be d.rectly compared between the	calculated
te thi impact assessment to the existing loadings determmed by the BCUA study ,s AN (The
ma's loading of AN from stormwater to the lower Hackensack R.ver bas.n patentedm the
mass ioduu h	regression equations can be applied to the entire
BCUA study » «	jLer HackLack River basin (the BCUA study's mass
the entire lower Hackensack River basin) in an attempt to calculate existing
loadings ar	stQrmwater to the Hackensack River for the other constituents, so
mass loading	between existing loadings, and predicted additional loadings from the
comparisons can	problem with that approach is that the relationship between
Preferred Mtemat^ The only pr ^ ^ ^	^ ^ ^ ^
example the mass loading calculated by the NURP equations for a 30-acre drainage area is not
three times the mass loading for a 10-acre drainage area.
,. p , . .k the method used to develop existing basin-wide loadings from stormwater
Appendix 1	model These estimated existing stormwater loadings
using both the ^U^'^ab,e 5-8, on the line titled "Lower Hackensack River Basin", and
atC '"Xn'thefollowing discussions of each contaminant to compare the predicted increased
toading from the Planning/Satellite Areas to the existing stormwater loads into the Hackensack
River.
5-44
-------
TABLE 5-8
STORM WATER IMPACTS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Planning/
Satellite
Area
Size
(Acrcit
COD
tens/vr
COD
m«/l
SS
toii/vr
SS
ms/l
TN
Uro/vr
TN
ma/I
AN
ttns/vr
AN
me/I
CU
iomAt
CU
me/1
PB
tens/vr
PB
mc/l
ZN
Uyis/vt
ZN
moil
1
40
1.4
7.0
8.7
44.7
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.08
0.002
0.008
0.004
0.020
0.003
0.013
2
7
0.7
20.3
5.1
150.0
0.03
0.84
0.03
0.76
0.001
0.024
0.002
0.061
0.001
0.037
3
166
4.5
5.6
22.6
27.8
0.13
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.004
0.006
0.012
0.015
0.009
0.011
4
124
3.3
5.4
17.6
28.9
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.003
0.006
0.009
0 015
0.006
0.010
5
31
1.2
7.8
7.8
51.7
0.04
0.29
0.04
0.26
0.001
0.009
0.003
0.023
0.002
0.015
6
12
0.8
13.8
5.8
98.5
0.01
0.20
0.01
0.18
0.001
0.016
0.002
0.041
0.001
0.025
7
47
1.5
6.5
9.4
41.1
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.08
0.002
0.007
0.004
0.019
0.003
0.012
7
62
1.8
6.0
10.9
36.1
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.07
0.002
0.006
0.005
0.017
0.003
0.011
7
6
0.7
22.9
5.0
170.1
0.01
0.34
0.01
0.32
0.001
0.027
0.002
0.069
0.001
0.042
9
15
0.9
11.9
6.1
83.6
0.01
0.17
0.01
0.16
0.001
0.014
0.003
0.035
0.002
0.022
10
10
0.8
15.6
5.5
113.1
0.01
0.23
0.01
0.21
0.001
0.018
0.002
0.047
0.001
0.029
10
65
1.9
5.9
11.3
35.4
0.06
0.20
0.06
0.18
0.002
0.006
0.005
0.017
0.004
0.011
11
30
1.2
7.9
7.7
52.7
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.001
0.009
0.003
0,023
0.002
0.015
11
50
1.6
6.4
9.7
39.8
0.02
O.Ofi
0.02
0.08
0.002
0.007
0.005
0.018
0.003
0.012
12
50
1.6
6.4
9.7
39.8
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.08
0.002
0.007
0.005
0.018
0.003
0.012
13
20
1.0
9.9
6.7
68.4
0.01
0.14
0.01
0.13
0.001
0.011
0.003
0.029
0.002
0.018
13
33
1.2
7.6
8.0
49.8
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.09
0.001
0.008
0.004
0 022
0.002
0.014
14
152
4.1
5.5
20.9
28.1
0.12
0.16
0.11
0.15
0.004
0.006
0.011
0.015
0.008
0.010
15
11
0.8
14.6
5.7
105.2
0.03
0.59
0.03
0.54
0.001
0.017
0.002
0.044
0.001
0.027
a
3.0
0.6
40.1
4.5
306.6
0.01
0.62
0.01
0.57
0.001
0.048
0.002
0.122
0.001
0.074
b
2.0
0.6
56.8
4.3
439.2
0.01
0.88
0.01
0.82
0.001
0.068
0.002
0.173
0.001
0.104
c
9.7
08
16.0
5.5
115.8
0.01
0.23
0.01
0.22
0.001
0.019
0.002
0.048
0.001
0.029
e
12.4
0.8
13.5
5.8
96.1
0.01
0.19
0.01
0.18
0.001
0.016
0.002
0.040
0.002
0.025
f
3.7
0.6
33.7
4.6
255.5
0.01
0.51
0.01
0.48
0.001
0.040
0.002
0.102
o.ooi
0.062
f
9.3
0.7
16.5
5.4
119.7
0.01
0.24
0.01
0.22
0.001
0.019
0.002
0.049
O.OOI
0.030
h
10.2
0.8
15.4
5.6
111.4
0.01
0.23
0.01
0.21
0.001
0.018
0.002
0.046
0.001
0.028
i
30.8
1.2
7.8
7.8
51.9
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.001
0.009
0.003
0.023
0.002
0.015
j
49.1
1.5
6.4
9.7
40.2
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.08
0.002
0.007
0.004
0.019
0.003
0.012
k
12.1
0.8
13.7
5.8
97.9
0.01
0.20
0.01
0.18
0.001
0.016
0.002
0.041
0.001
0.025
n
10.0
0.8
15.6
5.5
113.1
0.01
0.23
0.01
0.21
0.001
0.018
0.002
0.047
0.001
0.029
o
1.7
0.5
65.4
4.2
508.5
0.01
1.02
0.01
0.95
0.001
0.079
0.002
0.200
0.001
0.120
P
10.2
0.8
15.4
5.6
111.1
0.01
0.22
0.01
0.21
0.001
0.018
0.002
0.046
O.OOI
0.028
q
3.1
0.6
39.0
4.5
297.9
0.01
0.60
0.01
0.56
0.001
0.047
0.002
0.119
O.OOI
0.072
•
30.7
1.2
7.9
7.8
52.0
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.001
0.009
0.003
0.023
0.002
0.015
V
30.3
1.2
7.9
7.8
52.4
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.001
0,009
0.003
0.023
0.002
0.015
w
3.9
0.6
32.2
4.7
244.2
0.01
0.49
0.01
0.46
0.001
0.038
0.002
0.098
0.001
0.059
w
32.8
1.2
7.6
8.0
50.0
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.09
0.001
0.009
0.004
0.022
0.002
0.014
w
3.0
0.6
40.1
4.5
306.6
0.01
0.62
0.01
0.57
0.001
0.048
0.002
0.122
0.001
0.074
X
23.9
1.0
9.0
7.1
60.8
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.11
0.001
0.010
0.003
0.026
0.002
0.017
X
22.3
1.0
9.3
6.9
63.6
0.01
0.13
0.01
0.12
0.001
0.011
0.003
0.028
0.002
0.017
y
4.0
0.6
31.6
4.7
239.0
0.01
0.48
0.01
0.45
0.001
0.038
0.002
0.096
0.001
0.058
I
20.8
1.0
9.7
6.8
66.6
0.01
0.14
0.01
0.13
0.001
0.011
0.003
0.029
0.002
0.018
aa
13.2
0.8
12.9
5.9
91.7
0.01
0.19
0.01
0.17
0.001
0.015
0.002
0.039
0.002
0.024
ab
7.5
0.7
19.3
5.2
141.9
0.01
0.29
0.01
0.27
0.001
0.023
0.002
0.058
0.001
0.036
ac
4.4
0.6
29.2
4.7
220.4
0.01
0.44
0.01
0.41
0.001
0.035
0.002
0.089
0.001
0.054
ae/af
60.8
1.8
6.0
10.8
36.4
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.07
0.002
0.006
0.005
0.017
0.003
0.011
ag
36.5
1.3
7.2
8.4
47.0
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.09
0.001
0.008
0.004
0.021
0.002
0.013
ah
8.1
0.7
18.2
5.3
133.4
0.01
0.27
0.01
0.25
0.001
0.021
0.002
0.055
0.001
0.034
"i
27.1
1.1
8.4
7.4
56.1
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.V1
0.001
0.009
0.003
0.025
0.002
0.016
ak
32.3
1.2
7.7
8.0
50.5
002
0.10
0.02
0.09
0.001
0.009
0004
0.022
0.002
0.014
am
5.0
0.6
26.4
4.8
197.9
0.01
0.40
0.01
0.37
0.001
0.031
0,002
0.080
0.001
0.049
aq
30.8
1.2
7.8
7.8
51.9
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.001
0.009
0.003
0.023
0.002
0.015
ar
14.9
0.9
11.9
6.1
84.0
0.01
0.17
0.01
0.16
0.001
0.014
0.003
0.03b
0002
0.022
at
81.5
2.2
5.6
12.9
32.4
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.06
0.002
0.006
0.006
0.016
0.004
0.011
at
1.7
0.5
65.4
4.2
508.5
0.01
1.02
0.01
0.95
0.001
0.079
0.002
0.200
o.ooi
0.120
av
5.3
0.7
25.2
4.9
188.5
0.01
0.38
0.01
0.35
0.001
0.030
0.002
0.076
O.OOI
0.046
aw
18.3
0.9
10.5
6.5
72.7
0.01
0.15
0.01
0.14
0.001
0.012
0.003
0.031
0.002
0.019
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
The mass loadings and discharge concentrations fo, the	each
development area in the Preferred Alternative are presented m Table 5 8.
contaminant are discussed below.
COO	Oxygen	The
from the Planning/Satellite Areas ranges between 54mg/l and1 6*4 g	P
areas, with all but the three smallest satellite	COD at the 18 stations
4° mg/1. The	and 300 mg/1. All of the predicted
monitored by HMDC rang	annrnximatelv equal to or less than recorded
stormwater runoff.
Ł5,,"1
uncontrolled loading of less than 3 percent.
^ i sjc) Thp mncentration of suspended solids discharged in the stormwater for
SS	«o Ł to-« ***» lhan ,h0S
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
than 1.0 tng/1 and most are less than 0.5 mg/1. Although monitoring data for total nitrogen or
ammonia are not available, information gathered on TKN (total Kjeldahl nitrogen) can be used
for comparison. TKN is a combined measure of organic nitrogen and ammonia, which in
estuarine marshes comprise most of the nitrogen. Of the 90 annual average values for TKN
measured by HMDC (18 locations monitored for 6 years), only 14 values were below 1 mg/1,
and most were in the 2 mg/1 to 4 mg/1 range. All of the predicted concentrations in the
stormwater discharges are approximately equal to or less than recorded nitrogen levels, thus
there is little potential for increases in existing nitrogen concentrations from additional
stormwater runoff.
The mass loading of total nitrogen from the Planning/Satellite Areas is estimated to be
approximately 1.2 tons per year, an increase of 1 percent above the 100 tons per year estimated
loading of total nitrogen to the lower Hackensack from existing stormwater runoff. The mass
loading of ammonia nitrogen from the development areas is estimated to be approximately
1.1 tons per year, representing an increase of 1 percent above the 90 tons per year loading of
ammonia nitrogen to the lower Hackensack from existing stormwater (existing loading as
calculated in the BCUA study). When compared to the 12,200 tons per year ammonia nitrogen
total loading from sewage treatment plants, landfills, stormwater, and other existing sources (as
calculated in the BCUA study), the increased ammonia nitrogen loadings from stormwater flows
generated from the Planning/Satellite Areas represents less than a 0.01 percent increase. Thus,
the Planning/Satellite Areas will have no significant impact on nitrogen loadings to the
Hackensack River.
In estuarine areas nitrogen, rather than phosphorus, becomes the limiting nutrient for plant
growth. As a result, the nitrogen loading to estuaries is a critical factor in assessing the potential
for water quality impacts. In the lower Hackensack River, however, the existing nitrogen
loadings are very high, and the ambient concentrations of inorganic nitrogen (as nitrate, nitrite,
and ammonium) are very much above threshold levels below which phytoplankton growth is
inhibited. As in most eutrophic estuaries, the limiting factor for phytoplankton growth is light.
The light penetration in the estuary is limited by the high populations of phytoplankton, and by
suspended sediments. Nitrogen begins to limit phytoplankton growth below concentrations of
0.05 mg/1 inorganic nitrogen. The concentrations of inorganic nitrogen as measured by HMDC
staff are in the 1-3 mg/1 range. Discharges projected to be approximately equal to or lower than
the ambient concentrations will have little potential of impacting nutrient dynamics in the
estuary.
Copper. The EPA salt water acute toxic water quality criterion for Copper is 0.0029 mg/1.
Because the stormwater discharges are sporadic rather than continuous, the acute criterion is the
appropriate measure in assessing water quality impacts from stormwater discharges. The acute
criterion was developed to protect marine organisms from a single discharge event, while the
chronic criteria was developed to protect organisms from continuous discharges. New Jersey
has no water quality criterion for copper. All of the stormwater discharges are predicted to
exceed the EPA acute toxic water quality criterion at the point of discharge, before mixing with
the receiving stream. Again, standard stormwater detention controls are recommended to
reduce copper discharges, particularly for the smaller Planning/Satellite Areas, where there is
5-47
-------
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
less chance for filtration and settling that occurs during overland flow to remove contaminants
from the stormwater.
The mass loading of copper from the Planning/Satellite Areas is estimated to be approximately
"nTper yel an incase of less than 3 percent above the estimated ex^ng load,ng of 3.0
tons per year from stormwater runoff.
lead The EPA salt water acute toxicity water quality criterion for lead is 0.22 mg/L None of the
Lead. 1 he hi a san w e	/	predicted to exceed this value. The highest
rotnlHor1rpaSc« hi lead in the ^wa^d^^^Plann,ng/Sa,en,,e ^
New Jersey has no water quality criterion for lead for SE2 class wa
(^^^Tpery^^frep'r^nting	the esS™ted existin«
load of 7.8 tons per year from stormwater runoff.
¦7 ThP FP A acute toxicity water quality criteria for zinc in marine waters is 0.095 mg/1. The
Zinc. The EPA	ty	. Water coming from all but the three smallest Satellite
f ma'ld	SSH TWore, tee is .Me potent for impacts
ŁTic in the stormwater discharges from the Wanning/Satellite Areas. New Jersey has no
water quality criterion for zinc.
The mass loading of zinc from the development areas is estimated to be approximately 0.13 tons
per year, an increase of less than 3 percent above the estimated existing loadmg of 4.8 tons per
year from stormwater runoff.
Summary of Stormwater Runoff Impacts
, * i imnarts on water quality from seven contaminants typically present in stormwater
. mass loading rates caiculated from EFA's^National Urban Runoff
0	ZOf the seven contaminants modeled, only three-suspended solids, copper and
Program d . ^ (o be present in stormwater discharges from the Planning/Satellite
TeCas af concentrations greater than measured ambient concentrations in the District, or above
Areas at co	cfanriards where ambient concentrations are not available. Standard
EPA's Go °°ention controls are recommended (and will be required by the SAMP) to reduce
stormwate	ded sediment discharges, particularly for the smaller Planning/Satellite
for filtration and settling that occur during overland flow to
r-please 866 ^for fate discussion of
stormwater controls.
The Planning/Satellite Areas have the potential to increase loadings of contaminants by between
1	he l iann g/	. stormwater loadings to the system. This translates to an overa
, and 3 percent °f heex shng^sto ^ ^	mvet of less lhan 0.]5 perceIlt (The
RCU A^odetog^oncluded that stormwater contributes less than five percent of the total
tatagTto the Hackensack River). Thus, the water quality impacts from the Planning/Satellite
Areas should be minimal.
5-48
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Temporary Construction Impacts on Water Quality
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative will include construction activities in the Planning/
Satellite Areas and along the transportation improvement corridors. These construction
activities may have temporary and localized impacts on water quality. The primary impact will
be from the disturbance of soils, which will lead to increased sediment discharges into nearby
streams, creeks, or wetlands. The impacts will cease once final site grading and landscaping is
completed. These temporary localized impacts should have no significant long-term impacts on
the water quality in the District. Additionally, it is recommended that standard construction
practices, such as the application of hay or mulch ground cover, be implemented to minimize
construction-related sedimentation impacts.
5.5.2 Impacts to Water Quality from Transportation Improvements
The primary impact to water quality from the transportation improvement component of the
Preferred Alternative will be from increased stormwater runoff from the widened and new
roads in the District. Stormwater runoff would increase from the creation of additional
impervious surfaces. Associated with this stormwater runoff are potential water contaminants
such as oils and grease, metals, lawn fertilizer, dirt and soil, road salt and sand, and other debris.
In addition, temporary construction impacts similar to those discussed in Section 5.5.1 may
result from construction of the transportation improvements.
For the water quality impact analysis from the increased road surfaces, a slightly different
approach than what was used for the Planning /Satellite Area impact analysis was taken. The
NURP data that was used in the Planning/Satellite Area impact ^talysis does not include data
taken exclusively from roadways, but includes effects of runoff from secondary roads within
land uses. Average concentrations in stormwater runoff from major highways is reported by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 1990). For this analysis, it was assumed that the
FHWA concentrations would apply to the additional impervious road surface from the
Preferred Alternative.
Table 5-8 lists the FHWA concentrations for COD, suspended solids, total nitrogen
(concentrations for ammonia nitrogen were not available from the FHWA), copper, lead, and
zinc. In addition, Table 5-8 presents the predicted annual load of each of these constituents (in
tons per year), from the 141 additional acres of roadways (using an annual rainfall of 43.2
inches). Because the assumed stormwater concentrations are independent of project size,
estimates of localized impacts are not possible.
When comparing the annual load from the transportation improvements to the estimated
existing annual load of stormwater pollutants from the lower Hackensack River basin, the new
and widened portions of highways are predicted to increase stormwater loads by less than 3
percent for COD, less than 1 percent for suspended solids, 1 percent for total nitrogen, 1 percent
for copper, 5 percent for lead and 5 percent for zinc. It should be noted, however, that the
FHWA concentrations used in this analysis are based on data collected when some automobiles
still used leaded gasoline. Thus, as almost no vehicles still use leaded gasoline, the runoff of
lead from roadways will be less than predicted by this analysis. However, as with the
Planning/Satellite Areas, standard stormwater detention controls are recommended to reduce
metals loadings to the Hackensack River.
5-49
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.5.3	Impacts to Water Quality from the Environmental Improvement Program
The EIP will have a positive impact on water quality in the District by continuing the existing
basin-wide water quality monitoring program, by establishing a program to control non-point
discharges in the District, and by enhancing wetlands to increase their water quality
improvement functions. In addition, the reduction in landfill leachates (conducted through the
solid waste initiatives of the EIP), the cleanup of hazardous waste sites (conducted through the
hazardous waste initiatives of the EIP), and the reduction in the non-permitted releases of
pollutants (conducted through the enforcement initiatives of the EIP) will all reduce the amount
of nutrients and toxic pollutants currently coming from these sources.
The District-wide monitoring program continues an existing water quality monitoring program
being conducted by HMDC and US Geologic Survey (USGS). The purpose of the monitoring
program is to provide information on the quality of water in the District to support decision-
making, and provide feedback of the success of many EIP programs. In addition, the
monitoring program discussed in the EIP will attempt to measure the impacts from individual
sources of pollution, such as landfills, hazardous waste sites, and stormwater discharges.
The water quality monitoring program will also provide data in support of the efforts to control
non-point pollution. The primary focus of the attempt to reduce non-point pollution will be on
best management practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants conveyed to water bodies through
stormwater and combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges. This program will positively
impact the water quality in the District by reducing the amount of pollutants currently
introduced by stormwater discharges and CSOs in the District.
5.5.4	Mitigation of Water Quality Impacts
Although non-point source loadings may have a slight negative impact on the existing low
water quality in the District (providing stormwater detention is employed to aid in the removal
of urban runoff pollutants), other efforts are likely to improve water quality in the District. The
SAMP embraces on-going water quality improvement efforts being undertaken by major point
source discharges to the lower Hackensack River (see Section 5.5.1). The conclusion of the water
quality analyses described above is that these water quality improvement efforts, together with
the stormwater management controls (BMPs) discussed below, and the other water quality
improvements effected by the EIP, will result in a significant improvement in water quality in
the District.
Standard stormwater detention controls are recommended (and will be required by the SAMP)
to reduce lead, zinc, copper and suspended sediment discharges, particularly for the smaller
Planning/Satellite Areas, where there is less chance for filtration and settling that occur during
overland flow to remove contaminants from the stormwater.
In the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), Congress recognized
that nonpoint pollution is a key factor in the continuing degradation of many coastal waters and
established a new program to address this pollution. To address more specifically the impacts
of nonpoint source pollution on coastal water quality, Congress enacted section 6217,
"Protecting Coastal Waters." This section provides that each State with an approved coastal
zone management program must develop and submit to EPA and the National Oceanic and
5-50
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for approval a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program. The purpose of the program "shall be to develop and implement management
measures for nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect coastal waters, working in close
conjunction with other State and local authorities." To address the new legislation, NJDEP is in
the process of developing a State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control ("Section 6217") Program
for New Jersey. This program will include specific management measures and practices to
reduce nonpoint source pollution from (among other things) new construction (both during
construction and post-construction), and from hydromodification (e.g., channel modification).
The SAMP will need to comply with New Jersey's Section 6217 Program. This compliance will
be in the form of stormwater management techniques, also known as best management practices
(BMPs).
Stormwater BMPs are a method used nationwide to reduce pollutants that are typically found in
stormwater (such as those discussed in Section 5.5.1). Stormwater BMPs are typically divided
into two categories: source control BMPs and treatment control BMPs. Examples of source
control BMPs that might be appropriate to developments in the District include: public
education; prevention of illegal dumping and illicit connections; spill prevention and cleanup
response; material use, exposure and disposal controls; and street and storm drain maintenance.
Examples of applicable treatment control BMPs include: vegetated swales; extended detention
basins; constructed wetlands or flow spreaders into existing wetlands; and media filtration
(typically sand filters). The SAMP will require the use of appropriate BMPs by developers to
mitigate for stormwater impacts. Example stormwater management methods (BMPs) to control
sources of nonpoint pollution that are appropriate for use in the SAMP are listed in Table 5-9.
To minimize temporary water quality impacts from construction activities, the use of standard
(Soil Conservation Services, or those described in the NJ Section 6217 Program) soil controls will
be required.
5.6 Soils
The combined impacts on soils from the Preferred Alternative would primarily consist of the
potential disturbance of 842 acres of marsh soils and 1,363 acres of udorthents and urban land
soils. Mitigation of these impacts will include implementation of soil erosion and sedimentation
control and soil conservation measures.
5.6.1 Impacts to Soils from Planning/Satellite Areas
Development under the Preferred Alternative would affect two types of soils: the marsh soils
composed of fine silts and clays that occur naturally in the area, and udorthents and urban land
soils that exist as a result of past dredge-and-fill activities. The soil surfaces that have the
potential to be disturbed as a result of the Planning/Satellite Areas total approximately 1,690
acres. Depending on their specific composition at a given location, the udorthents and urban
land soils are likely to be more suitable for construction activities than the natural marsh soils.
Approximately 940 acres of udorthents and urban land soils will be directly impacted (built
upon) under the Preferred Alternative. Construction on marsh soils will involve approximately
750 acres and will require fill to raise the grade above the 100-year flood plain. Buildings on
marsh soils would generally require special foundation structures, such as pilings.
5-51
-------
TABLE 5-9
EXAMPLE MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR
SOURCES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION
I.	Management Measures For Urban Areas
Reduce Runoff from New Development. Reduce suspended solids levels to no
greater than predevelopment levels. Peak runoff rate not to exceed predevelopment
levels.
Watershed Protection. Avoid conversion of erodible areas, preserve areas providing
water quality benefits, and protect the natural integrity of waterbodies and natural
drainage systems.
Site Development. Design sites to protect areas that provide important water quality
benefits, limit increases in impervious area, and limit land disturbance activities.
Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Reduce erosion and retain sediment
onsite during and after construction.
Existing Development. Identify watershed pollutant reduction opportunities, and
enhance buffers along surface waterways.
Pollution Prevention. Reduce discharge of pollutants into storm drains, and prevent
improper storage, use, and disposal of household hazardous chemicals.
Road, Highway, and Bridge Runoff Systems. Implement controls for non-point
pollutants.
II.	Management Measures for Hydromodification
Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration. Minimize the effects of channel
modification on instream and riparian habitats to reduce undesirable impacts.
Management of Eroding Streambanks and Shorelines. Stabilize streambank and
shoreline erosion, and protect streambanks and shorelines from erosion.
III.	Management Measures for Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Protect Wetlands and Riparian Areas. Protect wetlands and riparian areas that serve
a significant NPS abatement function, while protecting the other existing functions.
Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas. Promote the restoration of the preexisting
water quality improvement functions in damaged and destroyed wetlands and
riparian systems.
IV.	Monitoring of Management Measures
Monitoring to Assess Implementation. Operation, and Maintenance of Management
Measures. Initiate sampling, data analysis, and the interpretation of results to assess
the success of measures implemented to reduce pollution loads and improve water
quality.
(Source: Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution, EPA, 1993)
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Construction activity that disturbs soils has the potential to cause soil erosion and sedimentation
into local waterways (see Section 5.5), and degrade nearby wetlands (see Section 5.1). Soil
disturbance also has the potential to expose soils containing reduced sulfur and create sulfuric
acid which will reduce the pH of surrounding water and cause difficulty revegetating. Possible
acid producing soils in the District include udorthents, organic and wet substratum (Ub, Ue, Uf)
and Marsh soils (su-sulifihemists, sulfiaguents, frequently flooded).
5.6.2	Impacts to Soils from Transportation Improvements
Transportation improvements will affect the same two types of soil: the marsh soils that occur
naturally in the area, and udorthents and urban land soils that exist as a result of past dredge-
and-fill activities. The 516-acre area expected to be disturbed by the transportation
improvement projects is comprised of 92 acres of marsh soils (based on the direct wetland
impact) and 424 acres of udorthents and urban land soils. As stated above, construction activity
that disturbs soils has the potential to cause soil erosion and sedimentation into local waterways
and degrade nearby wetlands. Soil disturbance has the potential to expose soils containing
reduced sulfur and create sulfuric acid which will reduce the pH of surrounding water and
cause difficulty revegetating.
The construction of new roads and widening of existing roads will replace soil surface with
impervious surface, although the amount is relatively minor compared to the total impervious
surface in the District.
5.6.3	Impacts to Soils from the Environmental Improvement Program
The EIP is not expected to have any direct impacts on soils. Incidental disturbance of soils will
occur in the performance of many of the initiatives of the EIP, including landfill closure,
hazardous waste clean-up, the creation of new parks and recreation areas, and wetland
enhancement activities.
5.6.4	Mitigation of Soils Impacts
Strict implementation of standard soil erosion and sediment control measures during temporary
construction-related disturbances has been shown to mitigate the movement of soil off the site
and minimize the acid producing potential of the soil.
Methods for controlling erosion and consequent sedimentation due to runoff are described in
the New Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (New Jersey State Soil Conservation
Committee 1987) regulations. Both vegetative and structural mitigative measures will be
applied to construction projects within the District in order to mitigate possible impacts.
Controlling erosion and sedimentation through the application of vegetative measures includes
hydroseeding or application of ground cover, such as hay or mulch, the selection of plant
species that are adapted to the site and the planting purpose, and limiting maximum grades of
embankment slopes to 3:1 wherever possible.
Uncontrolled runoff, particularly during construction, may form rills and gullies, scour
cut-and-fill areas, fill drainage ditches and load streams with sediment, or have other damaging
5-53
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
results on- and off-site. Proven soil conservation practices during and after construction can
prevent or reduce this damage. The practices may be either temporary (for the duration of
construction) or permanent design elements. Land grading, diversion structures, and water
quality basins are the more common structural measures used for control of erosion and
sedimentation. Many of these will be required by the SAMP for construction in the District.
5.7 Surface Water Hydrology and Groundwater
The Preferred Alternative will affect the surface water hydrology by altering the existing
hydrology of certain wetlands in the District. Mitigation efforts consist of reconnecting isolated
wetlands to the hydrologic network of the District. Because most of the District lies within the
lower elevations of a river valley, most locations are groundwater discharge zones. While the
Planning/Satellite Areas and Transportation Improvements will result in only negligible
changes to groundwater discharge, the EIP will result in substantial control of landfill pollutants
currently being discharged to the surface water system (see Section 5.5).
5.7.1 Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology and Groundwater from Planning/
Satellite Areas
Surface Water Hydrology Impacts
Development of the Planning/Satellite Areas will not involve any fill activity in major streams
or rivers. The primary impact on surface water hydrology would be caused by localized
alteration of existing surface flow patterns, a result of redirecting and modifying existing flow
patterns around Planning/Satellite Areas. This type of impact would occur primarily in areas
where existing wetlands receive overland flow from upstream locations and where the
contiguity of the wetland has been interrupted by a Planning/Satellite Area. There are four
such situations around Planning Areas "3", "4", and "12", and Satellite Area "j". Localized
drainage in these areas would be altered by project development, but no significant alteration of
the hydrology of the surrounding area is anticipated. Additional impacts to surface water
hydrology could be caused by the conveyance of stormwater from the developed areas without
appropriate detention. Use of standard stormwater detention facilities (see Section 5.5.4) is
recommended to hold post-development drainage to pre-development rates, and to remove
pollutants in runoff.
Approximately 13,288 acres of the District are included within the federally delineated (FEMA)
100-year floodplain. However, no development is anticipated within the floodway. Existing
regulations restrict the potential encroachment of proposed development of the floodway with
respect to two potential impacts: (1) construction within the floodway by development so as to
cause backwater effects and related flooding; and (2) reduction of the floodway by development
so as to reduce the flood-carrying capacity of the floodway.
The Preferred Alternative will result in development of approximately 1,257 acres of the
floodplain. However, the Meadowlands District experiences tidal, not fluvial, flooding,
whereby flooding is caused principally by the elevation of offshore tidal surges, related to storm
effects, wind, and tidal change. Because the storage area for precipitation over estuarine and
ocean environments is so large, flooding is not significantly affected by rainfall or channel
geometry. For the analysis of the flooding impacts from the Preferred Alternative, an extreme
5-54
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
worst case analysis is presented, whereby the District would experience fluvial flooding (i.e.,
produced by flow from upstream in the river). The impacts of growth in the District on tidal
flooding events, which are the predominant flood type in the District, would be negligible—an
upper limit maximum impact can be considered the fluvial flooding event.
The loss of 1,257 acres of floodplain represents approximately 9.5 percent of the 13,288 acres
currently available to hold 100-year flood waters, assuming flood effects are confined within the
District. Locations of Planning/Satellite Areas within the floodplain are identified in Figure 5-7.
Using simple calculations related to the volume and surface area of the 100-year floodplain it is
estimated that development in the Planning/Satellite Areas has the potential to increase the
water surface elevation of the 100-year flood, which is currently about elevation 8.5 feet, by
approximately three to six inches, as a result of floodplain displacement in a fluvial flood event
(i.e., produced by flow from upstream in the river). The effects of development under a tidal
flood event are significantly lower, but cannot be quantified without complex ocean modeling.
The floodplain area lost to development is shown, by Planning/Satellite Area, in Table 5-10.
The additional water to be removed from the reservoirs along the upper Hackensack River to
provide water supply for the proposed development (see Section 5.10) will have a negligible
effect on the existing limited supply of freshwater from the upper Hackensack River to the lower
Hackensack River (as a result of the Oradell Dam). Although there exists a minimum release
requirement of 10 million gallons per day at the Oradell Dam, gauging records indicate that
releases from the dam were frequently recorded to be zero during low flow periods.
Groundwater Impacts
Impacts to groundwater from the Planning/Satellite Areas are predicted to be negligible. Water
supply to the proposed development areas will be from existing surface water sources outside
the Meadowlands District (see Section 5.10). There is no known use of groundwater for potable
supply purposes within the District. Thus, the Preferred Alternative will not withdraw any
water from the groundwater, and should have no impact on the groundwater table.
5.7.2 Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology and Groundwater from Transportation
Improvements
Surface Water Hydrology Impacts
Development of the transportation improvements will not involve any fill activity in major
streams, ditches, or rivers. Small ditches alongside existing roadways may be filled for some
widening projects (e.g., the Newark/Jersey City Turnpike widening). Bridges will be used to
span any open water that the transportation improvements are expected to cross (e.g., the
Hackensack River and Berrys Creek crossings of the West Shore Railway). The primary impact
on surface water hydrology would be caused by alteration of existing surface flow patterns
around the locations of new roads and railways. Because of the linear nature of the new roads
and railways (e.g., the West Shore Railway, the Waterfront Corridor Transit Railway, the Route
17 extension, and the NJ Turnpike Secaucus Transfer Interchange projects), significant impacts
to surface water hydrology are likely to occur if appropriate measures are not taken to preserve
existing hydrology. To minimize these impacts, the SAMP will require that any new roads or
railroads built in the District provide for the maintenance of existing surface flow patterns. This
5-55
-------
TABLE 5-10
FLOODPLAIN ENCROACHMENT
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Area Within
Area Outside

Area Within
Area Outside

100-year
100-year

100-year
100 —year
Planning
Flood Plain
Flood Plain
Satellite
Flood Plain
Flood Plain
Area
(acres)
(acres)
Area
(acres)
(acres)
1
33.9
6.1
a
3.0
0.0
2
7.0
0.0
b
2.0
0.0
3
166.0
0.0
c
1.6
8.1
4
124.0
0.0
e
12.4
0.0
5
31.0
0.0
f
13.0
0.0
6
0.0
12.0
h
10.2
0.0
7
107.5
7.5
i
27.1
3.7
9
15.0
0.0
j
45.4
3.7
10
75.0
0.0
k
12.1
0.0
11
52.0
28.0
n
7.8
2.2
12
48.2
1.8
0
0.1
1.6
13
17.9
35.1
P
8.2
2.0
14
82.5
69.5
q
3.1
0.0
15
0.0
11.0
s
7.3
23.4
Subtotal
760.0
171.0
V
30.3
0.0



w
39.7
0.0



X
43.7
2.5



y
0.5
3.5



z
3.1
17.7



aa
13.2
0.0



ab
3.6
3.9



ac
4.4
0.0



ae/af
15.7
45.1



ag
0.0
36.5



ah
5.2
3.0



aj
6.7
20.4



ak
31.5
0.8



am
5.0
0.0



aq
19.8
11.0



ar
14.9
0.0



as
69.0
12.5



at
1.7
0.0



av
5.3
0.0



aw
5.9
12.4



ay
3.0
0.0



az
4.9
25.7



ba
4.7
21.7



bb
11.5
0.0



Subtotal
496.6
261.3
Existing 100-yr Flood Plain Area (acres)	=====================^^
13287.7	Total	1256.6	432.3
Remaining 100-yr Flood Plain Area (acres)
12031.1
feoi.wkl
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
requirement could be met through the installation of culverts under the road or railroad surface
to replicate existing flow patterns, especially to re-connect wetlands and drainage ways that may
be bisected by the road or railroad. Adherence to this requirement would reduce the surface
water hydrology impacts to a minimal level.
Groundwater Impacts
As was discussed for the Planning/Satellite Areas, no impacts to groundwater are expected to
result from the transportation improvements.
5.7.3	Impacts to Surface Water Hydrology and Groundwater from the
Environmental Improvement Program
The implementation of the EIP will improve control of the flooding presently exhibited in the
District, and will enhance drainage and stormwater management capabilities. The EIP proposes
to conduct several studies related to flooding in the District, including a regional flood study,
and specific studies to determine possible solutions to flooding in particular areas in the District.
Based on the results of these studies, flood control measures such as tide gates will be
constructed to reduce the effects of existing flooding problems. In addition to structural controls
such as tide gates, levees, pumps, and flood walls, implementation of the EIP will reduce
flooding by increasing the effectiveness of existing wetlands (in some cases, by removing
existing fill material to increase flood storage capacity) in the District to store flood waters.
5.7.4	Mitigation of Surface Water Hydrology and Groundwater Impacts
To mitigate for the potential localized alteration of surface water hydrology from Planning/
Satellite Area development, site planning will emphasize reconnecting isolated wetlands to the
hydrologic network of the District. As was discussed above, specific mitigation methods
include: installation of culverts under roads or railroads, maintenance of existing stormwater
peak flows, and maintenance of existing flow patterns through Planning/Satellite Areas. Site
planning approaches will be overseen by HMDC through site plan review authority; NJDEP, as
related to water quality certification, and federal agencies when federal permits are necessary.
There are no anticipated impacts to groundwater resources in the District.
5.8 Land Use and Zoning
5.8.1 Impacts to Land Use and Zoning from Planning/Satellite Areas
Land Use Impacts
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative will expand residential, office, commercial/retail,
and industrial land uses in the District. Under the Preferred Alternative, the area devoted to
primary and secondary office space would increase from 250 to 640 acres, residential uses would
increase from 300 acres to 722 acres, commercial uses would increase from 362 acres to 429 acres,
and industrial uses (including warehousing) would increase from 3,616 to 4,099 acres.
Additionally, the amount of dedicated open space would increase from 1,798 to 3,705 acres.
After full implementation of the Preferred Alternative, the largest future land uses in the District
would be industrial land (4,099 acres), dedicated open space (3,705 acres), and land classified
5-57
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
under HMDC's land use inventory as vacant (2,568 acres, which includes wetlands,
undeveloped uplands, abandoned industrial sites, and historic landfill areas). Land use after
implementation of the Preferred Alternative (broken down by land use category and
municipality) is presented in Table 5-11.
Most of the increase in active land uses—residential, office, commercial/retail, and industrial
land—would occur within the 5,558 acres of land classified as vacant (see above) that currently
exists within the District. Some of the new land uses would replace blighted and underutilized
industrial properties.
The SAMP includes a system for "transfer of development rights" (TDR) to equalize the costs
and benefits of the planned distribution of land uses among existing land owners within the
District. Implementation of TDR by HMDC will allow the owners of properties designated for
conservation to transfer a compensable proportion of their development rights to designated
development areas, thereby creating an economic incentive for conservation.
Zoning Impacts
The adoption of the SAMP will provide a framework for HMDC's revision of its Master Plan,
and adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance. The new District Master Plan will reflect the
emphasis of balanced growth and environmental protection developed during the SAMP
process. After adoption of a new Master Plan, a new Zoning Ordinance will be adopted to
implement the Master Plan and the SAMP, allowing growth and development to proceed more
predictably within the framework of the SAMP. The Zoning Ordinance, and Site Plan Review
regulations will contain environmental performance standards that require, for example,
provision of open space/recreation in Planning Areas, and provision of Best Management
Practices for stormwater control as related to development.
It is anticipated that zoning, site plan review, text and map revisions will be made (potentially
affecting all zones) to facilitate the objectives of the SAMP, the EIP, and relevant federal and
state regulations. Revisions to the Special Planned Area and Special Use Area Regulations will
reflect the locations, use mixes, and densities proposed under the SAMP. Several special
planning areas will be affected, including the Island Residential zoning districts, which
anticipated dense residential development on land along the Hackensack River; the Berrys
Creek Center district, which under the existing Master Plan was intended to be a new
downtown, or central focal point, of the District; and the Special Use districts, which are
predominantly wetland parcels.
It is also anticipated that zoning revisions will involve adjustments in the location and extent of
light and heavy industrial zoning districts. Localized zoning changes will occur that encourage
mixed use, office, and residential development. Wetlands preservation will be afforded through
the implementation of transfer of development rights, consistent with the objectives envisioned
in HMDC's Environmental Improvement Plan.
On balance, the SAMP and related zoning changes will result in reductions in the areal extent of
development allowed by the 1972 Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Under the SAMP and
new District Master Plan, less land will be developed for all uses as compared to the 1972 Master
5-58
-------
TABLE 5-11
FUTURE LAND USES UNDER THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
(in acres)

Residential
Commercial

Industrial

Solid

Open Space



PubSc/


Municipality
Low
Density
Medum
Density
High
Density
Hotel
Retai/
Comm.
Office
Heavy
Industry
Light
Industry
Ware-
house
W-house
w/Outlet
Rail
Faculties
Truck
Terminal
Airport
Facilities
Waste/
Landfills
Park &
Ride
Open
Space
Paridanc
Sports
Complex
Commun-
ications
Utility
Quasi-
Public
Vacant
Total
Carlstadt
0
181
0
1
96
90
50
121
440
14
0
66
0
0
0
383
0
0
42
23
2
442
1,950
E. Rutherford
0
0
0
20
16
76
32
21
189
11
0
0
0
0
0
201
0
604
23
3
0
262
1,458
Jersey City
1
11
0
0
1
0
4
0
57
0
128
43
0
0
0
94
0
0
0
91
145
181
756
Kearny
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
7
162
0
109
65
0
468
0
1,076
0
0
49
95
52
407
2,595
Little Ferry
51
1
0
0
2
0
26
28
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
128
24
0
0
45
1
26
342
Lyndhurst
1
0
0
8
10
75
58
14
196
6
0
0
0
142
0
672
35
0
111
35
0
230
1,595
Moonachie
13
25
0
0
10
4
35
77
136
3
0
7
302
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
4
152
780
N. Arlington
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
262
0
32
0
0
0
30
0
103
426
N. Bergen
0
0
0
0
6
53
17
8
524
5
0
47
0
0
10
142
0
0
0
70
0
196
1,078
Ridgefield
0
0
0
0
24
2
13
79
2
0
55
34
0
0
0
270
6
0
0
119
0
67
671
Rutherford
0
0
0
0
0
125
0
15
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
0
0
0
23
0
153
435
Secaucus
109
310
17
46
182
192
54
25
515
298
11
22
0
0
0
503
40
0
11
31
77
312
2,756
S. Hackensack
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
12
21
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
74
Teterboro
0
0
0
0
8
23
0
70
18
0
0
0
343
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
469
Total
177
528
17
75
354
640
392
477
2,303
340
303
284
645
873
10
3,599
106
604
234
565
287
2,568
15,383

Change from
Existing Uses
-3
425
0
0
67
390
-50
-14
599
0
0
-52
0
-97
0
1,907
0
0
0
-151
-32
-2,989
0
Notes:
Acreages do not include railroads, roadways or open water (approximately 4,000 acres).
Solid Waste/Landfills includes active landfills, transfer and baler stations, composting facilities, and landfills with leachate or methane collection systems.
Vacant Land Use includes uplands, wetlands, and inactive landfills.
Source: HMDC.1995
TABS-18 XLS
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Plan, and more land will be set aside as conservation and recreational open space. For example,
HMDC is expected to revise zoning for Kearny Marsh to promote conservation, in conjunction
with the implementation of the SAMP. The central downtown growth model envisioned in the
1972 Master Plan will be replaced by a growth center model that is more sensitive to the
ecological needs of the District's environment. The growth center model, implemented in part
through revised zoning mechanisms, will facilitate restoration and conservation of the
Meadowlands environment.
5.8.2	Impacts to Land Use and Zoning from Transportation Improvements
Land Use Impacts
Transportation improvements proposed in the District will require approximately 160 acres of
land not currently used for transportation facilities for the purposes of widening existing roads
and railways beyond existing curb-lines and constructing new roads and rail lines.
Zoning Impacts
The proposed transportation improvements will increase the accessibility and viability of
planned growth locations, allowing fulfillment of economic and employment needs. Most, if not
all of the Transportation Improvement will occur within the existing rights-of-way. However,
expansions to rights-of-way do not necessitate zoning changes.
5.8.3	Impacts to Land Use and Zoning from the Environmental Improvement
Program
Implementation of the EIP will increase the amount of dedicated open space by (1) permanently
preserving and enhancing additional wetlands (see Section 5.1.5); (2) reclaiming historic landfills
and managing the landfills for upland wildlife habitat (Sections 5.17.3 and 5.3.3); and (3) creating
additional parks and recreation areas (Section 5.12.3). The EIP also will result in the
implementation of Transfer of Development Rights in parts of the District, to provide a
mechanism for compensation for property owners whose land will be preserved. (TDR was
discussed in Section 2 - Environmental Improvement Program). Under the revised District
Master Plan, the future land use profile (pursuant to the future Zoning Ordinance) will reflect
the increase of dedicated open space in the District, the new emphasis on "nodal" forms of
growth for Planning Areas, and a commitment to comprehensive environmental enhancements
in the District.
5.8.4	Mitigation of Land Use and Zoning Impacts
The future Master Plan that describes preferred types and locations of land uses in the District is
being developed subsequent to a Master Plan revision process that has been underway by
HMDC for the past 5 years, as well as the SAMP process that has been underway by EPA, ACE,
NOAA, NJDEP, and HMDC since 1988. The revised Master Plan balances and manages future
land uses in the District so as to achieve social, economic, and environmental goals.
Furthermore, the SAMP, the new Master Plan, and the revised Zoning Ordinance will be
generally consistent with the centers-oriented planning objectives set forth in the New Jersey
State Development & Redevelopment Plan. Without the SAMP and a revised Master Plan, the
land use plan set forth in the existing Master Plan could result in significant environmental and
5-60
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
open space losses in the District. No mitigation is required for the positive changes anticipated
in land use and zoning.
The zoning ordinance will be revised to reflect SAMP objectives by increasing the density and
intensity of land uses in the District. New site plan review regulations will require the
implementation of best available management practices to minimize effects of soil erosion and
stormwater runoff.
5.9 Financing of Local Government Services
5.9.1 Impacts to Local Government Services Financing from Planning/Satellite
Areas
The growth anticipated under the SAMP and new District Master Plan in the Planning/Satellite
Areas will increase the sources of property tax revenue available to the municipalities within the
District. The development of land that is currently vacant or underutilized and proposed for
office, industrial, commercial, or residential growth will double the total assessed value of
property within the District from $5.1 billion in 1993 to an estimated $10 billion, calculated using
HMDC's tax sharing model. The municipalities with the largest increase in assessed value, as a
result of the build-out of the Planning/Satellite Areas, are projected to be Secaucus, Jersey City,
Kearny, Lyndhurst, East Rutherford, Carlstadt, North Bergen and Rutherford. North Arlington,
South Hackensack, Teterboro, Moonachie, and Little Ferry are not projected to have significant
increases in assessed valuation on their land in the District. Property tax revenues to the
municipalities (after county taxes) are projected to grow from $83.1 million to $163.2 million,
assuming the revised Master Plan is fully realized over the 20-year planning period.
The increased tax revenue from growth will be reduced, to a minor degree, by public acquisition
of approximately 500 acres of wetland properties to be preserved under the TDR program.
Because the specific parcels that will be preserved under the TDR program are not foreseeable at
this time, specific tax revenue reductions cannot be predicted.
Implementation of the new Master Plan and the SAMP will result in better planned and more
predictably implementable economic uses in the District. The SAMP and new District Master
Plan will provide for population and employment growth in the District, balanced with
conservation and enhancement of valuable environmental resources. Growth will be
implemented at comparatively high densities, allowing economic benefit to the region while
minimizing the environmental and economic costs of sprawl inherent in most contemporary
suburban growth. High quality, planned growth in combination with wetlands restoration and
conservation is predicted to increase land values, both within the District and beyond its
borders—a result of encouraging more spatially-efficient economic use of private property.
There will be additional costs incurred by the municipalities in order to provide services to new
residents and employees. One of the primary additional costs will be schooling costs for a
projected increase of 5,500 children in the District (at full build-out of the Preferred Alternative).
The majority of the increased demand for educational services will occur in Secaucus and
Carlstadt. As an example of the possible increase in local school cost, the 1993 annual schooling
costs in Secaucus was $8,572 per pupil. Costs for other governmental services—such as police,
5-61
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
fire protection, emergency medical services, and public works—will also increase. Fiscal
impacts at the municipal level will be determined, and issues resolved, during the HMDC site
plan review of individual projects. Project-related service standards are too detailed to address
at the regional scale. However, as a result of the high density of the proposed development and
the ready availability of infrastructure systems, these services can be provided more efficiently
than in most suburban locations. The tax revenue from the Planning/Satellite Areas is projected
to be greater than anticipated costs, based on the low service demand of the predominantly
nonresidential development anticipated in the District.
5.9.2	Impacts to Local Government Services Financing from Transportation
Improvements
The proposed transportation improvements will affect about 160 acres of land in the District not
currently used for transportation facilities. This includes widening of existing roads and
railroads plus construction of new roads and railways. The towns that will host the majority of
the transportation improvements include Secaucus, East Rutherford, and Carlstadt. The areas
involved are approximately one percent of the total area of each town. The land targeted for
transportation improvement will become public property and thus will be removed from the
municipal tax rolls. The resulting loss in municipal tax revenues will be more than offset by the
property tax revenues from anticipated growth.
5.9.3	Impacts to Local Government Services Financing from the Environmental
Improvement Program
The EIP will have no direct impact on the financing of local government services. Funding for
the EIP does not rely on local tax revenues.
5.9.4	Mitigation of Local Government Services Financing Impacts
Development within the District, as planned under the Preferred Alternative, will increase the
sources of property tax revenue to municipalities and allow them to increase services provided
to residents, property owners, and employees within the District. The majority of the costs and
benefits will occur within the borders of a few of the District municipalities. These costs and
benefits will be partially re-distributed between municipalities by the District tax sharing
formula, to offset inequities in costs and benefits associated with the patterns of land
preservation and land development among the District's municipalities. Furthermore, it is
anticipated that developer contributions will fund a portion of the new service needs (e.g., active
recreation facilities, fire and emergency response equipment, community meeting space)
pursuant to the HMDC site plan approval process.
New financing mechanisms for environmental improvement would be implemented as part of
the SAMP and new Master Plan. A variant of TDR (transfer of development rights) to be
implemented in the District would provide another means of financing SAMP/Master Plan
goals in the District—specifically, the preservation and enhancement of environmental resources
such as wetlands, surface waters, and important wildlife habitats.
5-62
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.10 Utility Infrastructure
5.10.1 Impacts to Utility Infrastructure from Planning/Satellite Areas
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The growth anticipated in the District under the SAMP is projected to increase wastewater flows
to the wastewater treatment plants serving the District, with the greatest new flows directed to
the Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA) and the Secaucus Municipal Utilities Authority
(SMUA) facilities. As discussed in Section 5.5.1, projected flows to the SMUA treatment plant (at
full build-out of the Preferred Alternative) are above the plant's current available capacity. To
provide treatment for wastewater generated at Planning Areas 10,11,13 and 14 either the plant
will need to be expanded, or additional facilities will be constructed, or some of the wastewater
from the Planning Areas will be redirected to other local treatment plants (such as PVSC via
Jersey City). In addition, minor extensions of the existing sewer lines would be required to
serve the Planning /Satellite Areas. Given the regional scale of this programmatic EIS, the
impacts of local service connections (which will occur principally within the Planning/Satellite
Areas) will be negligible. The District is extensively served by sewer interceptor piping, and
there will be only minor requirements for sewer infrastructure construction.
Water Supply Facilities
Most of the Planning/Satellite Areas are within the in-District service areas of the Hackensack
Water Company. Planning/Satellite areas within Kearny and Jersey City would be served by
Jersey City Water Company, and those within Kearny would be served by Kearny Municipal
Utilities Authority (MUA). Realization of the SAMP/Master Plan would add 17.8 million square
feet of primary office space, 2.7 million square feet of commercial space, 6.0 million square feet of
secondary office space, 9.1 million square feet of light manufacturing/warehousing space, and
13,900 dwelling units to the existing land uses in the District. Based on per-capita and per-
employee water demand rates used by the Hackensack Water Company, these new land uses
would require an estimated average daily water supply of 8.3 mgd.
The Hackensack Water Company has indicated that the company has adequate supply and
treatment facilities to serve the projected growth in the District. This is partially due to the fact
that the more urban, southern sections of the company's service area consume less water now
than in years past, when the industrial sector, particularly in Hudson County, was larger
(Gradilone 1992). There is also projected to be no supply problems for Kearny MUA or Jersey
City Water Company, where similar conditions exist.
Electric Power
The Planning/Satellite Areas will require electric power service from the Public Service Electric
and Gas Company (PSE&G). PSE&G operates within a regional power grid that precludes
undue burdens on any one power plant. The additional demand from the District can be
satisfied by the regional power grid that distributes power as needed throughout the
northeastern United States. The anticipated growth in the District is within the capacity
planning of PSE&G.
5-63
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Natural Gas Impacts
The District is connected to transcontinental gas pipelines that cross the area, and is served by
local gas distribution systems. PSE&G is projected to be able to meet the gas needs arising from
growth within the District.
5.10.2	Impacts to Utility Infrastructure from Transportation Improvements
Transportation improvements will affect utility infrastructure only in areas where the project
sites may intersect utility pipelines. In all such cases, minor relocation or additional burial may
be necessary, requiring temporary disruption of the utility function. More specific analysis of
buried pipe conflicts will be conducted as part of each individual site plan application. (The
utility needs of growth at the Secaucus Transfer Station Planning Area are included within the
utility needs of Planning Area 13, the office component of growth in this Planning Area).
5.10.3	Impacts to Utility Infrastructure from the Environmental Improvement
Program
Implementation of the EIP will have no direct impact on utility infrastructure within the District.
5.10.4	Mitigation of Utility Infrastructure Impacts
With the exception of the need for additional wastewater treatment capacity in Secaucus, which
is addressable, no significant adverse utility impacts are predicted; no mitigation measures
appear to be necessary. The additional wastewater treatment needs in Secaucus will be
addressed as part of HMDC's site plan review and approval process; a developer agreement
with SMUA is anticipated to fund needed treatment capacity.
5.11 Population and Employment Profile
5.11.1 Impacts to Population and Employment Profilefrom Planning/Satellite
Areas
Population Impacts
Realization of the SAMP/Master Plan over the 20-year planning period will add a total of 13,920
dwelling units to the District housing an estimated 33,408 people. The population growth
estimate of 33,408 anticipates an average household size of 2.4 persons per household (pph),
based on household size statistics for higher-density sections of Fort Lee, Hackensack, and in-
District housing, such as the Harmon Cove development.
The HMDC-projected need within the District for housing (only a portion of the regional
demand), as discussed in Section 1, strongly indicates that the region can absorb the prospective
housing without a slackening in demand for existing housing. The 13,920 housing units
proposed for the Meadowlands under the Preferred Alternative would come on the market
gradually, in response to existing demand. Ranging from affordable to luxury units, the
Meadowlands housing would attract people from a wide range of incomes and geographic
locations. Relocations to the District's housing units are anticipated as improved access is
gained to employment centers in the District, in the region, and in New York City as a result of
the transportation improvements. It would be unlikely to draw residents disproportionately
5-64
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
from any one community. The creation of new housing opportunity, including affordable
housing, is a positive impact of the proposed plan.
Employment Impacts
Development of new primary and secondary office, commercial, light industrial, and
warehousing facilities in the Planning/Satellite Areas will create many new permanent
employment opportunities. Approximately 17.8 million square feet of projected growth in
primary office space would add an estimated 71,000 office jobs to the District's employment,
based on an average ratio of 250 square feet of floor area per employee. Similarly, the addition
of 6.0 million square feet of secondary office space is expected to create approximately 17,300
new jobs, averaging 350 square feet per employee. Commercial space, as well as light industrial
and warehousing, will add to the employment base at a ratio of 500 square feet per employee.
The addition of 2.7 million square feet of commercial space will add an estimated 5,400
commercial jobs and 9.1 million square feet of light industrial and warehousing will add an
estimated 18,100 jobs. The total potential increase in permanent employment in the District
under the SAMP amounts to approximately 112,000 new jobs. The creation of new employment
opportunity, both construction-related and permanent, is a significant positive impact of the
proposed plan. The monetary flows that results from such employment will significantly
enhance the economy of the region.
The range of prospective office, retail, and manufacturing jobs, together with the planned
housing, is designed (and expected) to attract many people to both live and work in the District,
reducing commutation requirements. The Preferred Alternative will provide for the District's
growth needs by creating an integrated home, work, and recreation environment, with a
relatively high efficiency land use (compared to existing land-consumptive suburban sprawl
patterns).
5.11.2	Impacts to Population and Employment Profile from Transportation
Improvements
There will be no impacts to the population profile from transportation improvements.
However, the transportation improvements will allow the housing and employment needs of
the District to be realized. Improved mass transit and roadway improvements will support the
affective functioning of Planning/Satellite Areas. Additional temporary construction jobs will
be created when transportation improvements are implemented.
5.11.3	Impacts to Population and Employment Profile from the Environmental
Improvement Program
Although realization of the EIP will provide some temporary and permanent employment, the
EIP will have no direct measurable impact on population or employment profiles in the District.
Indirectly, however, the EIP will make the District a more attractive place to live and work.
5-65
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.11.4 Mitigation of Population and Employment Impacts
The SAMP will facilitate the provision of shelter and workspace for increased population and
employment in the District. Transportation improvements will improve employee commutation
time and expand options for travel. These are positive effects, and no mitigation is necessary.
5.12 Community Facilities
An increase of approximately 33,400 residents (including a projected 5,500 children) and 112,000
workers in the District over the 20-year SAMP planning period will require many new and
expanded community facilities. The following community facilities will be required for the new
residents and workers:
Police
Fire protection
Emergency medical response, and medical facilities
Educational facilities (schools)
Libraries
Recreational facilities (active and passive)
Churches/Places of Worship
Community center/youth center/senior citizen facilities
Day care facilities
Post office services
Although this listing of community facility types is extensive, it is appropriate for the scale and
functions envisioned for the large Planning Areas. (This list should not be considered
comprehensive.)
These community facilities will be provided both via the development application review and
approval process (as carried out by HMDC) and by the expansion of existing municipal services.
The distribution of financial responsibility for such facilities occurs at the individual project
review level, and is usually negotiated among the host municipality, the project applicant, and
the planning review agency. Community facility needs related to the SAMP/Master Plan
growth will be met pursuant to HMDC and the host municipality project review authority.
The specific requirements for facilities, equipment, and staffing for each of the facility needs is
not known at this time. This level of analysis will occur during individual project review, and is
not appropriate for a programmatic EIS. Nevertheless, the following sections describe the major
community facility issues that must be addressed if a project is to proceed.
5.12.1 Impacts to Community Facilities from Planning/Satellite Areas
Educational Facilities
The addition of approximately 14,000 housing units in the District will result in an increased
need for educational facilities. The anticipated number of school children per household is a
function of the type of housing being developed. Based on a projected household size of 2.4
persons (see Section 5.11.1), an average of 0.4 school children are expected to reside in each
household, assuming the majority of households are also populated by two adults. (Single-
5-66
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
parent households are most likely offset by households with non school-age children or elderly
residents.) Therefore, the new expanded housing stock could add about 5,500 school-age
children to the District's population over the 20-year planning period. An increase in the
capacity of the local educational facilities will be required to accommodate this increased
student population. At an average of 25 pupils per classroom, the school districts in the affected
communities will need approximately 220 new classrooms. The school systems principally
affected will be those of Secaucus and Carlstadt, where the majority of the new residences will
be located. As in most communities, a percentage of the children in the District will attend
private and religious schools, slightly reducing the projected demand on public educational
facilities. The HMDC development review process requires the dedication of space for school
facilities by sponsors of large projects.
Health Care Facilities
The approximately 33,400 new residents and approximately 112,000 new employees in the
District would increase the use of regional health care facilities, including hospitals. There are
now 2,593 hospital beds in Hudson County and 2,775 beds in Bergen County (NJDOH 1992).
Within or adjacent to the District there are several primary hospitals: Meadowlands Hospital
Medical Center in Secaucus, the Hackensack Medical Center in Hackensack, and Jersey City
Medical Center. The State Department of Health is preparing a State Health Plan that
reportedly finds an oversupply of hospital beds statewide and calls for closing six hospitals.
Outward migration of population has left the greatest surplus of hospital beds in the older,
urban areas of the state. The prospective population growth in the Meadowlands could be
accommodated by the currently underutilized hospitals in the region without physical
expansion.
Police Protection
The 1990 estimated District population of 15,154 is projected to grow by approximately 33,400
people. Using standard service multipliers, this growth could necessitate an increase in police
protection by 2.01 officers per 1,000 residents (Burchell, 1985). However, standard per resident
ratios are not sufficient to describe the need for increased police protection in the District. The
substantial growth in employment will also contribute to the need for increased police
protection. The daytime employment population will also require police services; thus, the total
population requiring police services could approach 145,000 residents and workers. New police
stations, officers, vehicles, and equipment would be added to the existing police operations
already present throughout the District, as needed. Additional police services required in the
District is likely to necessitate construction of additional substations within or near the larger
Planning Areas.
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Response
All the municipalities within the District have volunteer fire departments, except Jersey City,
Kearny, and North Bergen, which have paid departments. Teterboro contracts with the
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights for fire protection. The future population and density of
development in the District will require additional fire protection staff and facilities to achieve
appropriate levels of fire protection. Using standard service multipliers, the expansion of the
resident population by approximately 33,400 could require an additional 1.64 firefighters per
1,000 new residents (Burchell, 1985). Non-residential development in the District will also
5-67
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
require increased fire protection. However, fire safety services should be based on an analysis
(in order of priority) of response time, staffing, and equipment available at the time specific
development projects are proposed.
The established parts of the municipalities surrounding the District contain most of the existing
police, fire, and emergency response services. Emergency travel routes from these established
areas to new development locations in the District may be constrained given the traffic loadings
of the Sports Authority events and the limited number of local east-west roads into and out of
the District. For this reason, consideration must be given to construction of substations in
Planning Areas, as necessary, to maintain critical emergency response times.
Finally, it is anticipated that new development projects will need appropriate emergency
medical response services. Such provision would occur individually or as a coordinated effort
among project sponsors. Project sponsors, in concert with HMDC and local government, will
provide the necessary services. Cost will be offset by the increase in tax revenues.
5.12.2	Impacts to Community Facilities from Transportation Improvements
Transportation improvements will have negligible impacts on community facilities. The most
direct effect will be to require supplemental traffic control services, although this is expected to
be minor because most of the transportation improvement are rails or road widenings.
5.12.3	Impacts to Community Facilities from the Environmental Improvement
Program
The EIP proposes the creation of "an urban oasis of wetlands, parks, and reclaimed/restored
open space in the District." The HMDC parks and preserves program will result in the
transformation of District landfills and degraded wetlands into parkland, using state-of-the-art
landfill closure improvements. The Hackensack River is the central open space corridor in the
District and serves as the centerpiece for park development. Completion of the SAMP and EIP
would provide parks and preserves capable of accommodating the recreational needs of the
District's population, which is projected to grow by approximately 33,400 residents and over
112,000 workers by the year 2010. The general locations and sizes of many of the ElP-proposed
parks and preserves are shown on Figure 5-8.
The proposed park projects will provide reserves, active recreation areas, trails, and an
Environmental Art Park. Reserves projects will be dedicated to the preservation and
enhancement of the District's plant and animal habitats. These habitats will be maintained as
permanent open spaces for conservation and passive recreation. The reserves proposed by
HMDC include: Losen Slote Creek Park in Little Ferry; Teterboro Woodland Reserve in
Teterboro/Moonachie; and Laurel Hill Park in Secaucus. In addition, as discussed in Section 6
(see Table 6-1), there will be significant additions to the dedicated open space inventory of the
District, as a result of the establishment of conservation easements on many wetland mitigation
areas.
It is anticipated that active recreation will be provided by the Lyndhurst ballfields, the Laurel
Hill Park and the hockey rink at Losen State Creek Park. The facilities will include a riverfront
5-68
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
park, a public boat launch, baseball and soccer fields, and tennis courts. Many of the parks and
preserves will be connected by a network of hiking, biking, or jogging trails throughout the
District. The trail system will provide public access to the Hackensack River and significant
wildlife and recreation areas.
Finally, an Environmental Art Park is proposed to be built in Kearny on the 57-acre Sky Mound
landfill. The park will provide grassland/meadow habitat, environmental education
opportunities, and public access to contemporary art.
5.12.4 Mitigation of Community Facility impacts
Mitigation for community facility impacts (expressed as increased service needs) consists of the
provision of additional community facilities, in accordance with current service standards and
maximum acceptable response times. Local government will be responsible for financing the
police force, fire protection, and educational facilities (see Section 5.9). In addition, it is
anticipated that developer contributions will provide land, facilities, and equipment to meet
some portion of the local service needs (see Section 5.9.4). The municipal property tax revenue
increases from the anticipated growth will fund these municipal services. Because a low
household size is projected for the future District growth (approximately 2.4 persons per
household), the demand for additional educational facilities is expected to be sufficiently funded
by tax revenues. As a result of excess capacity in surrounding areas, there are sufficient health
care facilities to meet increased demands.
The wide range of projects proposed under HMDC's Environmental Improvement Program will
provide extensive parks and recreation facilities for the new residents and workforce, and
HMDC's planning review powers will require dedication of land for schools and other public
facilities.
5.13 Transportation
5.13.1 Analysis Method Summary
Transportation system performance of the Preferred Alternative was evaluated using the
existing Hackensack Meadowlands Transportation Model (HMTM). This model was developed
specifically for the District. The HMTM is a computer-based planning tool that can be used to
project future travel patterns and volumes based on assumptions regarding future land
development patterns, future transportation system improvements and future travel behavior
characteristics. The model uses separate but coordinated analytical procedures to project future
public mass transportation usage and future highway travel demand, with the information
regarding public transportation usage serving as an input to future highway travel demand
projection analysis. The model is microcomputer based and uses components of TRIPS, LOTUS
1-2-3, and dBASE IV programming packages. The model was designed to simulate existing
traffic flows and to evaluate the impacts of SAMP alternatives by comparing them with existing
conditions. The model was not intended to allow complete, regional analysis.
The HMTM uses the traditional four-step modeling process: trip generation, trip distribution,
modal split, and trip assignment. For each of the land use types, a set of trip generation rates
were assumed based on national standards, primarily the Trip Generation Handbook (Fourth
5-69
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Edition) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). These rates were then
further broken down into three major trip purposes; home-based work (HBW), home-based
other (HBO) and non-home based (NHB).
The morning (AM) peak period was selected, for modeling purposes, because the AM peak
period accounts for a higher percentage of employee trips and a higher bus requirement than
the evening (PM) peak period. It was also noted that both the AM and PM peak 2-hour periods
accounted for the same percentage (74 percent) of the total daily work trip-ends within the
District. Therefore, the AM peak represents a higher demand period.
The study area boundary consists of 52 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) with land use activity
forecasts developed for each zone to keep track of where people will live and where business
will locate in the future. The land use was described by indicating the quantity of development
in 30 land use categories that would take place in each of the 52 TAZs within the study area.
There are 85 zones in the model that are outside the study area. Differing patterns of land use
and development will have differing impacts on the transportation system. Not only will the
gross amount of development affect the overall demand for transportation services, but so will
the net density of development as well as the mixture of land uses and the location of land
development within the District. The land use scenarios were provided by HMDC, based on
input from the SAMP partner agencies.
Transportation and transit assumptions in the network include existing facilities and services
plus regional improvements that may reasonably be in place during the 20 year planning period
The assumptions regarding regional improvements represent projects that were contained in
proposed short- and long-range state or local transportation plans and were considered
reasonable alternatives in 1990. Transportation project development has been a dynamic
process, influenced by many social and economic factors. As such, changes have occurred are
occurring, and will continue to occur, with the information used to develop the 2010
transportation network, over time.
Within the primary study area the land use types were identified with trip generation rates for
each of the 30 land uses by peak hours and by directions. Trip distribution analysis determines
the origin and destination of trips produced or attracted to each TAZ. The results are disDl
as a set of matrices or trip tables which show the traffic flow between each pair of study zones
The trip distribution module of the HMTM defines a total of twenty-one (21) different trip
distribution patterns by major land use types.
After the trip distribution patterns for the land use alternatives were defined, the next steD
to estimate transit ridership and potential ridership into and out of the Meadowlands District S
The final phase of the travel demand forecasting process assigned trips to specific routes in the
transportation network and estimated traffic volumes on each of the individual network links
within the system. An important element of the assignment process dealt with defining the
"path" or routes that trips would likely take. This step is commonly known as "pathfind" "
The determination of assignment path is typically based on the relative ease by which traffic
may flow along alternative routes, and includes consideration of travel time, cost and d' t
With the knowledge of such paths, various trip assignment techniques could be used to"!^^
5-70
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
trips onto the network by assigning them each to specific paths. This results in estimates of the
level of use of each network link.
The traffic assignment module of the HMTM utilized the incremental assignment technique
provided by the TRIPS transportation planning package. The zone-to-zone trip tables were
assigned in three increments. The first increment assigned 40% of the trip tables, the second and
third increments assigned the remaining 30% and 30% respectively. Previous experiments and
initial testing of this method on the study network produced realistic results.
Using the previously described land use categories, travel demands were estimated for the
morning (AM) peak hour period. The trip generation results closely followed the expected
relationships based on the land use activity levels. The travel demands were subjected to trip
distribution, modal split, and assignment to develop estimates of the traffic volumes that would
be carried on each link of the future year highway network. The highway network was
modeled using 32 distinct link types as defined in Table 5-12. Link type 32, centroid connectors, is
not included in the system totals because centroid connectors do not represent actual roadway
segments, but are essentially artificial links used by the model to allow traffic volumes to enter
and exit the network from the planning areas or zones.
5.13.2 Transportation Network Assumptions
The specific transportation network used in the analyses assumed that improvement projects
(over and above those in place in 1990) to be included would be either under construction,
committed for construction or viewed as having a high probability of construction during the
period of analysis and future year projection. These projects would be operational by the year
2010. One of the constraints was that of affordability, which is entirely consistent with the
requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
The transportation network includes the highway network (local and regional roads, toll and
non-toll facilities), local and commuter rail system networks, and the public and privately
contracted bus services serving the Meadowlands SAMP Study Area.
The base list of transportation improvements (which coincides with previously noted project
lists) includes the following:
Transit Projects
¦	Secaucus Transfer Station
¦	NJ Transit Bergen Line to Main Line connection to Secaucus Transfer Station
¦	NJ Transit Northeast Corridor widening
¦	NJ Transit Main Line widening
5-71
-------
TABLE 5-12
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPOSITION
1988
2010



Link
Total
Link
Total
Link Type
Definition

Count
Distance
Count
Distance
1
Route 3 Mainline

25
21.6
25
21.6
2
Route 3 Service Roads

20
3.6
20
3.6
3
Meadowlands Parkway

14
4.2
16
5.8
4
New Jersey Turnpike (east & west)

49
99.4
56
99.4
6
Route 20

6
4.4
6
4.4
7
Route 20 (Paterson Plank Road)

12
14.2
12
14.2
9
Route 1&9 Skyway

4
9.8
4
9.8
8,10
Route 1&9 / Route 1&9 & 48

30
16.4
30
16.4
12
Route 17

30
31.2
36
40.2
13
Ridge Road / Kearny Avenue

14
10.4
14
10.4
15
Schuyler Ave. / Orient Way

26
26.3
26
26.3
17,22
Route 7 / Harrison Avenue

20
13.0
22
13.0
19,20
Route 46

32
34.6
38
40.8
23
Roadways in HMD @ 25 mph

44
13.3
51
13.6
11,16,24
Roadways in HMD @ 35 mph

68
28.7
70
28.9
14,25
Roadways in HMD @ 30 mph

82
20.1
106
32.1
26
Roadways in HMD @ 40 mph

44
17.8
46
17.4
5,18,21,27-31
Others

635
711.5
643
718.5


Total
1155
1080.6
1221
1116.5
(tab5-12J
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
¦	Kearny Connection - Morristown Line access to Meadowlands via Secaucus Transfer
Station
¦	Montclair Connection - Access to Meadowlands for Boonton Line (outside the District)
¦	Penn Station New York - Capacity upgrade (30 trains/hour)
¦	Berrys Creek Transportation Center (bus terminal, included in Planning Area 7)
¦	Restoration of West Shore commuter rail service to Secaucus Transfer Station
¦	Transfer station between Waterfront Light Rail Line and the West Shore Line at Vince
Lombardi Service Area
¦	West Shore Line extension to Sports Complex/Berrys Creek Transportation Center
¦	New rail station on Bergen Line at proposed Berrys Creek Transportation Center
(included in Planning Area 7)
¦	Commuter rail shuttle service on the Bergen Line between the Sports Complex and
Hoboken with stops at Secaucus Transfer Station
¦	New External bus route corridors:
•	To Allied Junction, Harmon Meadow and the West Shore light rail transfer station:
•	Route 9 express bus service
•	Fort Lee/Union City local service
•	Boulevard East/Union City local service
•	Journal Square Shuttle.
•	To Berrys Creek Transportation Center at the Sports Complex:
•	Morristown-Livingston-E. Orange semi-express via I-280/Route 17 extension.
•	Denville-Parsippany-Willowbrook Mall express
•	Willowbrook Mall-Route 3-Clifton semi-express
•	Ridgewood/Paramus/Hackensack/Wood-Ridge semi-local service
•	Kearny/Lyndhurst Ridge Road local service
•	East Orange/Newark Express.
•	Shuttle bus service from Allied Junction to Harmon Meadow, Empire and
Bellemeade employment centers.
•	Shuttle bus service from new Bergen Line station to Bellemeade and Berrys Creek
Transportation Center.
¦	Parking restrictions implemented at Allied Junction (1.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
development)
¦	Park and Ride facility on Pascack Valley Line at Teterboro (Moonachie Avenue)
¦	Expansion of Vince Lombardi Park and Ride facility
Highway Improvements
¦	New crossing over Hackensack River at Paterson Plank Road
¦	Route 17 Extension - Route 3 to new interchange at Route 1-280 in Kearny
¦	Tonnelle Avenue/Route 1 & 9 widening - 3 lanes each direction. Grade separation with
Secaucus Road and Paterson Plank Road (outside the District)
¦	New NJ Turnpike Interchanges:
5-73
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
•	with Route 120 at northern end of the Sports Complex (Western Spur) (Exit 18W
expansion)
•	between Interchange 15E and 16E (Eastern Spur) to provide access to Secaucus
Transfer (Allied Junction) and Jersey City (Exit 15EA)
¦	Meadowlands Parkway Extension:
•	extend northward from Route 3 to connect with the proposed Hackensack River
Crossing at Paterson Plank Road
•	extend southeastward along the (abandoned) Bergen Line to connect with County
Avenue and County Road
¦	Paterson Plank Road widening - 6 lanes between Route 3 and Route 1 & 9
¦	West Side Avenue - grade separation with Paterson Plank Road/Union Turnpike
¦	Widen New County Road from Laurel Hill to County Avenue intersection
¦	Ramp realignment at Route 3/Meadowlands Parkway
¦	Castle Road improvements
¦	Redneck Avenue widening
¦	Paterson Plank Road widening, from Washington Avenue to Route 17
¦	Route 7/Belleville Turnpike - widening to 4 lanes between Newark Turnpike and the
existing 4-lane section at Sawmill Creek.
¦	County Avenue - widening and intersection capacity improvement at Secaucus Road
¦	Moonachie Avenue - widening to 2 lanes each direction between Moonachie Road and
Route 17
¦	Newark-Jersey City Turnpike - widening to 2 lanes each direction
¦	Route 17 -widening at Route 46
¦	Route 3 bridge over Berrys Creek - widening (completed)
¦	Grade separation of Secaucus Road at Conrail/NYS&W and Route 1&9
¦	Washington Avenue widening from Paterson Plank Road to Moonachie Avenue
(completed)
¦	Secaucus Road widening from NJ Turnpike Eastern spur to West Shore rail line
¦	County Road widening from County Avenue to Tonnelle Avenue
¦	Realignment of Route 120, east of Brendan Byrne Arena
¦	Extension and widening of Bergen Avenue
¦	Bergen Arches Extension, along existing Bergen Line, connecting to NJ Turnpike
interchange at Secaucus Transfer Station
These changes have been reflected in the HMDC model by revising individual zone to zone
transit mode share assumptions in the Modal Split section of the model. These mode share
values are applied to the trip generation matrix to reduce the total number of highway trips that
are assigned to specific links in the Assignment section of the model. Changes were then made
to the highway network to accommodate other highway network assumption revisions It
should also be noted that some projects, though part of the 2010 Transportation System were
implicitly included in the analysis instead of being explicit model inputs.
5-74
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.13.3 Analysis of Transportation System Performance
The alternative scenarios modeled in this analysis include the following:
¦	"1988" (Baseline) scenario—existing land use with existing road network
¦	"No Action" (unmanaged growth) scenario—approximately 60% build-out of existing
Master Plan, with existing road network (no improvements)
¦	"Preferred Alternative" scenario—Preferred Alternative land use with transportation
improvements as specified above
¦	"Modified No Action" scenario—approximately 60% build-out of existing Master Plan,
with transportation improvements as specified above.
A summary of the performance of the transportation network with the Baseline, Modified No
Action and Preferred Alternatives is shown in Table 5-13. Detailed results from the
transportation modeling are presented in Appendix Q. This summary shows that the Preferred
Alternative performs better, for all evaluation parameters, than the Modified No Action
alternative. This means that, without coordinated planning efforts (as included in the Preferred
Alternative), transportation conditions will continue to deteriorate. Particularly of note in the
comparison between the Modified No Action and the Preferred Alternative scenarios are
improvements in vehicle miles of travel (VMT), hours of delay and modal split (percent transit
use). These measures deal with both the supply and demand sides of the equation which is a
key consideration in congestion management initiatives mandated by the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The following sections describe each of the parameters
in greater detail.
It should be pointed out that the analysis of the operating conditions of individual routes or
route segments was not designed into the HMDC model. Rather, general system operation
levels and comparisons of development alternatives were to be compared. Further, additional
localized highway network improvement projects, beyond the scope of this analysis (e.g.,
intersection and signalling improvements) may be proposed in the future to address apparently
under-performing roadway links.
Another factor to be taken into consideration in the comparison of alternatives is the fact that
many of the major highways providing access to the Meadowlands also provide for a significant
level of through-trips. These through-trips and the growth of through-trips cn these highways
do not effect and are not affected by alternative development scenarios for the Meadowlands.
Avprafte Speed
Table 5-14 contains average speed information from the model runs of the alternative land use
scenarios reported by each highway network link type. The average speed reported in
Table 5-14 (in miles per hour), is the total length of the link type divided by the time it takes to
travel the links of that type, weighted by the volume of traffic on each link. In general, the
5-75
-------
TABLE 5-13
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Transportation System Parameter
Alternative
Number of
Person
Trips
(xl,000)
Speed
(mph)
Vehicle
Miles of
Travel
(xl0,000)
Vehicle
Hours of
Travel
(xl,000)
Hours of
Delay
(xlOO)
Volume to
Capacity
Ratio
Modal
Split
(%)
Baseline
65
31.5
278
88.4
336
0.684
4.8
Modified
No Action
139
24.6
322
131
670
0.762
8
Preferred
128
25.9
315
122
591
0.745
11.3
[tab5-13]
-------
TABLE 5-14
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AVERAGE SPEED
Link Type
Definition
1988
Modified
No Action
Preferred
1
Route 3 Mainline
32.48
19.63
20.77
2
Route 3 Service Roads
27.77
11.02
14.01
3
Meadowlands Parkway
23.79
9.72
8.08
4
New Jersey Turnpike (east &
west)
40.39
30.36
30.61
6
Route 20
33.36
34.66
32.49
7
Route 20 (Paterson Plank
Road)
19.77
21.92
18.58
9
Route 1&9 Skyway
35.10
24.87
29.78
8,10
Route 1&9 / Route 1&9 & 48
23.55
17.30
16.64
12
Route 17
25.80
22.44
23.25
13
Ridge Road / Kearny Avenue
16.51
14.09
15.00
15
Schuyler Ave. / Orient Way
23.62
24.36
24.99
17, 22
Route 7 / Harrison Avenue
30.48
12.41
29.60
19, 20
Route 46
28.51
26.28
25.88
23
Roadways in HMD @ 25 mph
3.90
2.07
2.31
14,25
Roadways in HMD @ 30 mph
13.15
7.86
12.63
11,16, 24
Roadways in HMD @ 35 mph
13.87
8.31
8.88
26
Roadways in HMD @ 40 mph
22.81
11.41
11.72
, 18,21, 27-31
Others
31.20
26.70
27.97
		Weighted Average	31.48	24.57	25.89
|tab5-14]
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
higher the total average speed, the less the congestion on the network and the better the
performance of the alternative. Analyses of the average speed by link type can be instructive for
determining where highway improvements might be considered.
1 he average speed for the Preferred Alternative is 5.3 percent higher than for the Modified No
Action alternative.
Vehicle Miles of Travel
Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are reported by link type in Table 5-15. This number represents
the sum of the number of vehicles multiplied by the length of each link type. Total VMT on the
network is the composite summation of the individual link type VMT. In general, a lower value
of vehicle miles of travel is more desirable than a higher value. The addition of improvements to
expressways often results in increased vehicle miles, but with these type of improvements, total
travel time is reduced because the increased speed more than compensates for the increased
distance.
The VMT for the Preferred Alternative is 2.2 percent lower than that of the Modified No Action
alternative.
Vehicle Hours of Travel
Vehicle hours of travel (VHT) are reported in Table 5-16. The values in the table represent the
total travel time (in hours) spent by all vehicles in the network reported by link type. A decrease
in vehicle hours of travel is always desired as this value is the best indicator of network-wide
travel efficiency.
The Preferred Alternative results in 6.9 percent less VHT than the Modified No Action
alternative.
Vehicle Hours of Delay
Vehicle hours of delay (VHD), reported in Table 5-17, is a subset of the VHT data reported in
Table 5-16. Specifically, VHD is the vehicle hours of travel spent traveling on links that are
congested. As with the vehicle hours of travel, a lower value of VHD is more desirable than a
higher one. Congested links are defined as those links where the predicted volume of traffic
exceeds the capacity of the link.
There is 11.8 percent less delay resulting from the Preferred Alternative than for the Modified
No Action alternative.
Volume to Capacity Ratio
The volume to capacity ratio by link type (V/C) presented in Table 5-18 is the projected average
of the volume of traffic on a link divided by the link capacity. In theory, V/C for "good"
performance conditions cannot exceed 1.0. However, in the application of travel demand
5-78
-------
TABLE 5-15
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
Link Type
Definition
1988
Modified
No Action
Preferred
1
Route 3 Mainline
96,312
122,203
119,058
2
Route 3 Service Roads
3,971
5,720
5,241
3
Meadowlands Parkway
4,353
11,217
9,801
4
New Jersey Turnpike (east & west)
589,742
684,189
673,632
6
Route 20
11,344
9,810
11,987
7
Route 20 (Paterson Plank Road)
12,220
20,054
20,480
9
Route 1&9 Skyway
23,870
31,903
29,687
8,10
Route 1&9 / Route 1&9 & 48
25,834
38,179
35,862
12
Route 17
103,408
136,102
130,114
13
Ridge Road / Kearny Avenue
5,498
6,213
5,355
15
Schuyler Ave. / Orient Way
35,544
35,767
34,559
17,22
Route 7 / Harrison Avenue
12,434
25,671
17,434
19,20
Route 46
78,789
94,412
91,657
23
Roadways in HMD @ 25 mph
3,170
7,411
7,067
14, 25
Roadways in HMD @ 30 mph
7,772
20,794
21,728
11,16, 24
Roadways in HMD @ 35 mph
12,861
13,009
13,934
26
Roadways in HMD @ 40 mph
11,495
23,956
23,787
5,18, 21,27-31
Others ,


1.895.997

Totals
2,781,848
3,220,045
3,147,380
(tab5-15|
-------
TABLE 5-16
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK VEHICLE HOURS OF TRAVEL
Link Type
Definition
1988
Modified
No Action
Preferred
1
Route 3 Mainline
2,965
6,224
5,733
2
Route 3 Service Roads
143
519
374
3
Meadowlands Parkway
183
1,154
1,213
4
New Jersey Turnpike (east & west)
14,602
22,534
22,007
6
Route 20
340
283
369
7
Route 20 (Paterson Plank Road)
618
915
1,102
9
Route 1 &9 Skyway
680
1,283
997
8, 10
Route 1 &9 / Route 1 &9 & 48
1,097
2,207
2,155
12
Route 17
4,008
6,066
5,596
13
Ridge Road / Kearny Avenue
333
441
357
15
Schuyler Ave. / Orient Way
1,505
1,468
1,383
17, 22
Route 7 / Harrison Avenue
408
2,068
589
19, 20
Route 46
2,764
3,592
3,541
23
Roadways in HMD @ 25 mph
812
3,580
3,058
14, 25
Roadways in HMD @ 30 mph
591
2,645
1,721
11, 16, 24
Roadways in HMD @ 35 mph
927
1,565
1,570
26
Roadways in HMD @ 40 mph
504
2,100
2,030
5, 18,21,27-31
Others
55,880
72,410
67,784

Totals
88,360
131,054
121,579
[\lab5-!6]
-------
TABLE 5-17
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK VEHICLE HOURS OF DELAY
Link Type
Definition
1988
Modified
No Action
Preferred
1
Route 3 Mainline
1,213
4,002
3,568
2
Route 3 Service Roads
55
392
257
3
Meadowlands Parkway
59
834
933
4
New Jersey Turnpike (east &
west)
4,773
11,131
10,780
6
Route 20
56
37
69
7
Route 20 (Paterson Plank Road)
312
413
590
9
Route 1 &9 Skyway
150
574
337
8, 10
Route 1&9 / Route 1&9 & 48
445
1,247
1,253
12
Route 17
1,423
2,663
2,344
13
Ridge Road / Kearny Avenue
176
263
204
15
Schuyler Ave. / Orient Way
489
446
396
17, 22
Route 7 / Harrison Avenue
70
1,403
129
19, 20
Route 46
1,164
1,679
1,682
23
Roadways in HMD @ 25 mph
685
3,284
2,775
14, 25
Roadways in HMD @30 mph
332
1,953
997
11, 16, 24
Roadways in HMD @35 mph
558
1,193
1,171
26
Roadways in HMD @ 40 mph
216
1,501
1,435
18,21,27-31
Others
21,433
33,956
30,181

Totals
33,609
66,971
59,101
[UbJ-17)
-------
TABLE 5-18
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (V/C)
Link Type Definition
1988
Modified
No Action
Preferred
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
8, 10
12
13
15
17, 22
19, 20
23
14, 25
11,16,24
26
5, 18,21,27-31
Route 3 Mainline
Route 3 Service Roads
Meadowlands Parkway
New Jersey Turnpike (east &
west)
Route 20
Route 20 (Paterson Plank Road)
Route 1 &9 Skyway
Route 1&9 / Route 1&9 & 48
Route 17
Ridge Road / Kearny Avenue
Schuyler Ave. / Orient Way
Route 7 / Harrison Avenue
Route 46
Roadways in HMD @ 25 mph
Roadways in HMD @ 30 mph
Roadways in HMD @35 mph
Roadways in HMD @ 40 mph
Others
0.828
0.365
0.490
0.666
0.486
0.733
0.479
0.729
0.815
0.661
0.504
0.427
0.824
0.231
0.334
0.393
0.480
0.698
1.020
0.525
0.797
0.776
0.421
0.846
0.640
0.802
0.832
0.747
0.508
0.705
0.809
0.523
0.408
0.374
0.775
0.765
0.994
0.481
0.696
0.764
0.514
0.864
0.595
0.753
0.795
0.644
0.490
0.479
0.786
0.499
0.426
0.400
0.769
0.750
System Performance Weighted Average
0.684
0.762
0.745
[tab5-18]
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
forecasting and transportation network simulation models, V/C values often exceed 1.0 on
individual links. Links exceeding 1.0 are defined as congested as discussed above for estimating
VHD.
The V/C ratio for the Preferred alternative showed a 2.2 percent improvement from the
Modified No Action alternative.
Transit Modal Split
Modal split results are presented in Table 5-19. The total person trips reported in the table are
all trips that are related to the land uses within the Hackensack Meadowlands District. This
includes trips:
¦	between home and work, if either home or work is located within the District;
¦	between home and shopping locations;
¦	between work and restaurants;
¦	among shopping locations;
¦	between home and recreational or social activities; and,
¦	among recreational or social activities.
Obviously, many of these trips are short trips within the District that are not candidates for
transit use. These short, intra-district trips, however, must be included in the count to
accurately represent the total travel volumes in the District. This, in part, explains the relatively
low transit mode share estimates. The remainder of the numbers presented in Table 5-19 are
derived from the first two. In general, a higher modal split percentage and a larger number of
person trips by transit is preferred over a lower percentage or number because the higher
percentage or number of transit trips indicate fewer automobile trips and a better utilization of
the transit system infrastructure.
Link Congestion
Still another measure of system performance is the number of congested highway links on the
network after trip assignment. Congested links are defined as those links operating at a V/C
ratio equal to or greater than 1.0. For the baseline, 149 links were congested. The Modified No
Action alternative had 283 congested links in the Year 2010 while the Preferred Alternative had
260, for a reduction of over eight percent. This measure is an important one because it directly
impacts the air quality analysis and indicates those areas that may provide a higher contribution
to total area-wide emissions.
A qualitative evaluation of congestion throughout the Meadowlands was performed for each of
the 32 link types defined in the transportation network. Congested links are defined as those
links having a volume to capacity ratio (v/c) equal to, or greater than, 1.0. Failed links are
defined as those links having a v/c ratio equal to, or greater than, 1.25. Although v/c ratios
5-83
-------
TABLE 5-19
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK TRANSIT MODAL SPLIT

1988
Modified
No Action
Preferred
Person Trips
64,703
138,906
128,181
Auto Trips
61,580
127,823
113,706
Percent Auto
95.17%
92.02%
88.71%
Percent Transit
4.83%
7.98%
11.29%
Transit Trips in Thousands
3.12
11.08
14.48
[tabS-19]
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
greater than 1.25 exist in theory only, the overall performance of a regional network may be
qualitatively evaluated using these data.
Adequacy of the proposed 2010 transportation system improvements, contained in the HMTM,
to maintain or reduce congestion, should correlate with the ability of the transportation system
to accommodate the SAMP managed growth. Consequently, un-managed growth should
negatively impact congestion for the same amount of growth and transportation network
improvement assumptions. Transportation system performance predicted by the HMTM was
clearly shown to be sensitive to changes in land use during the alternatives screening analyses.
The 2010 No Action Scenario with the 1988 transportation network is provided as a "baseline"
condition for comparing the predicted effects of the transportation improvements assumptions.
Results of the qualitative analysis are presented in Table 5-20 for the 31 roadway categories
(centroid connectors are excluded) represented by the transportation model network. The
proposed socioeconomic growth in the absence of the transportation improvements results in a
total of 377 congested/failed links. (As mentioned above, this condition is only presented as a
baseline upon which to test the adequacy of the proposed transportation improvements to
accommodate future growth.) The Modified No Action alternative, which includes the
transportation improvement assumptions, reduces the number of congested/failed links from
377 to 283. The reduction in congested/failed links may be attributable to the transportation
improvement assumptions contained in the HMTM. The preferred alternative, or managed
growth scenario, further reduces the number of congested/failed links from 283 to 260. The net
reduction of 23 congested/failed links for the preferred alternative versus the 2010 Modified No
Action (No SAMP) alternative may be directly attributable to the SAMP since the amount of
growth and transportation improvements assumptions are held constant.
Perhaps more instructive is an evaluation of the change in the number of failed links for the
Preferred alternative versus the 2010 Modified No Action alternative. The net 23 improvement
in the number of conges ted/failed links consists of an increase of seven congested links
combined with a decrease of 30 failed links for the Preferred alternative. Although difficult, if not
impossible, to quantify at a link-specific level, the overall improvement in regional congestion is
evident in the benefit to air quality, delay, and other transportation system performance
parameters discussed previously.
The statistics discussed above indicate that the Preferred Alternative will have much lower
transportation impacts than the Modified No Action (unmanaged growth) alternative.
5.14 Air Quality
Approximately 100 million vehicle miles of travel occur each day throughout the northern New
Jersey metropolitan area. Much of this mileage is attributable to "through" trips, with origins
5-85
-------
TABLE 5-20
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK QUALITATIVE CONGESTION ANALYSIS


Number of Congested/Failed Links
Number
Improved
Link Type
Link Definition
No Action
Modified
No Action
Preferred
Alternative
Links With
Preferred
Alternative
1
Route 3 Mainline
16
15
14
1
2
Route 3 Service Roads
2
2
2
0
3
Meadowlands Parkway
3
6
5
1
4
New Jersey Turnpike
18
21
21
0
6
Route 20
0
0
0
0
7
Route 20 (Paterson Plank Rd)
8
2
3
-1
9
Route 1&9 Skyway
1
1
1
0
8,10
Route 1&9 / Route 1&9 & 48
11
4
4
0
12
Route 17
14
11
9
2
13
Ridge Road / Kearny Avenue
6
4
2
2
15
Schuler Avenue / Orient Way
8
3
3
0
17,22
Route 7 / Harrison Avenue
11
6
1
5
19,20
Route 46
9
9
9
0
23
Roadways in HMD @ 25 mph
18
16
15
1
14,25
Roadways in HMD @ 30 mph
19
16
13
3
11,16,24
Roadways in HMD @ 35 mph
17
13
15
-2
26
Roadways in HMD @ 40 mph
17
13
12
1
5,18,21,27-31
Others
199
141
131
10

Total Congested/Failed Links:
377
283
260
23
(t&bS-ZO)
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
and destinations outside the boundaries of the District. The North Jersey Transportation
Planning Authority (NJTPA) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for
air quality conformity throughout the region. The Hackensack Meadowlands District is a
subplanning district within the NJTPA. Existing transportation projects and assumptions
contained in the Hackensack Meadowlands Transportation Model regarding transportation
projects likely to occur in the future have been provided to the NJTPA for inclusion in their
regional air quality analyses as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Transportation improvement programs are revised and updated annually in the planning
process to monitor improvements to air quality conditions throughout the region. The horizon
year of analysis is 2007 for the MPO's which represents the year that ozone attainment is
mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The planning year horizon for the
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS is 2010.
The Hackensack Meadowlands District, as a special planning district of the NJTPA, represents
only a portion of the total regional emissions contributing to air quality impacts within the north
Jersey planning region. Due to the considerable influence of "external" trips through the region
on overall mobile source emissions, a regional analysis of air quality emissions could reasonably
be expected to show only minimal changes as a result of improvements to the transportation
network which were not "regionally significant" but were instead "localized" transportation
improvements necessary to support managed growth. The large component of "through" trips
reflected in the transportation model would also reasonably be expected to influence the ability
of transportation improvements within the District to substantially reduce air quality emissions
from regionally significant transportation projects, transportation demand management, and
transportation control measures, required to support managed growth in the District, as well as
the greater NJTPA MPO region.
For the majority of the District, the most demonstrable emissions reductions are largely
embodied in decreasing mobile source emissions estimates over the 20-year planning period as a
result of fleet turnover, enhanced inspection and maintenance programs, and anti-tampering
programs, etc. For the Preferred Alternative versus the Modified No Action alternative, carbon
monoxide (CO) is reduced from an estimated 113,562 lbs/AM peak hr to approximately 106,421
lbs/AM peak hr, a 6.3% improvement in CO emissions; oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are reduced
from an estimated 12.669 to approximately 12,350 lbs/AM peak hr, an improvement in NOx
emissions of approximately 2.5%, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are reduced from an
estimated 10,388 to approximately 9,757 lbs/AM peak hr, an improvement of approximately
6.1%. Consistent with the requirement in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) of a
conformity finding for the Preferred Alternative, CO, NOx, and VOC emissions are also reduced
relative to existing conditions (see Section 5.14.3).
5-87
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.14.1 Impacts to Air Quality from Transportation Improvements
Macroscale Air Quality Analysis of The Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS Preferred
Alternative /4s A Subpart of The North Jersey Metropolitan Planning Area
To determine conformity of the Preferred Alternative with the intent of the CAAA, a detailed air
quality analysis was conducted consistent with the requirements of a "newly performed
regional analysis" of a transportation plan. The minimum input necessary to conduct the
comparative air quality analyses included the description of alternatives as a function of land
use, existing and future transportation network assumptions, MOBILE5a input parameters for
the District, and background air quality data. The purpose of this study was to prepare a
detailed air quality assessment of the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative on air
quality conditions within the District. A detailed analysis of the highway and transportation
system needed to serve the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 5.13 of this report.
Analyses conducted as part of the Preferred Alternative's evaluation of air quality conditions in
the District include regional burden analyses for the morning (AM) peak hour transportation
condition for existing and future CO concentrations, and the pollutant precursors for ozone,
NOx and VOC. Units for pollutants analyzed as part of the air quality analysis are in pounds
per hour (lbs/hr).
Required Alternatives Analysis To Demonstrate Conformity of The SAMP Long Range
Transportation Plan With The Objectives of The CAAA
Analysis of mobile source emissions within the District requires a comparative analysis of the
Baseline, Modified No Action and Preferred Alternatives. Emission factors used to quantify
mobile source impacts and benefits of the alternatives were obtained using the latest version of
the EPA MOBILE5a Mobile Source Emissions Factor model. The land use and transportation
network components of the Baseline alternative were unchanged. As described in Section 4, the
"Modified No Action" alternative does not represent a "no growth" alternative, but represents
an approximately 60% build-out of the existing master plan within the District, or "No SAMP".
For comparative evaluation of the Preferred Alternative, the land use component of the
Modified No Action alternative was unchanged, however, changes to the transportation
network assumptions, included as part of the detailed study of the Preferred Alternative, are
also incorporated in the Modified No Action alternative (see Section 5.13). Therefore, air quality
conditions have been reevaluated for the Modified No Action alternative with both the revised
Hackensack Meadowlands transportation model and MOBILE5a emission factors. The
Preferred Alternative contains all regionally significant projects in the transportation plan, as
well as all other regionally significant highway and transit infrastructure expected to exist by the
2010 horizon year of analysis. Transportation-related components of the air quality analysis
were obtained using the EBASCO HMDC MicroTRIPS model, and the zone-based land use
assignments of the Preferred Alternative provided by the HMDC. In those instances where a
land use parcel was contained in more than one transportation analysis zone, land use was
assigned to the zones by HMDC in a manner consistent with previous land use assignment
5-88
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
matrices prepared during alternatives screening. Detailed analysis of the Preferred Alternative
required a full evaluation of all technical components for direct comparison of air quality results
with the Baseline and Modified No Action alternatives: land use, changes to the transportation
assumptions, and the use of MOBILE5a emission factors.
Transportation Network Assumptions and Travel Demand Network Data Characterizing Air
Quality Conditions Within The District
The transportation model network link file was revised to reflect the list of 20 year horizon
transportation assumptions discussed in Section 5.13. Network modifications potentially
affecting air quality predictions include (1) removal of the NJ Turnpike Authority (NJTA)
western spur widening project which required a redefinition of the link type/capacity, (2)
removal of the NJTA interchange at Route 17 Extension, and (3) the inclusion of the proposed
West Shore Rail transit relocations within the District. In addition to modifications of the link
file, the location(s) of centroid connectors within the transportation analysis zones were
reviewed to determine whether any of the current network centroid configuration(s) should be
relocated or connected to different intra-zonal nodes to best reflect points of network "loading"
from Planning/Satellite Areas (P/SAs) contained in the Preferred Alternative. Generally, P/SAs
in the Preferred Alternative corresponded to those land use alternatives evaluated during the
screening analysis, and therefore, specific changes to centroid configurations were not
considered necessary for programmatic level regional analyses.
Mobile Source Emissions
The EPA Mobile Source Emissions Factor Model, MOBILE5a was used to estimate the 1988/1990
and 2010 speed-dependent mobile source emissions. The MOBILE5a input parameters were
coordinated with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). These data
represent the emissions input used for NJDEP's most recent conformity analyses.
The emission rates of individual vehicles are influenced by factors such as ambient air
temperature, engine temperature, operating mode, average speed, and maintenance. The
average emission rate for a fleet of vehicles operating on a highway is further influenced by the
composition of the fleet, vehicle type, and vehicle age. System-wide variables such as fleet turn-
over, clean fuels programs, maintenance programs, and inspection programs, would be reflected
in the MOBILE5a emission factors, therefore emission factors would be constant among
alternatives analyzed for a specific year of interest (e.g., 2010).
Area-specific data used in determining MOBILE5a emission factors included:
¦ User supplied Vehicle Registration Rates for the North Jersey Transportation Planning
Authority's MPO area;
5-89
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
¦	User supplied Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs with an 80%-20% split between
centralized and de-centralized I/M programs; and
¦	A user supplied Anti-Tampering Program (ATP).
The air quality analysis included cold start idle emission factors representative of the A.M. peak
hour period and link-averaged vehicle speeds of 2.5 to 60 mph. Carbon monoxide emissions
were estimated using ambient winter temperatures (45°F) while VOC and NOx were estimated
using ambient summer temperatures (84°F).
The MOBILE5a input data file formats used to estimate emission rates are presented in
Appendix R. Weighted emission factors of idling and running vehicles are also presented in
Appendix R.
Estimates of Future Background Concentrations Within The District From Mobile Source
Emissions
The Final Conformity Rule provides a procedure in §51.454(c) for estimating background
concentrations of mobile source emissions using the ratio of future to current traffic multiplied
by the ratio of speed dependent future to current emission factors. Estimates of the
representative changes in future background concentrations likely to occur within the District
were derived using the EPA procedure. A summary of the estimated change in background
concentrations, relative to the Baseline alternative, obtained for the future Modified No Action
and Preferred Alternative are presented in Table 5-21. (See Appendix R for worksheet
calculations.) Results indicate that the Preferred alternative would result in a five percent
reduction of background CO concentrations within the District. The Modified No Action
alternative would provide no additional offsets relative to the Baseline background CO
concentration because no reduction is estimated to occur. Both the Modified No Action and
Preferred Alternatives would result in a reduction in NOx of 24% relative to the Baseline
background concentration. The estimated VOC background concentration would be reduced
approximately 27% for the Modified No Action alternative while the future background
concentration of the Preferred Alternative would be reduced approximately 29%.
Comparative analysis of the Preferred and Modified No Action Alternatives to Baseline
conditions indicates the Preferred Alternative would provide equivalent or enhanced benefits
toward the future reduction of mobile source background concentrations within the District.
The estimated results of the background concentrations analysis are conditionally based upon
regional travel results obtained with the HMTM and emission factors obtained with the EPA
MOBILE5a Mobile Source Emissions Factor model.
5-90
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
TABLE 5-21
ESTIMATES OF CHANGES IN BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS FROM
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
Alternative
% Redi
Backg
jction of Mobile Source
round Concentrations
CO
NOx
voc
Baseline



Modified No Action
0%
24%
27%
Preferred
5%
247o
29%
The realization of actual reductions in background concentrations, however, will ultimately be
influenced by other factors such as the timely implementation of "regionally significant" control
measures and travel demand management measures (e.g., congestion management) contained in
the State Implementation Plan.
Analytical Methodology Used To Estimate Total Mobile Source Emissions For The District
The importance of land use planning on future mobile source emissions estimates is the effect(s)
that may be directly attributable to land use associated with the Preferred Alternative. If all
other system variables, i.e., future highway transportation network assumptions, future transit
assumptions, "through" trips, transportation analysis zones (TAZs), points of network loading
(centroid connectors), mobile source emissions, and amounts of development (number of
residences, square feet of office, etc.) are reasonably consistent among alternatives, it would be
reasonable to assume that changes in mobile source air quality would be the result of changes in
land use planning contained in the Preferred Alternative.
The procedure used to estimate regional mobile source emissions for the Baseline, Modified No
Action, and Preferred Alternatives consisted of calculating the speed dependent emissions
contribution of each link in the network and summing the component contributions. The
composite results of the regional emissions inventory were then converted to pounds per hour.
The methodology used to estimate the emissions totals is consistent with that used during the
alternatives screening. The approach is summarized in the following steps:
¦	Convert MOBILE5a emissions estimates from grams/vehicle-mile to pounds/vehicle-
mile.
¦	Define converted emissions factors in a cross reference table as a function of speed.
5-91
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
¦	Use results of the travel demand forecasting as input into the air quality emissions
model.
¦	Determine average link speed for each link in the transportation network.
1.	If the average link speed was less than 2.5 mph, an idle emissions contribution was
calculated for the link by multiplying the average travel time on the link by the id It-
emissions factor.
2.	If the average speed was equal to or greater than 2.5 mph, a running emissions
contribution was calculated for the link by multiplying the vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) on the link by the non-idling emissions factor
Results of the air quality analyses are presented in Table 5-22. Set Appendix R for detailed
results of the emissions estimates for each alternatives analyzed, A total of 1,511 links, excluding
centroid connectors, were contained in the detailed emissions inventory analysis of the
1988/1990 Baseline Alternative transportation network The 2010 .Modified No Action and
Preferred Alternatives network contained 1,597 links, excluding centroid connectors, and
included the assumed regional transportation and transit network improvements.
TABLE 5-22
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF A.M. PEAK HOUR MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION'S
POUNDS PER A.M. PEAK HOUR (LBS/AM PEAK HR)
Mobile
Source
Pollutant
1990
baseline
Alternative
2010
MODIFIED NO
ACTION
Alternative
2010
PREFERRED
Alternative
Are PREFERRED
emissions less
than BASELINE
and
MODIFIED NO
ACTION?
CO
130,046
113,562
106,421
ves
NO(x)
16,712
12,669
12,350
ves
VOC
14,559
10,388
9,757
ves
5.14.2 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative on Air Quality
To demonstrate conformity of a transportation plan during the Transitional Period, analyses
should be consistent with §§51.428, 51.436, and 51.442, of the Final Transportation Conformity
Rule. Generally, emissions are to be consistent with those budgets established in the most recent
5-92
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
State Implementation Plan/Transportation Improvement Program (SIP/TIP) submission.
However, although HMDC develops a transportation plan as a component of the Special
Planning District, the current SIP/TIP submission sets emissions budgets for the entire NJTPA
region and does not contain specific emissions budgets for the Hackensack Meadowlands
subarea. Therefore, performance of the Baseline, Modified No Action, and Preferred Alternative
transportation networks, as they relate to air quality conditions, can be comparatively evaluated
relative to the net effect of each alternative on subregional mobile source emissions.
Mitigation of Localized Air Quality Impacts
Detailed site planning was not conducted as part of the regional programmatic analyses,
therefore, highly site-specific environmental impacts, such as CO hot spot analyses, are beyond
the scope of a programmatic evaluation of the long-range transportation plan. Future localized
transportation improvements will be adequately addressed, however, since each revision of the
SIP/TIP submission must demonstrate the elimination, or reduction, of CO violations in the
District.
Detailed site-specific analysis will be conducted on a project-by-project basis for those projects
funded by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Each
project will be required to demonstrate individual project conformity with the CAAA for
localized air quality impacts as part of the NEPA process in CO non-attainment or maintenance
areas. These site-specific, detailed, analyses will likely be performed using an air quality
prediction model such as EPA CAL3QHC.
Air Quality Control Measures Contained in the Environmental Improvement Program
Pursuant to §51.418(b) of the Final Conformity Rule, the criterion for implementation of
Transportation Control Measures for transportation plans is satisfied if the envisioned future
transportation system provides for the timely completion of all the transportation control
measures in the applicable implementation plan which are funded under title 23 US Code (USC)
or the Federal Transit Act, and as long as the envisioned future transportation plan does not
inhibit or interfere with the implementation of any control measure in the applicable
implementation plan.
Most of the supplemental mobile source air quality benefits to be derived from transportation
control measures other than those projects under the jurisdiction of the NJ Department of
Transportation (NJDOT), NJ Turnpike Authority, and NJ Transit, will be achieved through
transportation demand management measures implemented at the commuter level. Many of
these measures are components of congestion management programs which are discussed in
more detail in Section 5.13, Transportation, and in Section 2, the Environmental Improvement
Program.
5-93
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.14.3 Conformity of the Sub-Regional Long Range Transportation Plan
Authority and Applicability
The Final Transportation Conformity Rule was published by the Environmental Protection
Agency on November 23, 1993. As indicated in §51.394, conformity determinations are required
for (I) the adoption, acceptance, approval or support of transportation plans developed pursuant
to 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 450 or 49 CFR part 613 by a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) or Department of Transportation (DOT); (ii) the adoption, acceptance,
approval or support of Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) developed pursuant to 23
CFR part 450 or 49 CFR part 613 by an MPO or DOT; and (iii) the approval, funding, or
implementation of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTAj projects.
The objective of the transportation-related air quality analysis for the Preferred Alternative is to
demonstrate conformity of the Flackensack Meadowlands long range transportation plan with
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. During all periods,
conformity determinations for a transportation plan must satisfy the criteria of §§51.412, 51 414
51.416, and 51.418(b), of the Final Transportation Conformity Rule. In addition to the inclusive'
criteria listed above, to demonstrate conformity of a transportation plan during the Transitional
Period, analyses should also be consistent with §§51.428, 51.436, and 51.442, of the Final
Transportation Conformity Rule.
Analytical Requirements Necessary To Demonstrate Conformity Status of The Hackensack
Meadowlands Long Range Transportation Plan
To comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, each State is to submit
a clean air plan for nonattainment areas to EPA which establishes an emissions budget for motor
vehicle emissions. The conformity determination will require a test of the transportation plan(s
and transportation improvement program(s) (TIP) to assure that motor vehicle emissions will
remain within the established budget(s). Until plans/budgets are submitted to EPA, the
transportation plans and TIPs must be compared to a "no build" scenario with the net affect that
all new projects be shown to reduce emissions relative to the "no build", and, result in emissions
which are below the 1990 levels.
As a Special Planning District, HMDC is responsible for the development of a long range
transportation plan for the District. This planning information is then incorporated into re '
air quality analyses conducted by the N'JTPA to develop emissions data as part of the SIP a
NJTPA has submitted information for the SIP/TIP, which establishes the required air quality
emissions budgets for the north Jersey planning area, to EPA for review, therefore, New Jerse\
is in the Transitional Period.
5-94
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
§51.414 of the Final Conformity Rule, "Latest emissions model", is satisfied if the conformity
determination is based upon the latest emission estimation model available. Pursuant to
§51.414, the mobile source emission factors used for the air quality analyses were estimated
using the JiPA Mobile Source Emissions I-'actor Model, MOBILIi5a (March, 1993), and
subsequent CPA "MOI3ILP5a Information Sheet" releases relevant to the project.
The criterion of §51.416 of the I-'inal Conformity Rule is satisfied if conformity determinations are
made for a transportation plan according to §51.402(a)(2) and §51.402(e). Generally, the criterion
of §51.402(a)(2) is satisfied if reasonable opportunity is afforded to participating agencies to:
¦	select the model or models to be used in regional and hot spot analyses,
¦	determine "regionally significant" projects for the purpose of regional emissions
analysis, and which projects should be considered to have a significant change in design
concept and scope from the transportation plan,
¦	identify where adverse emissions impacts may occur for projects exempted in §51.462,
and revoke exempt project status, and
¦	determine whether obstacles to traffic control measures (TCMs) which are behind
schedule have been removed.
The criterion of §51.402(e) is satisfied if a proactive public involvement process provides the
opportunity for public review and comment prior to taking final action on a conformity
determination for a transportation plan. Public meetings have been conducted during the
project process to provide for public review and comment on all SAMP issues.
Pursuant to §51.428 of the final conformity rule, northern New Jersey is in the Transitional
Period of conformity with the CAAA of 1990. During the Transitional Period, the transportation
plan must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) in the applicable
implementation plan submission. This criterion is satisfied if the regional air quality analysis
estimates emissions of pollutant(s) or pollutant precursors, for which the District is in
nonattainment or maintenance for those pollutants and pollutant precursors, which have
established emission budgets in the implementation plan submission. Estimates of emissions for
the long range regional transportation plan for the District requires the analysis of the pollutant
carbon monoxide (CO), and the pollutant precursors for ozone; oxides of nitrogen (\r0x) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC).
In accordance with §51.452(b)(1), a network-based transportation demand model, relating travel
demand and transportation system performance to land-use patterns, population demographics,
employment, transportation infrastructure, and transportation policies (for long range planning
assumptions), was used to estimate transportation impacts and travel-related parameters for use
5-95
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
in the air quality emissions analysis of the District. To satisfy the requirements of the CAAA,
the regional emissions analysis should demonstrate that emissions for each of the applicable
pollutants or pollutant precursors are less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget
established in the long range implementation plan submission for the SAMP/EIS horizon year
of 2010, or the most recent year prior to the horizon year (which is 2007 for the NJTPA analyses)
Section §51.436 of the final conformity rule indicates that during the transitional period, the long
range transportation plan must contribute to a reduction in ozone and CO in nonattainment
areas. (States must demonstrate ozone conformity by 2007.) In order to satisfy this criterion the
BASELINE scenario must be composed of all in-place regionally significant highway and transit
facilities, services and activities, all ongoing travel demand management or transportation
system management activities, and reflect the completion of all regionally significant projects,
independent of funding source, which are currently under construction, undergoing right-of-
way acquisition and protective buying, have approval of PS&E, and have completed the NEPA
process.
The Preferred Alternative scenario must be composed of all projects implemented as
components of the approved transportation plan, TIPs adopted under transportation plans, and
all other regionally significant projects reasonably anticipated to be completed under the long
range transportation plan, including those non-FHWA/FTA highway and transit projects that
have clear funding sources and commitments leading toward their implementation and
completion by the year of analysis.
To demonstrate whether a reduction in emissions would occur for the transportation plan
estimates of emissions predicted to result from travel on the transportation systems defined by
the Baseline and Action scenarios must be performed to determine the difference in regional
nonattainment pollutant or pollutant precursor emissions. The criterion of §51.436 is satisfied if
(1) the estimates of regional emissions predicted for the Preferred Alternative scenario are less
than those emissions for the Baseline scenario, and (2) if the Preferred Alternative scenario
contributes to a reduction in 1990 emissions by any nonzero amount.
Conformity With Regional Air Quality Planning
The content of the future transportation plan was developed consistent with provisions
contained in §51.404. Consultation procedures consistent with §51.402(a)(2) and §5l.402(e) of the
final conformity rule were implemented during the conduct of detailed transportation-related
air quality analyses of the Preferred Alternative. SAMPXEIS participants consulted regarding
transportation and air quality issues included representatives of the US Environmental
Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, HMDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, FHWA, FTA, NJDEP, NJDOT, NJ Transit, and the NJ Turnpike Authority.
Public hearings conducted throughout the SAMPXEIS process provided the public with
5-96
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
opportunity to review and comment on air quality issues. Written responses will be provided
for all comments on air quality issues received from the public.
The Clean Air Act requires transportation plans and projects to conform to applicable
implementation plans. During the transitional period, conformity determinations are to be
based upon the most recent emissions budgets contained in the most recently approved plan
prepared by the MPO having jurisdiction over the air quality area. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 define project level conformity to an implementation plan as:
¦	eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of such
standards; and,
¦	that such activities will not
(i)	cause or contribute to any new violation of any standards in any area;
(ii)	increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any
area;
(iii)	delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission
reductions or other milestone in any area.
The Hackensack Meadowlands transportation plan is located within the greater North Jersey
Transportation Planning Authority metropolitan planning area which is designated non-
attainment for ozone by the EPA. The NJTPA has an approved Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) which is contained in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The 2010 long range transportation plan necessary to support the Preferred alternative conforms
with the intent of the CAAA since the plan contains projects from a conforming Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), and satisfies the requirements of (i), (ii) and (iii).
5.15 Noise
The area-wide noise impacts that could be associated with the Preferred Alternative (including
associated transportation improvements) are expected to increase average sound levels in the
District by less than 3 decibels, a negligible increase. Recommended mitigation for this impact
includes siting of noise-sensitive uses away from major noise sources and use of
development-specific measures to address site-specific noise concerns.
5.15.1 Noise Impacts from Planning/Satellite Areas
In a typical site-specific noise analysis for land development at an individual site, the impact of
the project is principally experienced in the surrounding area, especially at sensitive receptor
locations such as schools and medical facilities. In the case of the growth projected under the
5-97
-------
I'vt'ZLntal impacts o< the Pre/erred Alternative
Preferred Alternative, the affected receptors will primarily be the prelected future populate
residing or working in the Planning/Satellite Areas.
Based on the amount	expected
community and recrea ion	,	District by less than 3 decibels (because future
increase average	land use in the District), a
'""liX'mpacr Temporary construction-related noise impacts will occur but tee impacts
^t bfconZed to the immediate area surround,ng the construction site and w,l. not cause
permanent increases in sound levels.
AH the Planning/Satellite Areas currently experience noise impacts from the relatively high
rf lllT tat exist in the District as a result of highway and airplane traffic (see
sound levels that	^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ronlribute to growth ln hlgh„ay and a,r
®Xtralfic rewed noise will be an indirect source of additional noise in the District (see
below).
5 15 2 Noise Impacts from Transportation improvements
i Lrc,cfir nnisp will be caused by new vehicle trips attributable to
se vct
eds AS vehicle speeds decrease, noise levels generated by vehicles also decrease The
SP rfl effect of roadway congestion is to shift the free-flow period noise levels to earher and
overall effect ot	y	and evening rush hour. Thus the time of roadway noise
later time segmen s	^ expected that there will be a significant increase in total
mTha hfted noise for the District as a whole. However, specific Planning/Satellite Areas
rni^T'be temporarily affected locally by road and rail improvement construction no.se.
5 15.3 Noise Impacts from the Environmental Improvement Program
u , ^ lpvcls in the District. Incidental elevated noise levels
5 15 4 Mitigation of Noise Impacts
rrnifirant adverse noise impacts requiring mitigation are predicted to occur from
Although no sig	the following discussion highlights some possible measures to
toheTreTucenoise impact's. HMDC will assess requirements for such measures during the
individual project review process.
^	• „f^Phiph background sound levels in the District, (see Section 3.14.1) new land
Considering th « receptors (such as schools and medical facilities)-should be sited so
as to'miSze potential impacts from highway traffic noise. Noise-sensitive land uses,
5-98
-------
Section 5
Environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative
including residences and schools, should be sited at a sufficient distance from significant noise
sources to comply with HUD and FHWA noise criteria for residential areas. Mitigation
measures that may be necessary for specific projects, especially transportation projects, include
sound barriers and architectural approaches such as non-opening windows in air conditioned
buildings. Given the mix of future office and commercial activities projected in the District,
specific land development site designs should attempt to locate such non-residential uses so as
to serve as noise buffers for existing and future sensitive noise receptors.
Temporary construction-related increases in sound levels will be mitigated by standard
construction techniques, including limiting hours of operation, project scheduling, and
maintenance and muffling of construction equipment.
5.16 Cultural Resources
A Stage 1A cultural resources survey was conducted to determine the potential cultural
resources impacts from the various components of the Preferred Alternative. The specific goal
of the expanded basin-wide archaeological and historical evaluation is to provide an appropriate
planning tool to finalize, if needed, a parcel-specific Stage 1A cultural resource sensitivity study
of known and potential prehistoric and historic localities in accordance with Section 106
compliance procedures (outlined in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) for each of
the proposed development impact categories within the Hackensack Meadowlands study area.
The results of the Phase 2 study are summarized below. (See Section 3.16 for a discussion of
Phase 1 of the Stage 1A survey.) The complete Phase 2 study is attached in Appendix I.
For the purposes of this Phase 2 Study, three categories of evaluation areas were identified
within the 20,000 acre Hackensack Meadowlands District. The first category, Planning/Satellite
Areas (P/SA), included 51 identified (63 actual) parcels and approximately 1,700 acres, broken
down further into Hybrid Planning Areas, Satellite Areas, and Planning Areas Retained as
Satellite Areas. The second evaluation category, Wetlands Creation and Mitigation Areas (MA),
included 64 identified (77 actual) parcels and approximately 4,000 acres, and finally the third
category, Transportation Improvements (TI) areas included 35 actual areas of approximately 500
acres.
The EPA and ACE mandated purpose of the Phase 2 archaeological sensitivity evaluation was to
augment the findings of the initial 1992 map and archival based archaeological and historical
study by focusing on the evaluation of past impacts, which would have either disturbed or
destroyed and therefore diminished the archaeological sensitivity of prehistoric and historic
resources within the Hackensack Meadowlands. The baseline assumptions and methodological
framework for this investigation addressed the study area from the perspective of dynamic
change through time, both in terms of environmental and ecological shifts, and in terms of
changing patterns of human exploitation and land use.
5-99
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
n , this explicitly defined set of assumptions, both the evaluation of recent 19th and 20th
Based on this cxp y	^ ^	covorage, and the evaluation of potential past
century impacts th fe p	category areas were undertaken using the
archaeological sensitiviyor^^^ ^	^ Comparisons between mid to late 20th century
comparisons _of avai	^ — were used to estabUsh the degree of past impacts or change
a,r photo and top g p	^	ia, survival of archaeological remains. In
to each parccl a* . ^ P 1 Meadowland8 as a static and unchanging environment
addition, instead of t - h	evaluation of the prehistoric archaeological
dominated	that the basin has undergone radical and continuous
XS change during the period of potential human occupation.
The analysis process used three major sources of information to evaluate and categorize each of
The analysis pn ct	involved the use of traditional field reconnaissance survey
theSe study area,	^ ^ ^	mspections of, and photo documentation of the
This analysis process was codified and c„mputcri,ed through the use of a parcel-
oectfic dat entry form wh.ch was divided into four major category of inform tion. These
categories included basic	historic Sources
fo^hparcel1, L'id'enUf.ration and itemization of all air photo and map based indications of
oa, tmpac s and d.sturbances to each parcel, a scaled location*! map wh.ch served as the bases
past impacts	yations of current 1994 conditions, as well as the location and
tor recording	photographic coverage. Each of these forms was then computerized
—^ database, and linked through software, to AutoCAD based project graphic files for
easy reference and data control.
Given problems of access, no surface survey was initially projected in the proposal (or the MAs
T^rCtead they were evaluated remotely through the use of scaled comparisons of mid
^h and 20tllcentury m.,p and atr photo coverage for the baS,n.
5 16 11mpacts to Cultural Resources Irom Planning/Satellite Areas
sir nhnto based impact analysis resulted in the definition of a small
The field	W l,tfle or no identifiable disturbance,
set of potentia arc g	j investigation through detailed parcel-specific sensitivity
and which therefore warrant add^honahn^^g	^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
studies and/o p	historically sensitive, and presently unimpacted by land
found to be pre: is or y	channelization, extensive ditching, or modern residential
alteration activities,	. nf ihese ejght selected P/SA parcels, two are recommended for
and industrial development.testing 0Fnly (P/SA <
-------
TABLE 5-23
POTENTIALLY ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PLANNING/SATELLITE AREAS

Potential Sensitivity
Past Impacts
Recommended Coverage
Specific Recommendations*
Planning/Satellite Area
Acreage
Prehistoric
Historic
None
Partial
Total
Total
Partial
1
2
3
4
5
5
31
X
X

X

X




X

11 South
50
X
X

X

X




X

14
152
X
X

X


X



X

c
9.7
X
X
X


X




X

q
3.1

X

X

X




X

ar
14.9
X


X


X


X


as
81.5
X
X

X


X



X

f East
93
X


X


X


X


* 1 No Further Work
2	Sensitivity Evaluation
3	Presence/Absence Testin:
4	Both (2 and 3)
5	Struct. Doc.
tab5—23.wkl
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.16.2 Impacts to Cultural Resources from Wetlands Mitigation/Creation Areas
Out of the 77 MAs, the number of potentially undisturbed parcels which warranted further
parcel-specific archaeological evaluation was limited to only 2, due to the potential presence of a
19th century mill associated with parcel MA 2-Q, and the potential for surviving historic
elements relating to the Paterson Plank Road, and the historic Paterson bridge contained within
parcel MA 2-U. In addition to the need for subsequent archaeological evaluation of these
historic parcels, a total of 5 MAs were targeted as high priority sample areas, but not for
additional archaeological evaluation studies. Instead, these 5 parcels were selected as high
priority pollen core sample locations for the collection of data concerning the environmental
history of the basin (see Table 5-24).
As detailed below, the recommendations concerning the need for pollen core studies utilized a
computer reconstruction of the paleo-environment and topography of the basin. This
reconstruction was based on an 1869 Civil War era topographic map which provided data on the
depth and thickness of marsh sediments, and provided the basic information for characterizing
the pre-marsh or "sub-marsh" topography. Each of these "depth" readings were assigned
locational coordinates and entered into a standard surface modeling computer program to create
a 2-D and 3-D surface mesh model which, in essence, provided a reconstruction of the location
and extent of former dry land areas prior to being inundated through sea level rise or salt water
intrusion over the last 3,000 years (see following text discussion).
When combined with the available dated pollen record of the changing plant community, and
available sea level curves for the rising tide levels for the same time period, the resultant paleo-
environmental model demonstrated that the Meadowlands was a much different environment
consisting of extensive areas of dry ground, freshwater streams, and mixed hardwood forests
during the Late Archaic and Woodland Periods of northeastern cultural history. In addition to
demonstrating the dynamic, and, at times, relatively rapid rate of environmental change over
the last 3 millennia, this environmental reconstruction provided a concrete basis for selecting
specific wetlands remediation parcels for palynological analysis through the use of vertically
controlled cores, with which the antiquity of the changing pollen spectrum could be dated with
radiocarbon determinations.
In all, only 11 MAs were identified as possible candidates that did not appear to have been
previously disturbed or impacted by prior construction or landfill activities. Out of the 11
possible pollen study locations, 5 were ultimately selected based on their relative distribution
within the basin from north to south, and based on their location relative to the paleo-
environmental reconstruction map which documented the former presence of extensive upland
as well as lowland or former "floodplain" zones, and each of which would have provided a
different pollen sequence through time. Of the remaining 6 MAs which were not selected as
preferred pollen sample locations, 4 were excluded because of their proximity to previous
testing localities evaluated by Sirkin (1982), Carmichael (1980), and Heusser (1963), to avoid
5-102
-------
TABLE 5-24
POTENTIALLY ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE MITIGATION AREAS

Potential Sensitivity
Past Impacts
Recommended Coverage
Specific Recommendations *
Mitigation Area
Acreage
Prehistoric
Historic
None
Partial
Total
Total
Partial
1
2
3
4
5
6
2-6 a West
90.8
X


X



X




X
2—C East
3.8
X
X


X


X




X
1
1
a
i
120 2
X
X

X

X


X



X
2—U West
35.8
X


X


X



X


3-1 a
1203
X


X



X




X
33—A
13.4
X


X



X




X
* 1 No Further Archaeological Testing
2	Sensitivity Evaluation
3	Presence/Absence Testing
4	Both (2 and 3)
5	Struct. Doc.
6	Pollen Core
tab5—24.wkl
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
duplicate coverage for these already studied areas within the drainage basin. The other 2 were
not selected because they were too close to one of the 5 targeted locations and would have
reflected redundant environmental or topographic data. Based on this process of selection, the 5
MAs selected for controlled pollen cores were targeted to provide pollen data sets both upriver
and between areas of previous pollen sampling activity. Unless conducted as a mitigation
element for the overall SAMP, this critical data on the changing environmental history, marine
transgression, and shift from a freshwater river drainage to a marsh filled saline habitat will be
lost, disturbed, or become inaccessible following any SAMP-related change. As detailed below,
this recommendation calls for the use of vibra-core samples to provide non-compacted vertical
columns to the base of the marsh sediments (ca. 12 to 13 feet), with the analysis at a minimum of
1 foot intervals of the pollen record within each fraction, and each of which would be tied to a
radiocarbon determination involving a total of 10 to 15 samples per pollen core location.
5.16.3 Impacts to Cultural Resources from Transportation Improvements
Finally, in contrast to the area specific coverage and evaluation of the P/SA and MAs, the
evaluation of the proposed TIs was approached differently due to the extent and diversity of
potential cultural resources for a significant number of the 34 TIs. For this category of
development alternatives, the assessment of prehistoric and historic sensitivity was restricted to
the generic level of potential sensitivity provided by the original prehistoric and historic
sensitivity map generated for the initial 1992 study. It was possible, in some cases, to preclude
several areas of potential archaeological sensitivity within the transportation corridors due to
the lack of known or projected prehistoric or historic resources. However, given the fact that the
proposed TIs, in many cases, follow historic roads and transect historic settlement areas, the
status and potential survival of potential subsurface remains could not be assessed based on
remote map and air photo sources alone.
Accordingly, the evaluation of the TIs resulted in the identification of one corridor with only
potential prehistoric sensitivity, 11 areas with only potential historic sensitivity, and 13 areas
with the potential for both prehistoric and historic sensitivity because of either their proximity to
known resources, or because they were located close to or crossed previous stream courses
which have been highlighted for their potential prehistoric sensitivity (Grossman 1992). As a
result, out of the total of 34 Transportation Improvement corridors it is herein recommended
that with the exception of 9 corridors, for which either existing data indicates no anticipated
resources are present or substantial disturbance exists, 25 corridors cannot be precluded from
having potential prehistoric or historic sensitivity, and as such are being recommended for
detailed, route specific, Stage 1A sensitivity evaluations (see Table 5-25).
5-104
-------
TABLE 5-25
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FORTRAN SPORT ATION IMPROVEMENTS

Sensitivity
Specific Recommendations •

Project #
Description '
Acreage
Prehistoric
Historic
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
1
Extend Sea View Ave, south to NE Corridor, replacing Bergen Line
4.6
X
X

X




2
Widen County Ave, from Secaucus Rd to County Ave/Rd
7.4

X

X




4
Widen New Cbunty Rd, from County Ave/Rd to southern terminus
2.6

X

X




5
Realign ramps at Rt 3 and Meadowlands Parkway
4.0


X




No Data
6
Widen Paterson Plank Rd, from E Spur NJ Tpk Bridge to West Side Ave
7.4

X

X




7
Widen and extend Bergen Ave, from District Boundary to Newark—Jersey City Tpk
4.9


X




No Data
8
Extend Meadowlands Parkway, north to Paterson Plank Rd
4.1


X




No Data
9
Connect/wilen Paterson Plank Rd, from W spur NJ Tpkacross river to existing road
4.3
X
X

X




10
New Road (Bergen Arches Extension), along existing Bergen Line, from E Spur NJ Tpk
Interchange at SecaucusTransfer (ace #281 to Tonnelle Ave
11.5
X
X

X




12
Widen Belleville Tpk, from Sellers Street to Newark-Jersey City Tpk
28.1

X

X




13
Widen Oistle Rd, from Meadowlands Parkway Extensbn to New County Rd (entire length)
5.7

X

X




16
Widen Redneck Ave from Moonachie Ave to Liberty St (entire length)
8.1

X

X




17
Construction of Park & Ride at Moonachie Ave/Ra ilroad St/Industrial Ave
7.5

X

X




20
New ramp from W Spur NJ Tpk northbound at 18W to Rt 120
7.0


X




No Data
21
New toad east of Biendan Byrne Arena (Rt 120)
42.3
X
X

X




22
Widen Paterson Plank Rd, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave
15.4
X
X

X




25
Widen Moonachie Ave, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave/Moonachie Rd
14.2
X
X

X




* 1 No Further Work
2	Sensitivity Evaluation
3	Pre senoe/Absence Testing
4	Both (2 and 3)
5	Struct. Doc.
tab5—26.wkl
-------
TABLE 5-25
RECOMMENDATIONS FORADDITIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR TRAN SPORT ATION IMPROVEMENTS

Sensitivity
Specific Recommendations *

Project#
Description
Acreage
Prehistoric
Historic
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
26
Rt 17 South Extension, from Rt 3 lo Rt 280 (along existing Kingsland Line)
57.5

X

X




27
New rail line from Bergen Line, adjacent to widened NE corridor (see # 40) to
NYS&W/West Shore rail (at Rt 31
4.0
X
X
X




Disturbed
28
E Spur NJ Tpk Interchange at Secaucus Transfer
31.7


X




No Data
29
New rail line connecthg Main Line to Bergen Line, west of Meadowlands Parkway
6.9

X

X



NW end
30
Widen Main Line from connection from Bergen Line (see # 29) to NE CorTidor
20.8

X

X




31
Waterfront Corridor Transit Rail, abng District boundary from 50th Street to
Vince Lombardi PAR (see # 38)
38.4
X
X

X




32
Widen Newark —Jersey City Tpk, from District boundary to Belleville Tpk
20.4


X




No Data
33
Realign/grade separation of Secaucus Rd at NYS&W/West Shore rail and post office id
4.2
X
X

X




34
Ramps at intof West Side Ave and Paterson Plank Rd, and realignment of West Side Ave
1.0

X

X




35
Widen Washington Ave, from Paterson Plank Rd to Moonachie Aw
13.1
X
X

X




36
Widen Secaucus Rd, from E Spur NJ Tpk to new alignment at West Shore rail (see # 33)
2.8
X
X

X




37b
Widen Rt 3, from Rt 20 to Berry's Creek bridge
17.5


X




No Data
38
Expansion of Vince Lombardi Park & Ride
10.7


X




No Data
39
Secaucus Transfer Station, between Planning Area "13M, new Turnpike Interchange (see
#28). Fenhom Creek, widened Mail Line (#30), and widened NE Corridor (see# 40)
3.0
X
X

X




40
Widen NE Corridor Line, from Hacbensack River to Secaucus Rd
13.6
X
X

X




41
Widen County Rd from New County Rd/County Ave to Tonnelle Ave
10.9
X
X

X




42
West Shore Line Cbmmuter Rail, from V. Lombardi P&R to Meadowlands Sport Complex
50.0
X


X




* 1 No Further Work
2	Sensitivity Evaluation
3	Presence/Absence Testing
4	Both (2 and 3)
5	Struct. Doc.
ab5-26.uki
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.16.4	Impacts to Cultural Resources from the Environmental Improvement
Program
The objective of the cultural resources initiative of the EIP is to identify potential historic and
cultural resources and to implement methods to protect and/or record the District's resources.
This will have a significant long-term beneficial impact on the cultural resources in the District.
Specifically, the EIP will result in development.of a comprehensive cultural resource
management process, development of procedures to incorporate cultural resource issues into
the land use review process, and implementation of a historic preservation ordinance. Each of
these efforts will benefit the preservation of and the sensitivity to cultural resource issues in the
District. The EIP also proposes wetland enhancement that may disturb cultural resources. This
potential disturbance was discussed in Section 5.16.2.
5.16.5	Mitigation of Cultural Resources Impacts
The combined use of individual site walkovers and the detailed comparison through time of
available air photo and cartographic coverage, principally between 1963 and 1992, provided
concrete and detailed evidence of predominantly 20th century impacts, principally from
ditching, landfilling, road and rail construction, as well as dense industrial development. As a
result of this historic impact analysis, procedures were formulated for identifying a relatively
small number of development areas with possible prehistoric and/or historic sensitivity, which
demonstrated a potential for survival due to the lack of any identified substantial impacts. This
process has resulted in the identification of eight P/SAs that warrant additional archaeological
evaluation, two MAs that warrant further archaeological assessment, and 25 TIs that warrant
further work, due to the extent and diversity of the prehistoric and historic resources either
adjacent to or in immediate proximity to the study areas which warrant parcel-specific resource
assessment and/or possible testing. Finally, given the critical importance of a limited number of
undisturbed wetlands parcels for their information potential relative to the changes in the
prehistoric and/or historic environment within the Hackensack Meadowlands, and given the
potential disturbance of these proposed wetlands parcels that potentially contain undisturbed
pollen sequences or records, this report recommends that 5 discrete parcels be investigated and
documented through the use of controlled, radiocarbon dated pollen core samples prior to being
subjected to any change, including mitigation work (see Table 5-24).
Coordination of, and methods for future cultural resource study in the District (for SAMP-
related projects) will be formalized in a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between EPA, ACE, NJDEP, and HMDC. This MOA will detail the future Section 106 (National
Historic Preservation Act) compliance process to be followed by the SAMP partners. Potential
SAMP-related effects, as summarized above, are detailed in the Phase 2 cultural resources study
(see Appendix I).
5-107
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.17 Solid Waste
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative will result in the generation of approximately
117,000 tons of solid waste each year (after the full build-out of the Preferred Alternative). This
increase represents an increase of approximately 75 percent from existing in-District solid waste
generation, because there are currently very few households in the District, and because solid
waste generation from office uses is relatively low. Given that the increase in solid waste
generation will gradually occur over the 20-year planning period, the increase is not expected to
have a significant adverse impact on the capacity of the solid waste system to manage this waste
through a combination of source reduction, recycling, composting, incineration, and landfilling.
The solid waste generation in the District under the Preferred Alternative (117,000 tons/year)
represents an increase of approximately five percent in the total solid waste generation (before
recycling) of Bergen County (1.2 million tons/year) and Hudson County (910,000 tons/year).
The major solid waste impact associated with transportation improvements in the District will
be a short-term increase in the generation of construction and demolition debris. The primary
means of mitigating solid waste impacts is through source reduction, recycling, and composting
to the maximum extent technically and economically feasible.
5.17.1 Solid Waste Impacts from Planning/Satellite Areas
Twenty-three Planning/Satellite Areas will overlie known or suspected solid waste disposal
locations. Development in locations in which solid waste has been disposed of is an advantage
insofar as such sites often provide non-wetland growth locations, use of which usually has fewer
effects on natural resources. However, such locations require additional site engineering to
provide stable foundations and control of leachates and gases. The degree to which Planning/
Satellite Areas overlie solid waste disposal locations is listed in Table 5-26. The locations of the
Planning/Satellite Areas with respect to known and suspected solid waste disposal operations
are shown in Figure 5-9.
A total of 369 acres in the primary Planning/Satellite Areas overlie known or suspected solid
waste disposal locations, equal to approximately 22 percent of the 1,698 acres included within
Planning/Satellite Areas. The hybridization process used to develop the Preferred Alternative
rejected use of solid waste disposal locations that were not feasible for site development based
on existing information. These areas included landfills which received municipal and industrial
waste. The fact that solid waste disposal locations underlie some of the proposed Planning/
Satellite Areas is not anticipated to preclude use of those sites. The best available information
for Planning/Satellite Area locations indicates that the type of solid waste to be encountered in
these areas is predominantly construction debris (and not municipal or hazardous waste), and
that disturbance of waste disposal locations that may exist within the Planning/Satellite Areas
will not result in uncontrollable discharges of leachates or gases, primarily because the means
exist to control such discharges.
5-108
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 5-26
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Solid
Hazardous


Solid
Hazardous

Planning
Waste
Waste
Chromium
Satellite
Waste
Waste
Chromium
Area
Acres
Acres
Sites
Area
Acres
Acres
Sites
1
2.2
2.7 4 0
a
2.8
0.0
0
2
6.7
0.0
0
b
0.0
0.0
0
3
0.0
0.0
0
c
0.0
0.0
0
4
0.0
0.0
0
e
0.0
0.0
0
5
0.0
0.0
0
f
0.0
0.0
0
6
0.0
0.0
0
h
9.1
0.0
0
7
27.1
0.0
0
i
5.3
22.0 +
0
9
12.2
0.0
0
j
0.0
11.3 +
0
10
0.0
0.0
0
k
0.0
0.0
0
11
66.7
0.0
0
n
0.0
9.5 *#
0
12
0.0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
13
0.0
0.0
0
P
0.0
0.0
0
14
0.0
0.0
0
q
0.0
0.0
0
15
0.0
0.0
0
s
24.2
0.0
0
Subtotal
114.8
2.7
0
V
15.7
0.0
0




w
1.2
0.0
0




X
0.0
0.0
0




y
3.9
0.0
0




z
17.7
0.0
0




aa
0.2
0.0
0




ab
0.7
0.0
0




ac
0.0
0.0
0




ae/af
40.9
0.0
0




aS
36.3
0.0
0




ah
0.0
0.0
0




aj
27.1
0.0
0




ak
14.1
0.0
0




am
0.0
0.0
0




aq
0.0
0.0
0




ar
0.0
0.0
0




as
10.2
0.0
0




at
0.0
0.1 @
0




av
0.0
0.0
0




aw
16.6
0.0
0




ay
0.0
0.0
0




az
0.0
0.0
0




ba
25.1
0.0
0




bb
3.2
0.0
0




Subtotal
254.3
43.0
0



Transportation Improvements
58.6
1.5 eŁ
0
Total 427.7	47.1	0
Note: *) Scientific Chemical Processing +) Universal Oil Products; #) BuTrough's Corp.;
@) Ventrol/Velsicol Chemical Corp.; t) Diamond Shamrock; Ł) Standard Chlorine Chemicals
ddhazpr.uk 1
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
The growth anticipated in the Preferred Alternative will generate 117,000 tons per year (tpy) of
solid waste to be recycled, composted, incinerated, or Iandfilled, in addition to the current
generation rate of 150,000 tpy. Based on solid waste generation rates of 0.694 tons per employee
per year for office employment and 1.378 tons per employee per year for commercial sector
employment, the office and commercial space would add an estimated 57,000 tons per year (tpy)
to the District's waste stream. Based on a residential per capita generation rate of 3.7 pounds
per person per day, the projected new residents would add another 23,000 tpy. The secondary
office/light manufacturing/warehousing component would add an estimated 37,000 tpy of
solid waste.
Management responsibility for the solid waste generated in the District is divided between the
Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA) and the Hudson County Improvement Authority
(HCIA), and is overseen by HMDC. As reported in section 3.16, both authorities are at this time
formulating long-term solid waste management system plans. BCUA is disposing of its waste
through an arrangement with Essex County (about one-third of non-recycled waste) and by
out-of-State disposal arrangements (about two-thirds of non-recycled waste). An agreement
with Union County for disposal of BCUA waste is also in place. It is anticipated that these or
similar, arrangements will remain in effect until Bergen County selects a long-term disposal
strategy. HCIA continues to dispose of its solid waste at the HMDC IE Landfill in
Kearny/North Arlington. There are varying estimates of the remaining life of the IE Landfill
ranging from 1 to 3 years. At the time of termination of this disposal arrangement HCIA will'
need to have disposal alternatives in place, an effort which is currently underway.
5.17.2	Solid Waste Impacts from Transportation Improvements
The major solid waste impact associated with SAMP transportation improvements in the District
will be a short term increase in the generation of construction and demolition debris. In
addition, approximately 59 acres of the 516-acre total transportation improvements footprints
overlay historic landfill locations.
5.17.3	Solid Waste Impacts from the Environmental Improvement Program
In addition to the reclamation of landfills for upland wildlife habitat (see section 5.3 3) the EIP
will establish a program to remediate many of the solid waste impacts that have occurred in the
District in the past. This will have a large positive impact on the overall environment of the °
District.
The program to be established by the EIP will use state-of-the-art landfill closure and
remediation designs, including the control of leachate and landfill gas emissions from the
currently unmanaged landfills in the District. Where possible, the closed landfills will be
available to the general public for passive and potentially active recreation activities 013
5-110
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
5.17.4 Mitigation of Solid Waste Impacts
Because no significant adverse solid waste impacts are predicted, no mitigation measures are
recommended. Any impacts from solid waste generated will be offset by the control of orphan
landfills.
5.18 Hazardous Waste Remediation
The process to develop the Preferred Alternative avoided use of sites known to be heavily
contaminated by hazardous wastes, except two locations that are being remediated under
existing state and federal remediation programs, the use of which are included in the Preferred
Alternative. Thus, the combined impacts to contaminated site remediation in the District from
the Preferred Alternative are not expected to be significant, assuming many sites will benefit
from expedited remediation under the Environmental Improvement Program, and other sites
will be properly controlled where construction disturbances may occur. Therefore, no major
program for mitigation of impacts that might arise from disturbance of sites suspected of
containing hazardous materials is necessary at the programmatic level.
5.18.1	Impacts to Hazardous Waste Remediation from Planning/Satellite Areas
For the most part, the Planning/Satellite Areas do not infringe on known hazardous waste sites.
The hybridization process used to develop the Preferred Alternative avoided use of sites
severely contaminated by hazardous waste that were not included within existing state or
federal remediation programs. There is one primary Planning Area location and four satellite
area locations that contain suspected hazardous waste sites. Planning/Satellite Areas that
overlie known hazardous waste disposal locations are listed in Table 5-26, and are mapped in
Figure 5-9. Planning Area 1—where commercial space is proposed—is adjacent to the Universal
Oil Products (UOP) hazardous waste site. About 33 acres of Satellite Areas "i" and "j" overlie
the UOP site. The site owner is now conducting a phased cleanup plan; the completion date is
not known. Once cleanup is complete, potential exposure to hazardous materials by use of the
UOP site would be reduced to levels acceptable to the regulatory agencies, as specified in the
Record of Decision (ROD) for the UOP site. The UOP ROD will also specify permissible future
uses of the site. In addition, Satellite Areas "n" and "at" potentially overlie locations suspected
of having hazardous waste present (HMDC, 1993).
5.18.2	Impacts to Hazardous Waste Remediation from Transportation
Improvements
For the most part, the SAMP transportation improvements are located at some distance from
known hazardous waste sites. The Belleville Turnpike widening project runs adjacent to two
hazardous waste sites, Diamond Shamrock and Standard Chlorine Chemicals. The Paterson
Plank Road widening project runs adjacent to the Scientific Chemical Processing site. The
combined overlap of these two projects with the hazardous waste sites is only 1.5 acres, which is
5-111
-------
Section 5
Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
primarily buffer area between the road and the site. Therefore, ha/.ardous waste impacts are
expected to be readily controllable for the transportation improvements, using site stabilization
and remediation approaches.
5.18.3	Hazardous Waste Impacts from the Environmental Improvement Program
Through the "Hazardous Sites Initiatives," the EIP will have a positive impact on contaminated
site remediation activities in the District. The EIP will establish a program to improve the
cleanup procedures and other regulatory efforts regarding contaminated site remediation
activities within the District. The EIP initiatives will aid in contaminated site cleanup by
prioritizing sites within the District and coordinating activities with appropriate government
agencies. In addition, the EIP will establish a program to determine the feasibility of developing
remediated contaminated sites in the District, while incorporating natural resource
improvements as a condition of development.
5.18.4	Mitigation of Hazardous Waste Remediation Impacts
No significant adverse large-scale, or regional impacts to hazardous waste sites are expected to
occur from implementation of the Preferred Alternative. Mitigation for potential impacts at sites
suspected of containing hazardous waste involve implementation of the selected remedial effort
pursuant to a remedial investigation. The HMDC EIP proposes to accelerate and coordinate
remediation of contaminated sites throughout the District by coordinating government and
private cleanup efforts.
5-112
-------
Section
Six
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that called for the preparation and implementation
of a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the District was signed on September 14,1988 by
EPA, ACE, NJDEP, and HMDC. NOAA became a signatory on March 15,1989 (see Section 1).
The MOU seeks to identify and implement a series of regulatory products through the SAMP
process. This section describes the implementation of the SAMP. The objectives of the SAMP
would be achieved through a range of mechanisms: a Revised HMDC Master Plan (the HMDC
Master Plan is an element of NJ's Coastal Management Plan), expansion of HMDC's project
review procedures, streamlined regulatory procedures for projects consistent with the SAMP,
proposals for environmental improvement (including funding approaches), and creation of
several new committees to oversee the SAMP and related wetland mitigation activities. These
mechanisms, and others relevant to SAMP implementation, are described in the following
sections.
In accordance with the goals of the MOU, this SAMP/EIS recommends implementation of
several major regulatory and planning products. The regulatory and planning products include
changes to regulations and project review procedures in the District, and changes in the
administration of such regulations and review procedures. The principal regulatory products of
the SAMP, as outlined in this section, are:
¦	Adoption of a new Master Plan and Zoning Regulations for the District by HMDC. (The
MOU calls for the creation of a Revised Master Plan for the District that "uses the EIS ... to
plan a land use configuration that, in addition to meeting HMDC's planning purposes in
the District, will satisfy the requirements of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines".)
¦	Implementation of new site design and environmental requirements for projects submitted
to HMDC for planning approval, including, for specified activities, requirements for best
management practices for stormwater management, open space preservation, and
maximum lot coverage allowances.
¦	Streamlined wetlands permitting under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. (The
MOU calls for consideration of a General Permit for specified activities consistent with the
SAMP, as authorized under Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act, and "restrictions on
development... in agreed-upon areas of the District through ... land use designation in the
revised Master Plan and zoning amendments". The MOU also calls for a joint processing
agreement between ACE, EPA, and HMDC, such that "individual development proposals
consistent with the revised Master Plan would not be subjected to additional project-by-
project analyses of alternative sites"... with conditions. A joint processing agreement is
implemented in the SAMP in the form of Abbreviated Permit Processing procedures, and will
be available to projects that are consistent with the SAMP.)
6-1
-------
Sections	~..,D
Implementation of the SAMr
¦	Establishment of a comprehensive Environmental Improvement Program for the District,
with HMDC as the lead implementing agency. (The MOU cites "the parties' commitment,
through the SAMP process,... to ensure positive environmental gains for the District".)
¦	Streamlining of the permit review process for environmental permits in the District that are
under the authority of ACE, NJDEP, and HMDC. Proposed changes will be developed
and implemented cooperatively between NJDEP and HMDC, and will be consistent with
NJ's Coastal Management Program.
As noted previously, HMDC proposes to adopt a Revised Master Plan for the District that takes
into account expanded federal and state environmental requirements. The Revised Master Plan
will be developed from the SAMP and the preferred alternative, as presented in this EIS, and the
Master Plan will be fully consistent with the elements of the preferred alternative as set forth in
this EIS.
Fundamentally, the SAMP is a Plan—a set of interlinked actions (involving federal, state, and
local agencies) to effect environmental enhancements in the District, while allowing a specific
agreed-upon level of economic growth. The SAMP proposes specific future land uses for the
undeveloped properties (and many developed properties) in the District, ranging from
conservation, to remediation, to transportation improvement, to economic development.
Several factors have motivated the preparation of a SAMP for the Meadowlands District, as
described in Section 1:
(1)	recognition of the substantial environmental damage to the District from past practices and
the need to restore and enhance the natural environment,
(2)	tremendous pressures for economic development are present in the District (due to
location), that motivate landowners and developers to continue to sponsor projects in the
District, and,
(3)	inconsistencies between the HMDC Master Plan and various regulatory programs that
emerged subsequent to the adoption of the Master Plan, regarding the permittable and
approvable use of various lands in the District.
These factors have come together to create an urgent need to select and implement a rational
management plan for the District to guide future private and public sector projects, actions, and
land uses in this sensitive estuary.
The SAMP planning process focused on seeking consensus on future land uses, and the
permittability of those future land uses, in the District—balancing economic growth with
environmental improvement. However, many agencies, each administering diverse regulatory
and management programs, are involved in actions affecting the District (through permit and
administrative processes). As a result, SAMP implementation requires many individual agency
actions, and has many regulatory and administrative components. Because the SAMP affects
the natural environment of the District; affects persons with economic interests in its lands; and
affects local, state, and federal regulatory and administrative programs, the specifics of
6-2
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
implementation are complex. However, the SAMP calls for streamlining the project review
process by coordinating and consolidating as many regulatory program requirements as feasible
under one roof.
The process that has guided SAMP implementation efforts has required each of the MOU
signatory agencies to come together to identify a streamlined regulatory process, and to the
maximum degree feasible, create a single set of environmental principles and development
review requirements. Each agency (signatory to the MOU) has thereby agreed to the following
proposal: where future actions taken in the District conform to the adopted SAMP and HMDC's Master
Plan and design requirements, the project actions are presumed to be consistent with the bulk of that
agency's permit processing requirements. In this way, projects that are consistent with the SAMP
exhibit much greater regulatory certainty.
With respect to land development proposals, two basic project review tracks will be created.
The first review track is available to projects that are consistent with the SAMP, and the second
to those that are not. The agency that will have the first line of responsibility for determining
whether projects are consistent with the SAMP will be HMDC. The initial review will consider
whether the project is consistent with: the SAMP; the Revised HMDC Master Plan; and the
revised Zoning Map for the District. Review for SAMP consistency will include an identification
of the relevant regulations that are expected to apply to a project so that the extent of permitting
requirements are known by the sponsor of a project.
Only projects that are consistent with the SAMP will be eligible for streamlined federal, state,
and local project review processes. For example, under the EIP, nearly $900 million dollars of
environmental improvements (e.g., pollution abatement, landfill closure, wetland improvement)
are proposed in the District. Such improvements are encouraged, and their review will be
expedited and streamlined. Planning/Satellite Areas, and Transportation Improvements (as
described in the SAMP Preferred Alternative) located in uplands1 will not be affected by federal
Section 404 (of the Clean Water Act) wetland regulations, but will need to comply with other
federal environmental cross-cutter2 requirements. Although wetland regulations may not be
relevant in these cases, various NJDEP permit requirements may still apply, and HMDC plan
review responsibilities will also be exercised. Such projects will be eligible for streamlined
review by HMDC and coordinated review by NJDEP, using HMDC assistance. Development at
SAMP Planning and Satellite Areas that results in impacts to wetlands3 will be eligible for
General Permits or Abbreviated Processing Procedures from ACE; certain Transportation
1	Note: 30 of the 52 Planning/Satellite Areas and 17 of the 34 Transportation Improvements are
located in uplands and require no wetland fill.
2	Congress has passed a number of environmental laws which address the federal responsibility
for protecting and conserving special resources (for example, the Endangered Species Act, and
the National Historic Preservation Act). EPA refers to these laws generally as "cross-cutters"
because the requirement to comply with them cuts across all federal programs.
3	Note: Wetland impacts are anticipated at 22 of the 52 Planning/Satellite Areas and 17 of the 34
Transportation Improvement sites.
6-3
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
Improvements will be eligible for a General Permit (see conditions as listed in Section 6.2.1). All
projects consistent with the SAMP will be eligible for streamlined and coordinated permit
review from NJJDEP and HMDC.
Projects that are not consistent with the SAMP will need to comply with standard permit
application processes, and are not eligible for the streamlined review process. (The streamlined
review process is available only to projects consistent with the SAMP because extensive studies
regarding need, alternatives, environmental impacts, and mandatory mitigation have been
performed for actions included in the SAMP.) Therefore, projects that are not consistent with
the SAMP/Revised HMDC Master Plan will need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
permit review agencies that the proposed action meets the specific requirements of all relevant
laws, permit programs, and administrative procedures, which might potentially include (in
order of the probable review sequence):
HMDC Programs and Procedures
Zoning Consistency Review
Site Plan Review
Performance Standards compliance
State Programs and Procedures
Water Quality Certificate
Waterfront Development Permit
NJ Coastal Management Program Section 307 Consistency Determination
Stream Encroachment Permit
Federal Programs and Procedures
Clean Water Act (Section 404)
Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10)
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (Section 103)
Coastal Zone Management Act
Endangered Species Act
Historic Sites Act; National Historic Preservation Act
National Environmental Policy Act
It is anticipated that projects that are not consistent with the SAMP will be difficult to i
if they require HMDC, State, and federal permit approvals. Because the Revised HMD^M
Plan will replace the existing Master Plan as an element of the NJ Coastal Management Pr ^ ^
projects that are inconsistent with the Revised Master Plan will, by definition be i ¦ r°®ram'
with the Coastal Management Program for NJ. Only projects that are consistent withtiT^
Coastal Management Program are typically eligible for federal or state agencv Dermit a 8
Thus, Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) will likely preclude i PPF S-
specific permit approvals, notwithstanding the rights of project sponsors to apply for	^
permits.	0
6-4
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
This section describes each of the major elements of SAMP implementation, their relationship to
existing laws and regulations, and the agencies principally responsible for each implementation
element.
SAMP Regulatory Objectives
The 1980 Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act define a Special Area Management
Plan as a "comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and reasonable
coastal-dependent economic growth containing a detailed and comprehensive statement of
policies, standards and criteria to guide public and private uses of lands and waters; and
mechanisms for timely implementation in specific geographical areas within the coastal zone".
The ACE Regulatory Guidance Letter for SAMPs indicates that "An ideal SAMP would conclude
with two products:
(1)	appropriate local/state approvals and Corps general permit (GP) or abbreviated
processing procedure (APP) for activities in specifically defined situations; and
(2)	a local/state restriction and/or an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 404(c)
restriction (preferably both) for undesirable activities."
Activities in specifically defined situations (as referenced in item 1) are those development,
mitigation, and environmental improvement activities that are consistent with the SAMP.
Activities not consistent with the SAMP will be regulated and/or precluded under existing
regulatory authorities, such as (1) revised zoning and development review regulations being
implemented by HMDC, (2) authorities exercised by NJDEP through review of consistency of
the project with the NJ Coastal Management Program (under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act), (3) individual permit application review by ACE, and (4) potential future
404(c) actions by EPA where valuable aquatic sites are threatened.
Special Area Management Plan Components
The SAMP for the Hackensack Meadowlands consists of several components, as described
below. Implementation of the SAMP components is described in this section.
SAMP Components
1. Future Land Use Plan. A future land use plan (to year 2015) has been identified by
HMDC, showing general locations that are proposed for conservation, environmental
improvement, and development in the District. The future land use plan will be a
component of HMDC's Revised Master Plan for the District, which will mirror the SAMP.
The Land Use element of the Master Plan will identify general land use classifications and
the areal location and extent of development activity. The SAMP/HMDC Master Plan
planning period extends to the year 2015, but it is anticipated that the land use plan
developed in the SAMP constitutes the entire permittable build-out of the District. The
Revised Master Plan will guide the development of a new Zoning Map and Zoning
Regulations for the District. The Master Plan and Zoning Regulations are products of
6-5
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
HMDC's planning authority in the D^nct	in the District (described
the elements of ,Ke Preferred Alternate iS presented as
Figure 6-1.
. itnnrovements. Proposed transportation improvement projects include
2.	Transportatwn Impro	exlension projects that maintain mobility in and
road widening, railro , g ^ ^ ^ obiectives for the region by
through the District a ( availability of transit systems. There are 34
tr^sportaHon improvement projects anticipated in the SAMP, ranging from minor road
widenings to construction of new railways.
„ •	for Unavoidable Impacts. Mitigation is required to compensate
3.	MittgaUon f^ eSpecially those that will adversely impact wetlands. Specific
for regulated acti - ^ included in this EIS, and will also be required pursuant to
Zoning Regulations and Environmental Performance Standards. Several
Omenta, mitigation issues will receive special attention:
. • ™ will be implemented pursuant to an Interagency Compensatory
(3) Wetland Megaton Agreement. Participation will be invited from ACE, EPA, NJDEP
™nr NOAA and USFWS, and will include specific provision for implementation of
wetland mitigation banking in the District (see Section 6.2.2);
• r ™ source runoff from projects in the District must be performed
(b)	mwith^herequiJements of the E^'and NOAA Section 6217 Coasta.
Nonpoint Program (see Table 5-9), and relevant NJDEP regulations;
, * immrt assessment and mitigation with respect to compliance with the National
(c)	Impac	Act wm be conducted in accordance with a Memorandum of
Agreement that wiU be negotiated among EPA, ACE, NJDEP, and HMDC; and
curp6 advance the conservation of Peregrine Falcon are proposed in
 Sa^e with Section 7a(l) of the Endangered Speeds;Ac«, to be implemented
pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement proposed between EPA, ACE, USFWS,
NJDEP, and HMDC.
imnrovernents Program (EIP). An extensive portfolio of projects to restore
4. Envtronme Distnct's natural environment is proposed by HMDC, with an estimated
and imProve _nnr0ximately $900 million. The EIP seeks to correct decades of historic
combine co P	h curred in the District before the creation of HMDC in
—Łp^- °< comprehensive environmental management and
efforts including management of about 7,000 acres of wetlands, creation of six
restoration e , plementation of transportation management programs, closure of 9
r^llTTandfill gas recovery at the more recent landfills, District-wide water quality
'n education programs, and enforcement programs. (See Section 2 and Section
6X6 for additional information on the EIP.)
6-6
-------

Leg_end
Mi
Proposed Development Area
Hi
Proposed Development

In Wetlands

Indirectly Impacted

Wetlands
Mi
Unlmpacted Wetlands

Existing Development
¦1
Rivers & Streams
/\'
HMDC Boundary
A/
Roada
/y
Railroads
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Figure 6-1
Land Uses Under the
Preferred Alternative
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
5.	EIP Funding Mechanisms. Various mechanisms to fund the EIP are proposed, including
assessments on existing and new development, environmental linkage fees, and
coordination of government funding programs. (See Section 2 for additional information.)
6.	Streamlining of the Regulatory Review Process. General Permits and Abbreviated Permit
Processing Procedures will be implemented for projects that are consistent with the
SAMP/Revised HMDC Master Plan, and that involve wetland fill. Projects consistent with
the SAMP will have in place approved alternatives analysis, insofar as such analyses have
been prepared for this EIS. Impact and mitigation analyses (in addition to those performed
for the EIS) may be required for projects using the GP or APP. Such analyses will be tiered
on the work performed for this EIS. In addition, streamlined permit review between
HMDC and NJDEP will be implemented for projects consistent with the SAMP.
7.	Pilot Program to Redirect Growth Out-of-District. HMDC will work to create and
package various administrative support and existing NJ funding mechanisms designed to
evaluate approaches to redirect development proposals in the District to urban areas, as an
alternative to impacting wetlands in the District.
8.	Monitoring and Review Process for SAMP Components. Progress in achieving SAMP
goals will be assessed to assure balance between projects that adversely impact, and
projects that improve, the environment. An Oversight Committee will be created by the
SAMP partners, and, in addition to the SAMP partners, may include interested parties, to
review progress in achieving SAMP goals, to assure that the streamlined regulatory review
process is being implemented appropriately, and to recommend adjustments in the
implementation of the SAMP to assure that the principles of the SAMP MOU are met.
6.1 Revisions to HMDC Plans, Policies, and Procedures
HMDC is the agency given authority by the NJ Legislature for land use planning and zoning in
the District. As such, HMDC will assume a major role in implementing the SAMP. The Master
Plan and Zoning Regulations will be the local regulatory framework under which the SAMP will
be implemented. The existing HMDC Master Plan is a component of the Coastal Management
Plan for NJ, and the Revised HMDC Master Plan will replace the existing Master Plan as the
component of the NJ Coastal Management Plan applicable in the District4.
4 NJ has established policies for the use and development of coastal resources in the NJ Coastal
Management Plan (NJ CMP), which are adopted pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act. NOAA is the federal agency responsible for overseeing compliance of NJ's
CMP with federal requirements. The policies expressed in the CMP are used by NJDEP in
reviewing permit applications under the Waterfront Development Permit Program, and in
reviewing requests for Water Quality Certificates and Federal Consistency Determination.
Because HMDC's Master Plan is an element of the NJ CMP, it significantly influences permit
decisions by NJDEP.
6-7
-------
Section 6	„...n
Implementation of the SAMP
¦
¦
HMDC was created with powers tha^	Jked to
Specifically, HMDC has the power to:
. plan, zone, and
'aptnJ trough plannmg and acquisitron, including de.ernunmg areas in need of
;ttide "pecral ashmen, of land and property .0 finance lmprovemen,s ,o
.	*" B"neral ™P'OT™,''"ts in thu Dis,"C''
Kh ^ritips and potentially new authorities that would require authorizing
** fo,,0"m8 act,0"s unde'the SAMP:
revisions to the District Master Plan
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Wetland Mitigation Banking
. Environmental Improvement Program
¦ Out-of-District Development Pilot Program
administrative and management actions is discussed in the sections below.
Each of the propa	legislatiye amendment or actions may be necessary in
It should be noted	^ grams outlined in the SAMP. It is the intention of HMDC
" puVSu«ny "gislafive action required to fulfill the SAMP/E1P goals and objectives.
6 1 1 HMDC Master Plan Revisions
O, f„rfhP District will contain the recommended future land use plan, specifying
The Master Plan fo'	f economic growth (using HMDC's Hybrid Planning process, a:
those locations	™ateaB commended for conservation and environmental
described in Sec 10 ) ^ ^	^ following sections: Land Use Plan,
improvement	pl Q en Space and Recreation Plan, Transportation Plan,
Environmental ImProve™ ucture plan. The Master Plan will also identify locations where
Housing Plan, an an n ^ oyement are pr0pOsed within the District. Conservation
conservation an	t locations recommended within the Master Plan will be
and environmental lmp^om^ndgd ^ ^ SAMp/EIS Xhe Revised HMDC Master Plan will
consistent wi tio^ .n ^ SAMp through a number of mechanisms, i.e., zoning
changes, transfer of development rights, requirements for open space, etc.
¦
¦
6-8
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
6.1.2 Revisions to HMDC Zoning Regulations
The revised zoning regulations for the District (which will follow the adoption of a Revised
Master Plan for the District) will establish zoned areas that allow land uses and activities that are
consistent with the SAMP. Permitted uses will be established within these zones that
specifically relate to the Planning Areas and Satellite Areas identified in the SAMP. The
Planning areas will be zoned as planned development areas for office, commercial, and
residential uses. The Satellite Areas will be zoned as secondary office/warehouse areas. The
zoning regulations will also establish open space, upland, and wetland preservation areas
consistent with the SAMP, and open space requirements will be established within the Planning
and Satellite Areas, thereby limiting the extent of wetland displacement within Planning and
Satellite Areas.
A range of approaches will be employed under the SAMP to permanently conserve wetlands in
the District that are not already protected under existing conservation mechanisms. Currently,
27% of the wetlands in the District are protected as dedicated open space, typically by deed
restriction. HMDC proposes to protect all wetlands that will exist in the District pursuant to full
implementation of the Preferred Alternative. This will result in the permanent protection of 88%
of the District's existing wetlands, using a range of mechanisms: e.g., areas will be re-zoned as
Marshland Preservation, protected using open space requirements and lot coverage limits,
restricted from development using TDR mechanisms and conservation easements, and by
wetland acquisition under the EIP. Five types of wetland preservation actions are proposed by
HMDC, as follows:
1.	Marshland Preservation zoning
2.	Open Space requirements (per Zoning Regulation)
3.	Lot coverage/FAR restrictions (per Zoning Regulation)
4.	Transfer of Development Rights
5.	Wetland acquisition planned under the EIP Program
The specific conservation mechanisms, and an estimate of the acreage to be protected using
these mechanisms, are described below:
1. Marshland Preservation Zoning. HMDC proposes to expand the Marshland Preservation
zone to include a majority of the wetlands within the District. Property zoned as
Marshland Preservation has significant limitations on permitted uses, as currently
described in the District Zoning Regulations:
19:4-4.15(a) No use shall be operated, conducted, or maintained that may
impair the quality of the district as a marsh preservation area. Any use that
significantly discourages or interferes with use of the zone as a natural habitat
6-9
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
for waterfowl or other forms of marsh life shall be presumed to be a use that
impairs the quality of the zone as a marsh preservation area.
Wetlands under public and quasi-public ownership will be zoned as marshland
preservation areas (by revising the existing Zoning Regulations). The vast majority of such
land will be designated for preservation purposes in the zoning regulations and zoning
plan, resulting in designation of approximately 1,160 additional acres of land within the
Marshland Preservation zone.
Although the SAMP involves no fill in major open waters (e.g., rivers and major
tributaries) in the District, HMDC also proposes to conserve major open waters using
Marshland Preservation zoning authority (thereby precluding fill in open waters). Major
open waters are now, and under the revised Zoning Regulations, will continue to be zoned
for Marshland Preservation, which makes such areas ineligible for development under
HMDC regulations.
All publicly owned wetland property, and some of the wetland property owned by public
utilities is anticipated to be zoned for Marshland Preservation. However, all wetland
property cannot be zoned for preservation because several large plots of land—that
include wetlands to be preserved—are proposed to include some level of development
(e.g., where mixed use nodal development includes undeveloped sections that will be
dedicated to wetland preservation). Zones are areawide by definition, and include many
parcels (i.e., blocks and lots). Furthermore, large lots cannot effectively be divided into
zones at the sub-lot level. Hence, lots that will host both development and wetland
preservation will be zoned for some form of development, with an associated requirement for
preservation of a pre-defined percentage of wetland area (see mechanisms 2 and 3).
2.	Open Space Requirements. Open space requirements, mandated under revised HMDC
Zoning Regulations, will result in the preservation of wetlands where projects are
extensively bordered by wetlands. Wetlands (that are privately owned) in close proximity
to development projects could be used to meet both open space requirements and
mitigation requirements (where enhancement is performed). Developers will be
responsible for providing conservation easements or deed restrictions (thereby protecting
such areas from future development), or dedicating preserved wetland areas to land trust
organizations. The following SAMP projects fit this category: Planning Areas 3 and 4,
Planning Area 5, Planning Area 7, Planning Area 10, Planning Area 12, and Planning Area
13. Approximately 770 acres of wetland will be preserved in this manner.
3.	Lot coverage/FAR restrictions. Wetlands on properties that are now partially developed
are, and will, continue to be protected through zoning and site plan regulation. Maximum
lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) criteria will determine the maximum extent of
development permitted on individual sites, thereby protecting the balance of the site open
space areas from future development (using conservation easements and other
mechanisms). Approximately 1,500 acres will be protected in this manner.
6-10
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
4.	Transfer of Development Rights. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) will be utilized to
preserve approximately 500 to 775 acres of unprotected private wetland property. Under
the TDR program, the owners of wetland property planned for development will need to
purchase development rights from owners of property designated to be open space. (See
Section 6.1.4.)
5.	Wetland acquisition planned under EIP Program. HMDC's Environmental Improvement
Program (EIP) proposes acquisition of approximately 250 acres of wetland, located
primarily along the Hackensack River and consisting of scattered/ privately held
properties. These sites will be acquired using conservation easements, dedication of
property, purchase through public funding, or through eminent domain powers of the
Commission. HMDC will work jointly with conservation entities such as the Nature
Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, and the N.J. Conservation Foundation to acquire
and preserve these more valuable tracts in perpetuity.
Areas Protected by HMDC Controls
Table 6-1 lists the acreage of the wetlands in the District at present, as defined and delineated
during the ACE/EPA Advanced Identification (AVID) of Wetlands in the Hackensack
Meadowlands (December 10,1992), and in supporting technical documentation, entitled
"Functional Assessment of Wetlands in NJ's Hackensack Meadowlands" (EPA Region II, 1989).
The criteria for the AVID focused on the protection of water quality, wildlife and fisheries
habitat, and recreation and educational use. For this reason, and for hydrologic reasons, the
wetland boundaries included, in many instances, substantial areas of open water (such as
segments of the Hackensack River). The 8,530 acres delineated as wetland Assessment Areas for
the AVID included 1,640 acres of open water, interconnected with 6,890 acres of wetland.
As noted earlier, the SAMP Preferred Alternative involves no fill in major open waters (i.e.,
rivers and major tributaries). Nevertheless, the SAMP proposes protection of major open water
in the District through application of HMDC Zoning Regulation authority. Major open waters
will be zoned for Marshland Preservation, which makes such areas ineligible for development
under HMDC regulations.
Table 6-1 also lists the acreages protected by each of the proposed zoning and other controls. Of
the 6,890 acres of non-open water wetland in the District, approximately 12% (842 acres) will be
converted to upland as part of the economic development anticipated by HMDC in the Planning
Area, Satellite Area, and Transportation Improvement locations; approximately 27% (1,865
acres) are currently protected by conservation mechanisms (i.e., dedicated open space or deed
restricted); and approximately 61% (4,183 acres) will be protected using the five conservation
mechanisms described above. By the conclusion of the SAMP planning period (year 2015), 88%
(6,048 acres) of the wetlands now present in the District (6,890 acres), plus an additional 45 acres
of wetland that will be created, will be protected and managed. The objective of the SAMP is to
provide protection to these wetlands in perpetuity.
As can be seen from Table 6-1, zoning mechanisms will be used to protect the largest share of
wetland area, specifically: establishment of new marshland preservation zones
6-11
-------
Seciion 6
Implementation of the SAMP
District Wetland Resources
TABLE 6-1
s and SAMP Wetland Conservation Actions
District Wetland Resources		
atic sites1 (AVID Assessment Areas) in the District
Total area of aquatic
Total area of open water within aquatic site boundaries
Total wetland area now present in the District (line 1 - line 2)
Wetland area to be converted to upland for P/SAs & TIs	
Wetland area in District at conclusion of SAMP (line 3 - line 4 plus 45 acres
of wetland created as part of mitigation requirements)
Acres
8,530
1,640
6,890
842
6,093
Line
2. Open Space requirements per Zoning Regulati*
}. Lot coverage/FAR restrictions per Zoning Regulation
1,500
4.	Transfer of Development Rights2
5.	Wetland acquisition planned under EIP Program
Total additional conserved wetland area (sum lines 7-11)
500
10
11
12
Total protected wetland at conclusion of SAMP (line 6 + line 12 plus 45
acres of wetland created as part of mitigation requirements)	
6,093
13
Total protected wetland and regulated open water at the conclusion of the I 7 733
SAMP (line 2 + line 13)	
1	Aquatic sites (assessment areas) were delineated for the 1992 ACE/EPA Advanced
Identification (AVID) for the Hackensack Meadowlands, December 1992, and include
important open water habitat adjacent to wetlands.
2	The total wetland area protected by Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) mav r
between 500 and 775 acres, based on the TDR analysis presented in Appendix C
P/SA = Planning/Satellite Area; TI-Transportation Improvement
14
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
(mechanism no. 1), open space requirements for development projects (mechanism no. 2), and
restrictions on maximum lot coverage (mechanism no. 3). However, zoning controls do not
provide the same assurance of permanent protection as does acquisition (because zoning
regulations can be revised). However, NJ planning law requires that the Zoning Regulations be
consistent with the adopted Master Plan, and the Master Plan will clearly present HMDC's goal
of preserving, in perpetuity, all remaining wetlands by the conclusion of the SAMP. The SAMP
Oversight Committee (see Section 6.3) will periodically (e.g., every 2 years) review the
implementation and success of the HMDC conservation actions. If some of the HMDC
mechanisms to protect wetlands and open waters do not achieve the goals set herein, the SAMP
Oversight Committee will expand the coverage of more successful mechanisms, or identify
alternative controls to be implemented, either by HMDC through their regional powers, or by
ACE and EPA through their respective authorities (e.g., Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899).
6.1.3 Development Review Changes
HMDC will revise its development review process to better realize SAMP environmental goals.
Revision of the development review process involves changes to HMDC's zoning regulations,
development review regulations, site plan design standards, and environmental performance
standards. The development review regulations will be expanded to specifically require Best
Management Practices for all new development with non-point source discharges (e.g.,
stormwater runoff), to meet the requirements of the Section 6217 Coastal Nonpoint Program to
be adopted by NJDEP pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act.
(NJDEP and HMDC are the agencies responsible for implementing the Coastal Nonpoint
Program in New Jersey.) Best Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution to be
applied in the District are listed in Section 5 (Table 5-9).
HMDC is proposing modifications to its regulations governing development to encompass
relevant NJDEP permit review requirements and to facilitate achievement of SAMP
environmental and regulatory goals. Enhancements to existing plan review regulations, and
adoption of new plan review regulations are proposed, as listed below:
¦	Revise text of the zoning regulations (including zone consolidation and changes to
residential density and commercial Floor Area Ratio requirements) that address site plan
application requirements, performance standards, etc., specifically with respect to the need
for an evaluation of the potential impacts of a project on the natural and cultural resources
of the District,
¦	Revise site plan application procedures, to include guidance for wetland mitigation,
stormwater management measures, open space management, and conservation actions;
¦	Incorporate NJDEP permit regulations (Stream Encroachment, Waterfront Development,
Water Quality Certification, etc.) into relevant sections of the zoning regulations, the
development review regulations, site plan design standards, and the environmental
performance standards,
6-13
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
. Adopt and revise specie wetland
KSSKSSSSSSSS^
participant, and,
. Revise site p.an design standards, .nduding spec.fc recrements for Best Management
Practices for stormwater control.
« 1 a Transfer of Development Flights (TDR)
HMDC to preserve approximately 500 to 775 acres of wetland through the
TDR is proposed by HMDC to p	PP	()Wm.r, in ,he Districts The owners of
issuance of development credos p	P ^ development credits to sell on the open
designated TDR PreSCr^ J rties have been designated for development on fill areas
market to land owners whose properu
(consistent with the SAMP and Master Plan).
•II reauire the development parcel owners (receivers of development
The TDR program will r^uir	ditg from owners 0f parcels to be preserved (senders of
credits) to purchase	development credits will still be required to fulfill wetland
development credits). 1 urc"	he value of development rights is the open market value,
mitigation requirements. iyp	y>	negotiation between the seller and purchaser.
The value of the TDRcrcdi si	^ rvation is compensated by selling development
ThedrroeranfintLaesCteed buyer, who may use the development credits to build in approved
locations.
i-i u TDR bank that will provide a minimum price for the value of the
HMDC will establish a T	^ al)ow ivate hoiders of TDR credits to sell them directly to
development right icredit.	t the market for TDRs by selling them to receivers desiring
the bank and for the	PP ^ ^ brokerage services by bringing together
to purchase credits, i ne ^	^ the rea) estate community is not able to achieve this in
development credit buyers^a	^	^ TDR credits in order to support minimum
the marketplace), and wi	^ The TDR bank will not be designed to take the place of the
values for sending P^P^o encourage and stimulate market behavior and to support the
system.
, ^ riehts are transferred from the preserved property, that property
Once the development & ^ development. The TDR certificates / credits will be recorded
becomes protected from ^®	Qffice. a deed restriction is required that will specify that
instruments at the Coun y	transferred and any subsequent owner of the property has no
the development right ^ gite Owners of transferred property rights will retain
ability to further develop a ^ ^ may secure additional compensation by making that
ownership of the preserv p m'ion (through enhancement) for other development
property available tor weu	o
projects in the District.
TnR transfer and mitigation, HMDC will encourage owners to dedicate wetlands
Subsequent to idk	for conservation management. HMDC will support and facilitate
6-14
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
public management by (1) encouraging land trust organizations to accept dedications, and (2) by
accepting donations of land or conservation easements for preservation purposes.
6.1.5	Wetland Mitiga tion
Requirements for wetland mitigation will be included in the proposed changes in HMDC's
Zoning Regulations and plan review process. However, ACE has the principal authority for
review and approval of wetland mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Thus,
while provision for wetland mitigation will be incorporated into project review by HMDC as
part of the planning process for the District, permission to implement wetland mitigation, and
establishment of specific requirements for mitigation, proceeds mainly under federal law for the
District. (See Section 6.2—SAMP Regulatory Products, for a description of the proposed
regulatory streamlining for projects consistent with the SAMP that will be required to provide
wetland mitigation.) Nevertheless, to the maximum degree feasible under existing law,
requirements for wetland mitigation, performance guarantees, maintenance, and monitoring
will be incorporated into HMDC's Zoning and Development Review regulations.
HMDC will promulgate and adopt requirements for wetland mitigation as part of its
development review process, consistent with standards developed under the proposed
Interagency Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Agreement. This proposed agreement, which
creates the Meadowlands Interagency Mitigation Advisory Committee (MIMAC), encourages
HMDC (or another public entity) to create wetland mitigation banks by acquiring suitable sites
for banking purposes, preparing and implementing a mitigation plan on those sites, and
monitoring and maintaining the sites in accordance with the advice of MIMAC. HMDC will
also allow the creation of mitigation banks by private or quasi-public organizations. (See Section
6.2.2 for an expanded discussion of MIMAC.)
6.1.6	Environmental Improvement Program
As discussed in Section 2, there is a need for substantial environmental remediation in the
Hackensack Meadowlands District. The pollution and environmental destruction from previous
decades of solid waste disposal within or adjacent to these wetlands is significant. A broad
range of environmental problems that affect air, water, and the land are present throughout the
District. Planning for the future of the District must recognize the remediation costs of long-
standing and continuing cumulative impacts to wetlands and upland areas, consistent with the
Section 404 Guidelines.
In response to this need, HMDC, in concert with State and federal SAMP partner agencies,
proposes to implement a comprehensive Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) for the
District. HMDC has developed the EIP as its twenty-year master plan to implement
improvements, remediation programs, and enhancements that will have a positive impact not
only on the District's environment but on surrounding regions as well. Utilization of public and
private resources, combined with the broad land management authorities of HMDC can provide
important regional environmental improvements in the District.
6-15
-------
Section 6	~„.,D
Implementation of the SAMr
* # ^AMP although the goals and objectives of the EIP are
The EIP is an integral componenJ	However, for many EIP projects, the
independent of the outcome of t	P	tion needed to effectively implement such
The components	natUral ^source
protection,	of park/ educational and recreational opportunities. To
management and devel.apme P environmental impacts and managing an important
accomplish the goal of remtdi g p EIp gre best impiemented in concert. Each piece is
inte^ral ^d^og^her they^ r ovkle a dynamic opportunity to benefit man and the environment.
LLessorfai.ureoftheE,^^^^
,eChniCal aSSiS,a"Ce'fr0m HMDC' and Sta,e and federal ent'"eS
The following steps outline the proposed implementation of the EIP:
„ a ^ v Committee will be established, including representatives of ACE, EPA,
(1) An E!P Adv'^y^"lp HMDC ^ members of the general public who represent
NOAA, USFWS, N [ .	'two members of the general public who represent the
l^deX-ent community, and two constituent mayors-one from Bergen County and
one from Hudson County.
^ « -n annual basis will list and prioritize EIP projects. Projects may be
(2)	HMDC staff, on	'	unforeseen conditions that may arise in the
environmental remediation. The staff wHl develop a
District which req	^ estimateS/ and funding sources, and provide an imple-
men^Cschedule. Additionally, staff will identify measurements to assess the
improvements yielded from the projects.
t ^rirvritv list to the EIP Advisory Committee for its review,
(3)	HMDC staff w.r	ndations, and seek its members commitment to cooperate in the
implementahon of the projects. The report of the Advisory Committee will be submitted
to the HMDC's Executive Director.
x ru T4X/.nr Executive Director will submit the annual EIP Plan to the full Commission as
(4)	The HMDC	submission. Upon adoption of the plan by the
PCo—'n>eExlŁe Director^!, be empowered to implement the plan.
u a A and fiftv days after the annual plan has been completed, HMDC will
(5)	One hundre	projects undertaken. HMDC will use an outside auditing firm to
prepare thenecessary reports indicating how EIP funds were allocated and spent.
HMDC will provide an annual report on its EIP accomplishments and indicate the benefits
that will be and/or are derived.
6-16
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
6.1.7 Out-of-District Development Pilot Program
The out-of-District analysis concluded that no practicable alternative existed within the six
county study region that would achieve SAMP goals. The out-of-District analysis reviewed
alternatives involving growth in the suburban metropolitan region, and growth in nearby urban
centers, as alternatives to growth in the District (see Section 4). The analysis considered
environmental, economic, real estate, and planning factors. The analysis indicated that
suburban growth would contribute to sprawl and loss of upland (and in some cases, wetland)
habitat in the region, and was not a practicable alternative to growth in the District. The analysis
also concluded that urban redevelopment was not a practicable alternative to growth in the
District, for several reasons:
1.	Urban centers often require subsidy (in the form of tax abatement, parcel assembly, and
no-cost or low-cost land) to motivate redirection of economic development proposed in the
District;
2.	No administrative mechanisms exist that redirect economic development proposals from
in-District to out-of-District locations (and such mechanisms would be difficult to
implement given the restrictions on the powers of local governments beyond their
boundaries);
3.	There are no financial or other incentive systems that are available to support redirection of
economic development from the District to urban areas;
4.	If most of the development planned in the District cannot be accommodated there, it may
result in the failure to achieve the area's social and economic goals, because inter-regional
economic competition will shift development proposals to preferred market locations out
of the region;
5.	Redirecting all growth outside the District would eliminate major sources of revenue
needed to realize the EIP, so that environmental improvements needed to correct
continuing degradation of the environment caused by past waste disposal practices in the
District could not be implemented.
However, HMDC recognizes the need to assist in the revitalization of urban centers, especially
in light of the fact that one of the HMDC member municipalities is an urban center (Jersey City).
Moreover, the formulation of the out-of-District component of the SAMP provides a meaningful
opportunity to test whether development can be redirected away from wetland areas that are
under great development pressure in the District. If mechanisms to redirect some of the
District's growth can be implemented, it is possible that out-of-District growth could achieve
some of the in-District need for housing and employment. With this in mind, HMDC has agreed
to create a pilot program as part of the SAMP to develop and test mechanisms that would
redirect some growth to out-of-District urban locations (see Section 4).
As part of the pilot program, appropriate mechanisms will be tested that would lead to
relocating the equivalent of a mixed-use center out-of-District. An "economic development
6-17
-------
Section 6
Implementation ol the SAMr
in.nicfrirf developers to build within urban centers,
pnckage" will be created to encourag	developed, in accordance with
While the specific components of the package a«	mature and seek to
the objective of the program these mcenw	governmt.nl financing. HMDC will also
creation of a State-City coordinating council.
1 ^ Vif shifted to out-of-District urban upland
To the extent that m-District eve opm	adjusted downward on wetland parcels,
locations, the development needs in the _Distnct wm be |
This adjustment will be determined	renewal by ACE every
proposed regulatory product o e. nt ,,f I IMIX's ni-Oi.irii l needs can be determined
5	years, and during that renewa re	ndes wil, determine the appropriate methods to
HMDC in concert^wit e van ^ ^ correspondent with the level of utilization of the
adjust the zoning Pla wU| fce reassessed every five years by HMDC, and a report will be
ma'de^toThe^AMI^Oversight Committee concerning recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of the program.
6	1 8 NOAA Approval of Revised Master Plan and Zoning Regulations
„ • j	Plan will replace the existing Master Plan as the coastal program
Because the	^ the hMDC Master Plan and Zoning Regulations have been revised
element for the D , ^ ^	N)DEp regulationS/ NjDEP will submit a program
to incorporate th	^ Ioval. Depending on whether the proposed revision is
change request!	j c e to the enforceable policies or authorities of the NJ Coastal
determined to be - ^ neCessary to conduct a National Environmental Policy Act
Management Progr , Y	reauest HMDC's Revised Master Plan will serve as the
(NEPA, review	consistency review purposes, onee NJDEP
coastal program	mqaA's approval of the program change. If any future revisions to the
HMDCMLferHanand Zoning Regulations, or changes to the permitting structure, are needed
subseaueiit to the SAMP-related Master Plan and permitting revisions, they will also be
required to be submitted to NOAA as program changes.
6.2 SAMP Regulatory Products
• i campc as defined by the 1980 Amendments to the Coastal Zone
As noted Prev*°"S establish".. policies, standards and criteria to guide public and private
Management Ac	^ mechanisms for timely implementation in specific geographical
uses ofl^nds;'"1 ;onŁ. Additionally, the ACE Regulatory Guidance Letters (RGL) for
c^VW1 RCL 8Mo Lsued October 2,1986, and RGL 92-03, issued August 19,1992) states that a
SAM1 s (KOL °	, associated with the traditional case-by-case review. Development
SAMP "reduces p	u and envir0nmental interests are assured that individual
interests ^	analyzed in the context of broad ecosystem needs." The RGL
affirmstfiat the SAMP process be concluded with a definitive regulatory product.
6-18
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
With this background, the Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP MOU (see Section 6.0) mandated
two regulatory products be implemented through the SAMP/EIS process:
1.	Appropriate local/state approvals, and a Section 404 general permit and/or abbreviated
permitting procedures for activities in specifically defined situations; and,
2.	Local/state restrictions and/or EPA 404(c) restrictions for undesirable activities.
The principal regulatory products of the Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP are Section 404
General Permits, Abbreviated Permit Processing Procedures, and a Revised HMDC Master Plan
and Zoning Regulations for the District (changes to the planning process are described in
Section 6.1). Concurrent with the regulatory changes listed above, a revised system is proposed
for local (HMDC) and state (NJDEP) review and approval of projects consistent with the SAMP.
Several other supporting regulatory products will be implemented, as related to wetland
mitigation and wetland mitigation banking. These regulatory products are discussed in the
following sections. An analysis of compliance with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines for the SAMP is presented in Appendix S.
6.2.1 Section 404 Regulatory Products
Several regulatory changes are proposed by the SAMP that will improve the review process for
projects that involve wetland fill in the District, and that are consistent with the SAMP5. HMDC's
SAMP Development Plan proposes to allow the development of 52 Planning and Satellite
parcels and 34 Transportation Improvements (for a total of about 1,860 development acres) over
the next 20 years. Of these parcels, 22 of the Planning and Satellite Areas contain wetlands
(potentially associated with a maximum of 750 acres of wetlands fill), and 17 of the
Transportation Improvement locations contain wetlands (potentially associated with a
maximum of 92 acres of wetland fill). In anticipation of the need for regulatory streamlining, the
SAMP MOU identified (in 1989) several potential Section 404 regulatory products that should be
considered for the District: general permits, letters of permission, and a joint application
processing agreement.
The SAMP/EIS contains an evaluation of the need for economic growth and environmental
improvement in the District; an analysis of alternative approaches to fulfill those needs; leading
to the identification of a Preferred Alternative, and an evaluation of the environmental impacts
associated with that Preferred Alternative. The analysis of practicable alternatives for Planning
and Satellite Areas under the Preferred Alternative was conducted in Section 4 of the EIS.
Planning and Satellite Area projects that are consistent with the SAMP have been shown,
through the studies conducted for this EIS, to have no practicable alternatives with lesser overall
environmental impact. Because an alternatives analysis has been conducted herein for the
5 Generally, development projects are consistent with the SAMP if they are located within the
footprint of one of the Planning or Satellite Areas, or Transportation Improvement Areas, and
include provision for complying with mitigation and best management practices as described in
the SAMP/EIS.
6-19
-------
Sections
Implementation of the SAMr
Planning and SateUite Area components of
requirements for ^naly^s^ofpracj'ca^e^a^ernn ^ ^ ^ ^ of ^
consistent with the SAM1.	fv,0 anaivcis nf alternatives conducted herein will be
requirements of the relevant environmental permit
applications.
r h „„ these studies and evaluations, ACE and EPA have determined that Planning and
« rA^ o olcfs that are consistent with the SAMP, and that meet other reqmrements
(dtcdLd S will be eligible for streamlined federal permit review usmg two mechan.sm,
¦	General Permits (GP)
¦	Abbreviated Processing Procedures (APP)
,»Aar Cortinn 404 of the Clean Water Act; however, the SAMP
ACE is the Pe™™^®ec"C^ence for the aforementioned regulatory products. In addition,
MOU mandates El	k an impor,ant role in the review of Section
J Abbrevia,ed pr— Procedures)-
Projects eligible for CPs and APPs are described below.
General Permits
. Proposed wetland fills that cumulatively total not more than 15 acres for Planning/Satellite
¦	Vrop' M H in the Preferred Alternative and that are consistent with the approved
sS/Rivised HMDC Master Plan will be eligible for a GP. The CP applies only to
/ planning Areas and Satellite Areas which alone, or in conjunction with other
projects in Ptanmng^ mQre than 15 acres of fiU/ regardless of the current
developers w	- within the Planning/Satellite Area boundary. It is proposed
distribution o	digfole for General Permits (see Attachment 1 of
-GP ™ybe ellgible for APP (see be,ow)-
t ,-Mition proposed wetland fills of no more than one acre, associated with identified
"	t ° sLrLion Improvements to existing transportation facilities in the District, and
minor Transp	^	ed SAMP/Revised HMDC Master Plan, will be eligible
for IcP^The draft General Permit identifies 7 Transportation Improvements that will be
eligible for General Permits.
™ • V frtr notation and enhancement of wetlands in the District that are required for
¦	Projects for re	authorized by the proposed SAMP General Permit, or projects to
development ac District that are consistent with the SAMP will quality
^l0Cated "3reaS idenHfiedf°r mitigati°n ^ ^
SAMP/EIS.
. The project must not result in significant adverse impacts to federal or state threatened or
endangered species. (The SAMP/BIS has addressed the requirements for current
6-20
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
federally-listed species. Presence of and use by state-listed species will be determined at
the time of submittal of the GP application, as required by the conditions of the Water
Quality Certificate proposed to be authorized for the GP.)
¦	The project must not result in significant adverse impacts to cultural resources, and
otherwise complies with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
(The SAMP/EIS has identified sensitive locations requiring further survey/study work.)
Abbreviated Processing Procedures
¦	Proposed wetland fills that cumulatively total more than 15 acres within a Planning or
Satellite Area and that are consistent with the SAMP would be eligible for APP.
Projects not consistent with the SAMP and HMDC's Revised Master Plan will undergo the
individual Section 404 permit process, including preparation of an alternatives analysis, as
appropriate and relevant. However, as noted earlier in this section, projects that are not
consistent with the SAMP are likely to be difficult to implement if they require state and/or
federal permit approvals. Because the Revised HMDC Master Plan will replace the existing
Master Plan as the component of the NJ CMP applicable to the District (see Section 6.2.3),
projects that are not consistent with the Master Plan will, by definition, not be consistent with
the NJ CMP. Only projects that are consistent with the NJ CMP are typically eligible for federal
or state agency permit approvals, notwithstanding the rights of project sponsors to apply for
such permits.6
Streamlining the 404 permit process will significantly shorten permit processing time from the
existing review and approval times. The changes will enhance federal agency implementation
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and follow the principles set forth in the Presidents's
August 1993 Wetlands Plan.
General Permits (GP)
Only Planning Areas, Satellite Areas, Transportation Improvements, and Wetland Mitigation
projects, as described in this EIS and the Eligibility discussion above, will be eligible for a GP
under specific circumstances. (Additional conditions, described herein, must also be met to be
eligible.) The specific Planning and Satellite Areas, and Transportation Improvements that will
be eligible for a GP are listed in the text of the proposed GP (see Appendix T).
GP's are authorized for discharges that are likely to have only minor impacts to the aquatic
ecosystem. For the SAMP/EIS, wetland impacts have been evaluated for fill proposed under
the Preferred Alternative using the Indicator Value Assessment (IVA) method. This model was
developed using the ACE Wetland Evaluation Technique indicators of wetland functioning,
6 It is not possible for the SAMP to anticipate all projects that may be valuable or needed in the
future of the District. However, as noted herein, projects that are not consistent with the SAMP
Preferred Alternative will have a more extensive local, state, and federal review process, because
they have not been subject to the advance studies performed as part of this EIS.
6-21
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
. •	a vin The IVA method has been
applied to the wetland data that were generated for the AVID.
validated through appropriate field testing in the District,
investigation o, specific —
subareacharacteristics,and wildlifeof 'hes^vvasreco^.^P ^ y ^ ^^ ^
th^c^nditionTirsrtecHherein, has been determined to result in minor individual and cumulative
adverse impacts.
l„m,ntal field study of wetlands-conducted in representative locations where projects
The suppli'men	y	GP-has allowed a better understanding of the specific
are proposeItoat <^dbe ehpbte^ ^	^ (() compensate for such impac,
impact, and henc typ	^ ^ concurrent with fill activity, depending on the
Mitigation wiU ennpemen e	m tion needs. Mitigation implemented in advance of fill
resources impacted and the spec m g	mitigation bank) is most desirable
fivity	pTcts with
because it provid s	. 8 iects that impact resources already extensively compromised,
several phases o	' P irements, Qr projects with other special circumstances may
projects with complex mingan jl	^ a|lowed by ACE, EPA, and the proposed
w 'TwkndUnteragmcy MiSgation Advisory Committee (MIMAC). In either case, the
Meadowlan	8 y wffl ^ fully compensated for (per the MOU) and would,
therefore be considered fo have minimal individual and cumulative impact, allowing such
projects to be authorized under a GP.
that the GP will be consistent with the NJ CMP. Similarly, it is expected that
It is anticipated	Quality Certificate for the GP. Based on the studies conducted for
?ES N^DEP propoSITssue WQCs for projects authorized by the GP, conditioned
the SAMP/EIS, J j |jtional invesHgation for state endangered, threatened, and rare
to require, at	use 0,fhe GP. With the above in mind, projects that proceed
rd^thlSS^e a separate CMP review or WQC.
„ . .e A r,P would authorize fill into no more than 15 acres of wetlands at a
GP i^uirements_ ^ ^ fiU lnto nQ more than a acre Df wetlands associated with minor
Planning or Sat i	. to existing transportation facilities in the District. In addition,
Tranrr:^ °f—s in the ^,hat are *
projects for	wiU ^ authorteed by the proposed SAMP GP, as will projects for
taptmeTteHon of Mitigation Banks in the District, provided the following requirements are
met:
1 The project must be consistent with the SAMP, and the Revised HMDC Master Plan and
revised Zoning Regulations.
6-22
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
2.	The GP will apply only to projects in Planning Areas and Satellite Areas, and to
Transportation Improvements, as identified in the SAMP/EIS, that incur less than the
amount of fill allowable under the GP (see eligibility, as described above). The GP will also
apply to wetland mitigation projects required to compensate for impacts permitted under
the GP, as well as Wetland Mitigation Banks, as identified in the SAMP/EIS.
3.	The applicant must demonstrate that fill into wetlands has been minimized during the site
planning and design process. The applicant must show that the site design was prepared
so as to minimize impacts to wetlands to the maximum degree feasible while achieving the
economic and/or housing needs for that site. In addition, the applicant must rely on any
site-specific studies performed by the SAMP, or provide site-specific information that
supplements the information developed in the SAMP.
4.	The applicant must acquire the required number of credits from an existing mitigation
bank, or provide mitigation that has been approved by MIMAC in advance of, or
concurrent with, the development.
5.	The applicant may only use clean fill material for any discharge into wetlands and
waterways, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be followed. These include the
standard ACE BMPs and other BMPs defined by the SAMP, especially as recommended by
NOAA/EPA under Section 6217. (See Table 5-9.)
6.	The project must not result in significant adverse impacts to federal or state threatened or
endangered species. (The SAMP/EIS has addressed the requirements for current
federally-listed species. Presence of and use by state-listed species will be determined at
the time of submittal of the GP application, as required by the conditions of the Water
Quality Certificate proposed to be authorized for the GP.)
7.	The project must not result in significant adverse impacts to cultural resources, and
otherwise complies with the provisions of NHPA. (The SAMP/EIS has identified sensitive
locations requiring further survey/study work.)
8.	The project must not result in the release or contribute to the migration of hazardous
contaminants that may be present at the site.
9.	The applicant must notify ACE and HMDC two weeks before commencement of activity,
and give ACE (and its agents) the right to inspect for compliance with the permit.
Failure to be consistent with any one of the above provisions will cause an individual permit to
be required.
GP Program Mechanics. The following "schedule of events" presents a typical scenario that
would result in the granting of a GP:
1. Applicant submits the following information to ACE and HMDC;
6-23
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
a.	Project location, project description, project plans, proposed fill, and justification for the
fill (including a demonstration of how the site design minimizes on-site fill);
b.	Description of required mitigation;
c.	Description of BMPs to be employed to reduce impacts; and
d.	Additional site-specific information requested by the SAMP agencies, specifically
including supplemental field analysis for threatened and endangered species, and for
cultural resources (as required);
e.	Site assessment, where required by the federal or State agencies, for hazardous
contamination;
f.	Discussion of the consistency of the project with the SAMP and Revised HMDC Master
Plan.
2.	HMDC reviews project for consistency with the SAMP; ACE reviews for completeness and
preliminary determination of consistency with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and other
relevant federal statutes.
3.	Upon determining consistency with 404(b)(1) Guidelines (i.e., minimization, etc.), ACE
forwards copies of the request to other federal and state agencies for review and comment
and to MIMAC for a determination of appropriate mitigation.
4.	Agencies provide comments and recommendations regarding the proposed activity to
ACE.
5.	MIMAC reviews and recommends appropriate wetland mitigation and forwards their
recommendation to ACE.
6.	ACE confirms authorization of a GP, with any special conditions, if necessary, or notifies
the applicant that a public notice is required because the project has been directed to the
abbreviated permit process, or the individual permit process.
ACE's proposed GP is presented in Appendix T of this EIS. It provides additional information
on the requirements and mechanics of the proposed federal GP process.
Abbreviated Processing Procedures (APP)
Projects that are consistent with the approved SAMP, as described in this EIS and the Eligibility
section above, and that involve fill of more than 15 acres of wetlands will be eligible for APP In
addition, some projects eligible for a GP may be directed to APP, in accordance with the GP
program mechanics.
APP Requirements. The APP will provide streamlined project review for those projects
consistent with the SAMP that involve wetland fill greater than 15 acres. The eligibility
6-24
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
requirements for the APP were listed previously. The requirements of the GP (except GP
Requirements 2 and 9) are also requirements of APP.
Any required NEPA documentation for projects proceeding under the APP will build upon the
SAMP/EIS, thereby streamlining the permit review process. For example, because alternatives
evaluations have been performed as part of this EIS for activities that are part of the SAMP
Preferred Alternative, they will not need to be repeated in the future for projects that are
consistent with the SAMP. The project approval process may be further streamlined by
conducting the APP concurrent with HMDC's zoning/siting plan review process. However,
given that projects not eligible for the proposed GP involve greater wetland impact, and because
of the programmatic nature of the SAMP/EIS, applicants proceeding under the APP will be
required to collect additional site specific data under the APP, including information regarding
the presence of State threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, and additional site
specific information about the characteristics of and wildlife use of potentially impacted
wetlands. Such information will be used to reach a permit decision, and will be used to better
specify mitigation requirements (including wetland mitigation) associated with a permit
approval.
APP Program Mechanics. Those projects not eligible for consideration under the GP
authorization (i.e., involve wetlands fill greater than 15 acres), would be eligible for the APP if
they are determined to be consistent with the SAMP. As noted above, projects that qualify for
the APP will not be subject to review of off-site alternatives, because that analysis has been
conducted for the SAMP/EIS.
The following "schedule of events" presents a typical schedule of events that would occur
during APP:
1.	Applicant receives a list of all materials necessary for a complete application.
2.	A pre-application meeting with the SAMP partners and involved Federal regulatory
agencies and MIMAC is held. The applicant's proposal is discussed and the agencies
provide specific guidance as to what supporting documentation is needed, and protocols
for additional supporting studies, if such studies are deemed appropriate.
3.	Applicant submits information to ACE, HMDC, and MIMAC. Applicant must also apply
for Section 401 WQC, and provide a Coastal Management Program consistency
determination. HMDC assesses the consistency of the project with the SAMP and Revised
HMDC Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. ACE makes a determination of completeness
of application, plus a preliminary determination of consistency with the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, including minimization and mitigation. HMDC reviews and makes a
recommendation to NJDEP on coastal zone consistency. NJDEP then issues the water
quality certificate, and issues its concurrence with the CMP consistency determination, as
appropriate.
4.	Upon the preliminary determination of consistency of the project with the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines and the SAMP/Revised HMDC Master Plan, ACE publishes a Public Notice
6-25
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
describing the project and proposed mitigation, for a comment period of 30 days. It should
be noted, however, that public comments on off-site alternatives will have been addressed
in the alternatives analysis performed for the SAMP/EIS.
5. ACE will process the application according to the requirements set forth in 33 CFR 320-330
Under the APP, the relevant federal agencies reserve their legislated authority to object
(pursuant to Section 404q) to a permit approval. Additionally, EPA reserves its authority to veto
(pursuant to Section 404c) a permit—based on the site-specific information provided by the
applicant.
Permit Processing Under the Nationwide Permit Program
The revised HMDC zoning regulations will require review and approval of projects involving
wetland fill in the District. As part of the HMDC project application review and approval
process, HMDC will require the implementation of best management practices in accordance
with the Coastal Zone Management Act, including appropriate mitigation requirements.
HMDC will also notify the Army Corps of Engineers of all proposals involving wetland fill in
the District. As such, ACE will have the ability to determine the applicability of the Nationwide
Permit Process in all cases. These procedures do not affect ACE's authority to require an
individual permit for a given case.
6.2.2 Procedures for Wetland Mitigation
The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) and the ACE Public Interest
Review (33 CFR 320) require wetland mitigation to compensate for wetland impacts (after
avoidance and minimization have been exercised to the maximum extent practicable). All
proposals for wetland mitigation and mitigation banking in the District will be reviewed by
ACE, EPA, and relevant agencies, and permitted by ACE under the authority provided by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (as applicable)
State permits may also require wetland mitigation. The specific wetland mitigation
requirements associated with a project proposal will be determined by ACE, in consultation
with the proposed Meadowlands Interagency Mitigation Advisory Committee (MIMAC see
below) and other federal and state agencies. The wetland mitigation requirements will adhere
to the "no net loss of wetland values" policy established by the SAMP MOU.
On-site mitigation, off-site mitigation, participation in wetland mitigation banking, or some
combination thereof will be mandatory for every project involving wetland fill, including all
projects eligible for GP's and APP. Wetland mitigation banking will be implemented in the
District to facilitate wetland mitigation. Other approaches that will be available to applicants
include private offsite mitigation efforts within the District, and onsite mitigation projects (if
wetland impacts involve small areas).
Analysis (using the wetland study method approved for the SAMP/EIS) indicates that it will b
necessary to enhance and create about 3,400 acres of wetland in the District to compensate for &
the wetland impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative (see Section 5.1). The wetland
6-26
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
mitigation will be implemented concurrently with project-related wetland impacts, as
authorized under the SAMP. Where mitigation banking is utilized, mitigation will occur in
advance of the impact.
The SAMP partners propose to implement an Interagency Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
Agreement that will define the process for determining acceptable wetland mitigation under the
SAMP. A draft version of the proposed Agreement is presented in Appendix U. The
Interagency Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Agreement, which is a SAMP regulatory
product, will establish the MIMAC. It is proposed that MIMAC include one wetland mitigation
specialist, with authority to make decisions on behalf of the agency, from each of the following
agencies: US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency; NJ Dept. of
Environmental Protection; Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission; National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration; and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Under the proposed Interagency Agreement, MIMAC will be responsible for developing
guidance for wetland mitigation projects to be implemented under the SAMP, including
mitigation banks. MIMAC responsibilities include recommending mitigation actions for projects
that are eligible for GPs and APPs. The components of the guidance for wetland mitigation will
include: site selection criteria; performance standards for conducting mitigation, including
mitigation performed for mitigation banks; methodologies for assessing site success; criteria for
the valuation and exchange of mitigation credits and debits; and monitoring requirements for
wetland mitigation projects, including mitigation banks. (As noted earlier, to the degree feasible
under existing law, requirements for wetland mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring will also
be incorporated into HMDC's Zoning and Development Review regulations.)
MIMAC will meet to review individual wetland mitigation project proposals and wetland
mitigation bank proposals. Proposals for individual wetland mitigation projects and for
banking sites will be submitted to MIMAC, including documentation of the need for the
mitigation or banking site, evaluation of existing site conditions, and analysis of the feasibility of
mitigation at the proposed location. MIMAC will make recommendations to ACE regarding the
acceptability of: wetland mitigation site locations; wetland mitigation development plans
(including restoration, creation, and enhancement); and wetland mitigation site selection, site
designs, and operation and maintenance procedures.
Project sponsors applying for HMDC site plan approval will be required to implement wetland
mitigation consistent with MIMAC procedures and determinations. Successful implementation
of the mitigation project will be a permit condition, determined by fulfillment of site-specific
criteria established for each mitigation site. To assure fulfillment of permit conditions, post-
mitigation maintenance (as needed) and monitoring of the wetland mitigation project will be
required, including preparation and submission of a monitoring report to MIMAC and federal
resource agencies for not less than five years after the mitigation project is complete,
HMDC (or another public entity) will create a wetland mitigation bank(s) by acquiring suitable
sites for banking purposes, preparing and implementing a mitigation plan on those sites, and
monitoring and maintaining the sites in accordance with the advice of MIMAC. The wetland
6-27
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
rrrtto achieved on the bank sites can then be sold to private and quasi-publu: land owners who
haw mitigation requirements in conjunction with land use pro,ec,s where Ml ,s proposed
consistent with the SAMP.
p^^s^or such^ank^wifrb^rev^med a^'apf^rov^by M1MAC. ^Creahon^f
It 1S intended that planand maintenance will be overseen by HMDC and
M MAC^Post mitigation transfer of the property to a public entity for preservation purposes
encouraged If the property remains in private ownership, deed res.nct.ons against
future development will be required by HMDC.
For the SAMP it is proposed that wetland mitigat.on banking be authorized under the draft GP,
to en^ouC early implementation of wetland mitigation efforts usmg bankmg systems.
6.2.3 Changes to Permit Responsibilities between HMDC and NJDEP
f tViP qAMP specific permit review and approval responsibilities will be revised
ImdC and'NJDEP. To effect this change, several NJDEP regulatory products will be
between HMDCjmdI N,u	^	^	^ HMDC wffl
fn^eota°e 'he appropriate and relevant requirements of NJDEP permit regulations into its
incorporate PP 1^ , reyiew tegulaHons, site plan design standards, and
zoning regula , ^ P standards For projecls consistent with the SAMP, the goal is to
create°a™e4w process whereby compliance with HMDC development review requirements
wufresult in de facto compliance with relevant state requirements.
NJ Coastal Zone Management Program
ti j fhp State-s federally-approved Coastal Zone Management Plan, three types of approvals
Under the Sta	hcant undertakes development projects in the District. They are a
may be neede	Ppr Water Quality Certificate, and a Federal Consistency
n'"^miTatiWlTorder to streamline the permit review process, it is proposed that HMDC
Determinati .	^ t review To accomplish this, amendments must be made to
IteHMDC Master Plan and Zoning Regulations, NJDEP's Rules on Coastal Zone Management,
Ind Newjersey's federally-approved CMP. A three phase process is proposed to implement
these regulatory changes.
, .. .	the HMDC Master Plan and Zoning Regulations would be amended to be
In the first p ,	^ ^ appr0priate Rules on Coastal Zone Management. Upon
C° uancTofthe SAMP/EIS Record of Decision, HMDC would revise its Master Plan and Zoning
, , o ct^nHards for review of applications submitted pursuant to the New Jersey
? The su^tanJ^an ment Program are the Rules on Coastal Zone Management (NJAC 7:7E) as
Coastal Zone M g ^ ^ and the New jersey Surface Water Quality Standards (NJAC 7:9-
amended throuS J y ' 1994 The procedural rules for review of applications are the
r1) T mrmU Program Rules (NJAC 7:7) as amended through July 18,1994, and the 90 Day
Construction Permit Rules (NJAC 7:1C).
6-28
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
Regulations to reflect the SAMP, and (working with NJDEP and NOAA) incorporate the
appropriate Rules on Coastal Zone Management. Once the necessary revisions have been made,
the Revised Master Plan and Zoning Regulations will be submitted to NOAA as a change to the
NJ CMP (in accordance with the process discussed in Section 6.1.8).
During the period between the SAMP/EIS Record of Decision and NOAA's approval of the
Revised Master Plan and Zoning Regulations as the coastal program for the District, a
temporary, partial moratorium would be implemented by HMDC, contingent upon the
approval of the Commission. The moratorium, effective after issuance of the Record of Decision,
shall be for a specified period of time in order for HMDC to prepare and adopt a Revised Master
Plan and Zoning Regulations. The details of the moratorium need to be finalized8; however, it is
anticipated the moratorium would cover all new development (as defined by Section 1: Purpose
and Need, and the SAMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) proposed to be located on Planning Areas
and Satellite Areas containing wetlands, with the exceptions noted herein.
For those projects that are not subject to the moratorium, permit review will continue to be
based on the existing procedures and relevant policies specified between HMDC and NJDEP,
under the NJ CMP. In addition, those projects which are not subject to the moratorium may still
be subject to contributing to the Environmental Improvement Program at a later date, based on
the amount of new development constructed during the moratorium period.
In the second phase, following the approval of the Revised Master Plan and Zoning Regulations,
permitting authority under the NJ CMP Program would remain the responsibility of NJDEP, but
permit applications for projects in the District would be reviewed by HMDC staff using the
Revised Master Plan and Zoning Regulations, which would include the relevant Rules on Coastal
Zone Management as standards. The mechanism to initiate this process will be a Memorandum
of Agreement between NJDEP and HMDC. In this agreement the administrative procedures
8 The following is a list of activities which may proceed through the permitting process during
the moratorium:
1.
Construction of projects that have received all appropriate federal, state, and

HMDC approvals.
2.
Transportation projects (passenger and freight).
3.
Projects proposed by NJ Sports and Exposition Authority.
4.
Any project with a valid HMDC Zoning Certificate or approval prior to the ROD,

subject to limitation.
5.
Utility extensions/improvements.
6.
Wetlands mitigation banks and advance mitigation projects.
7.
Government-sponsored redevelopment projects.
8.
Improvements related to solid waste facilities.
9.
Projects complying with ACE nationwide permit criteria.
The moratorium is not intended to impact the customary improvements and minor expansions
to businesses in the District that do not impact wetlands.
6-29
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
and specific Rules on Coastal Zone Management under which projects will be reviewed will be
identified. Recommendations on permit decisions would be forwarded to NJDEP for approval
denial, or modification.
In the third phase of the permit review consolidation, a Programmatic General Permit for the
District would be developed and adopted. This phase will be initiated after NJDEP receives
NOAA's approval of the revisions to the Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. The
Programmatic General Permit is intended to allow those activities described in the SAMP and
now adopted as amendments to the Master Plan to go forward without the need for additional
project specific permits from NJDEP. The permit will be used whenever a Federal Consistency
Determination, Water Quality Certificate, or Waterfront Development Permit is required for a
project that is consistent with the SAMP and the Revised Master Plan. The Programmatic
General Permit will require revisions to the NJ CMP, which is initiated through a rule proposal
by NJDEP. The rule proposal would be published in accordance with the Administrative
Procedures Act, and include the opportunity for a public hearing and public comment period
As discussed in Section 6.1.8, this further revision to the permitting process also must be
submitted to NOAA for approval as a change to the NJ CMP.
Once the Programmatic General Permit is approved by NJDEP and NOAA, HMDC will become
the lead agency for state permit review in the District. Permit review will be consolidated
within HMDC, with projects being reviewed by HMDC for consistency with the Revised Master
Plan. If the projects are found to be consistent, they will then receive all required approvals
from HMDC, including the NJDEP Programmatic General Permit. NJDEP will maintain an
oversight role by monitoring permit decisions and biannual reports, with the ability to revoke
the Programmatic General Permit in the event of noncompliance.
Flood Hazard Area Control Act (Stream Encroachment)
Permits are required under the Flood Hazard Area Control Act (NJSA 58:16A-52 et seq) for
projects which propose excavation or the placement of fill or structures in the floodplain of an
river or stream located in HMDC. To streamline the review process for these type of permit"^
Memorandum of Agreement between NJDEP and HMDC would be developed delegatin ' S &
review to HMDC, pursuant to NJAC 7:13-6.3. To implement this change, HMDC would need
revise their Master Plan and relevant rules or regulations to conform to the NJ Flood Ha t0
Area Control Rules.	ard
6.3 General Schedule for Implementation Actions
The SAMP will be implemented in a series of steps, with a logical sequence of regulatory
changes occurring over approximately a one year period. SAMP implementation will be
initiated upon the filing of the Record of Decision by the lead federal agencies for the EIS
Record of Decision will adopt a specific SAMP alternative for the District (which is likel t 6
include numerous components) as well as approve the proposed General Permit and
Abbreviated Permit Processing procedures for activities consistent with the SAMP The R
of Decision will describe the SAMP's consistency with the policies of the Coastal Mana^^ 6COrt*
6-30
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
The following sequence of SAMP implementation steps are anticipated9:
Immediate Actions
The SAMP partners and appropriate resource agencies finalize and approve the Interagency
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Agreement. The Meadowlands Interagency Mitigation
Advisory Committee is created.
Federal agencies and SAMP partners finalize the APP procedures.
A SAMP Oversight Committee is established, to include representatives from the SAMP
partners.
Contingent upon the approval of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, a
temporary, partial moratorium would be implemented for all new development (as described
in the SAMP Preferred Alternative) that is proposed to be located on wetland parcels, or
Planning Areas or Satellite Areas, for a specified period of time (to be determined).
HMDC creates an EIP Advisory Committee.
Within One Year of the Record of Decision
HMDC revises and adopts a new Master Plan and Zoning Regulations for the District. NJDEP
reviews the Revised Master Plan and submits it to NOAA as a program change to the NJ CMP.
NOAA reviews the Revised Master Plan as a program change. Upon approval of the changes
to the NJ CMP, the temporary moratorium on development is lifted.
HMDC and NJDEP approve permit processing procedures for the District. (HMDC prepares
project permit reviews and submits same to NJDEP for NJDEP action on permit applications.)
HMDC and NJDEP reach agreement on a General Programmatic Permit, that will allow
HMDC to conduct streamlined permit reviews, with proper notice to NJDEP.
Following adoption of a new Master Plan and Zoning Regulations for the District by HMDC,
HMDC implements a Wetland Bank, a Transfer of Development Rights System, and changes
in the Development Review and Approval Process.
HMDC begins implementation of the Environmental Improvement Program.
HMDC initiates the pilot program for testing potential to redirect in-District growth to urban
centers.
9 The implementation schedule of some EIP programs may be subject to change, depending on
the extent and timing of legislative amendments that may be required for some activities.
6-31
-------
Section 6
Implementation of the SAMP
ACE EPA, NJDEP, and HMDC enter into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding future
cultural resources investigative efforts in the District.
ACE EPA USFWS, NJDEP, and HMDC enter into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding
conservation actions to be implemented for the Peregrine Falcon to enhance the District's
ability to support this species.
In accordance with the goals of Section 7a(l) of the Endangered Species Act, specific
conservation measures to enhance use of the District by Peregrine Falcons are developed and
implemented.
6-32
-------
Section
Seven
-------
Section 7
List of Preparers
This EIS was prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) and its subconsultants, under the
technical direction and guidance of staff from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and the Hackensack
Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC). HMDC also prepared several planning
studies in support of the EIS. Members of the five participating agencies substantially involved
in preparing the EIS are as follows:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Robert W. Hargrove
Marie C. Jenet
Mario Del Vicario
Daniel Montella
Mary Anne Thiesing, Ph.D.
Kathleen Drake
Jeffrey Butensky
Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch (EIB)
Environmental Scientist, EIB
Chief, Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch (MWB)
Chief, Wetland Section, MWB
Environmental Scientist, MWB
Wetlands Scientist, MWB
Environmental Scientist, Air Programs Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District
Joseph J. Seebode	Chief, Regulatory Branch
Richard Tomer	Assistant Chief, Regulatory Branch
James Cannon	Project Manager
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Laurie McGilvray	Regional Manager, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM)
Helen Grady	Program Specialist, OCRM
Susan-Marie Stedman	Fishery Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service
Brett Joseph	Attorney Advisor, Office of Assistant General Council for
Ocean Services
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
Lawrence Schmidt	Director, Office of Program Coordination (OPC)
Joel Pecchioli	Principal Environmental Specialist, OPC
7-1
-------
Section 7
List of Preparers
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
Anthony Scardino
Robert Ceberio
Deborah Lawlor
Kenneth Ochab
Mark Slauter
Hamo Meghdir
Anne Galli
Kenneth Scarlatelli
Donald Smith
Executive Director
Director of Planning and Management
Supervisor of Land Use Planning
Project Manager
Staff Planner
Transportation Planner
Director of Environmental Operations
Wetlands Specialist
Natural Resource Specialist
The staff members (current and past) and subcontractors of CDM who prepared this document
along with their primary areas of responsibility are as follows:
Camp Dresser & McKee
William Cesanek, P.P., AICP
Henry Boucher, P.E.
Keith Miller, P.E.
F. Mack Rugg
P. Christopher Rigopulos
Kathryn Nadeau
Dana Taplin
Paul Clark
Andrew Huddy
SAMP/EIS Project Manager
Solid Waste/Hazardous Waste/Noise
Environmental Impacts/Baseline/Geographic Information
System
Solid Waste
Land Use/Zoning/Community Facilities/Demographics
IVA Field Testing Study
Out-of-District Alternatives
Scoping / Baseline
Mapping / Baseline
Thomas Hruby, Ph.D.
Thomas Hruby, Ph.D.
Wetlands Scientist/Water Quality
Grossman & Associates
Joel Grossman, Ph.D.
Mike Gallagher
Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources
Wander Ecological Consultants
Sharon Wander, Ph.D
Wade Wander, M.Sc.
Wildlife Biology/Biological Assessment for Peregrine
Falcon
Wetlands Ornithology/IVA Field Testing Study
7-2
-------
Section 1
List of Preparers
Gannett Fleming
David Still
Yew Song, Ph.D.
Robert Schmelz, Ph.D.
Air Quality
Transportation Planning
Transportation Planning
Several other government agencies have also been involved in preparation of this EIS. These
cooperating agencies, and contacts at each agency, are as follows:
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
U.S. Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
NJ Department of Transportation
NJ Sports and Exposition Authority
NJ Transit
NJ Turnpike Authority
Evelyn Smart
Marvin Krotenberg
Chris Newman
Letitia Thompson, Catherine Scarp
Clifford Day, Peter Benjamin
Elkins Green, Abbas Hirya
Richard Van Wagner
Tom Marchwinski
Robert Grimm
In addition, the EIS was reviewed and commented on by the Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC) that was assembled for the SAMP/EIS. Members of the CAC are listed in Appendix V.
7-3
-------
Section
Eight
-------
Section 8
References
In addition to the references listed below, many of the technical appendices contain their own lists of
references. In particular, please refer to Appendix I for referenced relating to cultural resources, and
Appendix G for references relating to the Biological Assessment for Peregrine Falcon.
Adamus, P.R. 1986. Uses and proposed revisions for the Adamus Assessment methodology,
p.73-77. In J.A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment
Symposium. Association of State Wetlands Managers, Chester, VT. Technical Report 1.
	. June 6,1991. Memorandum to R. Sumner of EPA, Corvalis, OR.
	. January 29,1991. Telephone conversation with T. Hruby of CDM, Cambridge, MA.
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET), Volume II: Methodology. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. Operational Draft.
Adamus, P.R., L.T. Stockwell, E.J. Clairain, Jr., M.E. Morrow, L.P. Rozas, and R.D. Smith. 1991.
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume I: Literature review and evaluation rationale. US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report WRP-DE-2.
Agron, S.L. 1980. Environmental Geology of the Hackensack Meadowlands. p.216-241. In
Manspeizer, W. (ed.) 1980. Field Studies of New Jersey Geology and Guide to Field Trips: 52nd
Annual Meeting of the New York State Geological Association. Geology Department, Newark
College of Arts & Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.
Ammann, A.P. and A.L. Stone. 1991. Method for the comparative evaluation ofnontidal wetlands in
New Hampshire. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH.
NHDES-WRD-1991-3.
Averill, S.P., R.R. Pardi, W.S. Newman, and R.J. Dineen. 1980. Late Wisconsin-Holocene history
of the lower Hudson region: New evidence from the Hackensack and Hudson River valleys.
p.216-241. In Manspeizer, W. (ed.) 1980. Field Studies of New Jersey Geology and Guide to Field
Trips: 52nd Annual Meeting of the New York State Geological Association. Geology Department,
Newark College of Arts & Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.
Bardecki, M.J., E.W. Manning and W.K. Bond. 1989. The reality of valuing wetlands: The case
of Greenock Swamp, Ontario, Canada, p.81-90. In Wetlands: Concerns and Successes. American
Water Resources Association. September, 1989.
Barry, B. July 10,1992. (General Counsel of Hudson County Improvement Authority).
Telephone conversation with F.M. Rugg of CDM, Edison, NJ.
8-1
-------
Section 8
References
Benyus, J.M. 1989. The Field Guide to Wildlife Habitats of the Eastern United States. New York:
Simon & Schuster Inc.
Breden, T.F. January 10, 1992. (Coordinator, NJ Natural Heritage Program). Letter to W.E.
Cesanek of CDM, Edison, NJ.
	February 27, 1992. (Coordinator, NJ Natural Heritage Program). Letter to W.E.
Cesanek of CDM, Edison, NJ.
Brinson, M.M. 1993a. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients.
Wetlands. 13:65-74.
		. 1993b. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wet lands. US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.
Broadhurst, G. and C.D. Tanner. 1994. Development of restoration goals on a regional basis,
p. 184-190. In M. Martz, A. Jarvela. K. Kunz, C. Simenstad, and F. Weinman (ed.) Partnerships
anil Opportunities in Wetland Restoration. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Seattle,WA. EPA 910/R-94-003.
Burchell, R.W., D. Listokin, and W.R. Dolphin. 1985 The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact
Analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Burchell, R.W., and D. Listokin. 1978. The Fiscal Impact Handbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Center
for Urban Policy Research.
Cheng, C., and E. Konsevick. 1988. Trends in the water quality of an urban estuary:
Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey, p.147-153. In W.L. Lyke and T.J. Hoban (eds.)
Proceedings of the Symposium on Coastal Water Resources. American Water Resources Association.
Wilmington, NC. TPS-88-1.
City of Eugene. 1992. West Eugene Wetlands Plan: A product of the West Eugene wetlands special area
study. Eugene, OR. December 1992.
Clairain, E.J. January 30,1991. Telephone conversation withT. Hruby of CDM, Cambridge,
MA.
Clinton Bogert Associates (CBA). 1990. Bergen County Utilities Authority: Impact Analysis of
Sewage Treatment Plant Discharges on the Water Quality of the Lower Hackensack River. Final Report.
Conservation Foundation. 1998. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda. Washington
DC.
D.R. Sanders and Associates, Inc. 1988. Review of wetlands evaluation and composite functional
significance components of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (Region II) Advanced
Identification project in the Hackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey. Prepared for HMDC. December,
1988.
8-2
-------
Section 8
References
Dahl, T.E., C.E. Johnson, and W.E. Frayer. 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the coterminous
United States, mid-1970's to mid-1980's. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. 28 pages.
De Ben, W.A., W.D. Clothier, G.R. Ditsworth, and D.J. Baumgartner. 1990. Spatio-temporal
fluctuations in the distribution and abundance of demersal fish and epibenthic crustaceans in
Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Estuaries. 13:469-478.
Ebasco Services Inc. 1990. Hackensack Meadozvlands 1990 Transportation Plan. Prepared for
HMDC.
	. 1991. Hackensack Meadowlands Transportation Model Users's Manual. Prepared for
HMDC.
Farber, S. and Robert Castanza. 1987. The economic value of wetlands systems. Journal of
Environmental Management. 24:41-51.
Gallagher, D.R. 1985. Measuring values for environmental resources under uncertainty. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management. 12:132-143.
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC). Undated. Meadows Path and
Waterfront Parks.
	. 1972. Ir.termunicipal Tax Sharing Theory and Operation.
	. 1984. Wetland Bio-Zones of the Hackensack Meadowlands: An Inventory.
	. 1986. Habitat cover map of the Hackensack Meadowlands District. (Map).
	. 1989. Inventory of fisheries resources of the Hackensack River within the jurisdictional
boundary of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission from Kearny, Hudson County, to
Ridgefield, Bergen County, New Jersey.
	. 1990. Summary of water quality data collected 1978-1988. Draft.
	. 1991. Open Space Plan Report. Master Plan staff, Environmental Operations staff,
Engineering staff.
	. 1991a. Solid Waste Management Plan Report. Master Plan staff, Solid Waste staff.
	. 1991b. Wetland Preservation and Mitigation Plan. Master Plan staff, Environmental
Operations staff.
Haley, N.J. May 11,1992. (Protected Species Program, National Marine Fisheries Service).
Letter to R.W. Hargrove of EPA Region II, New York, NY.
Hausman, S. 1986. Special assessment needs and issues: The regulator's perspective, p.2-3. In
J.A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium.
Association of State Wetland Managers, Chester, VT. Technical Report I.
8-3
-------
Section 8
References
Henderson, P.A. 1989. On the structure of the inshore fish community of England and Wales
journal of the Marine Biological Association U.K. 69:145-163.
Hirsch, A. 1988. Regulatory context for cumulative impact research. Environmental Mana*™ ,
12:715-723.	?
Hruby, T., W.E. Cesanek, and K.E. Miller. 1995. Estimating relative wetland values for retnrm l
planning. Wetlands. 15:(in press).	a
Hughes, J.W., and G. Sternlieb. 1989. Rutgers Regional Report Volume I: Job, Income, Population
and Housing Baselines. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
Isard, W. 1960. Methods of Regional Analysis: an Introduction to Regional Science. Cambridge MA-
The M.I.T. Press.	'
Johnston, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G. J. Niemi. 1990. The cumulative effect of wetlands on
stream water quality and quantity. A landscape approach. Biogeochemistry. 10:105-141
Kane, R. March 15,1994. (NJ Audubon Society). Letter to SAMP/EIS Subcommittee.
Kentula, M.E., R.P. Brooks, S.E. Gwin, C.C. Holland, A.D. Sherman, and J.C. Sifneos. 1992 An
approach to improving decision making in wetland restoration and creation. Edited by A.J Hairston
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory Corvallis 0^°"
EPA /600 / R-92 /150.	' K"
Klopatek, J.M. 1988. Some thoughts on using a landscape framework to address cumulative
impacts on wetland food chain support. Environmental Management. 12(5):703-711
Kraus, M.L. and D.J. Smith. 1988. Competition and succession in a perturbed urban estuar •
The effects of hydrology, p.325-327. In J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks (eds ) ^
ASWM Technical Report 3 - Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and
Losses.
Krueckenburg, D.A., and A.L. Silvers. 1974. Urban Planning Analysis: Methods and Models Mp
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.	' w
Kusler, J.A. 1986. Wetland assessment: The regulator's perspective, p.2-3. In J A Kusle >
Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of Stet^ ^ P'
Wetland Managers, Chester, VT. Technical Report I.	6
McDowell, R. March 20,1992. (NJDEP Division of Fish Game and Wildlife*
L. Schmidt of NJDEP. Trenton, NJ.	'' Memo™dum t0
Mattson, C.P., and N.C. Vallario. 1976. Water quality in a recovering ecosystem- A rev
quality research and monitoring in the Hackensack Meadowlands, 1971-1975 HMnr T j1°" Water
¦	Lyndhurst, NJ.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Ne
Second Edition.	'' w York- NY.
8-4
-------
Section 8
References
Moreenwect, R. 1990. U.S. wetlands policy: No net loss. Water Environment & Technology.
2(8):120-122.
National Governors Association. 1992. Water Resource Management: Wetlands. Policy Document
revised and adopted February, 1992.
National Research Council. 1991. Restoration of Acjuatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and
Public Policy. Water Science and Technology Board. National Academy Press.
NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1984. Wildlife Management Areas Habitat
Cover Map Project.
NJ Department of Labor (NJDOL). 1987. Occupational Outlook for New jersey and Selected Areas:
1984-1995. Division of Planning & Research. Trenton, NJ.
	. 1989a. Employment projections. Volume I: Industry Outlook for New Jersey & Selected
Areas 1986-2000. Division of Labor Market & Demographic Research. Trenton, NJ.
	. 1989b. Employment projections. Volume II: Occupational Outlook for New Jersey &
Selected Areas 1986-2000. Division of Labor Market & Demographic Research. Trenton, NJ.
	. 1989c. Employment projections. Volume III: Industry Outlook for Counties of New Jersey
1986-2000. Division of Labor Market & Demographic Research. Trenton, NJ.
	. 1989d. Employment projections. Volume IV: Occupational Outlook for Counties of New
Jersey 1986-2000. Division of Labor Market & Demographic Research. Trenton, NJ.
	. 1989e. Population & Labor Force Projections for New Jersey: 1990 to 2030. Division of
Market & Demographic Research. Trenton, NJ.
Parillo, D.G. 1959. Revised by H.F. Kasabach. 1962. Bedrock Map of the Hackensack Meadowlands.
NJ Geological Survey. GSR 1.
NJ Office of State Planning. 1989. Population Trends and Projections. TRD 88-44. Draft.
NJ Sports and Exposition Authority. 1978. Full Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
Meadowlands Arena at the New Jersey Sports Complex. Prepared by Jack McCormick & Associates.
NJ State Planning Commission. 1991. Communities of place: The interim state development and
redevelopment plan for the State of New Jersey.
	. 1992. Assessment of trend infrastructure need to 2010.
NJ Turnpike Authority (NJTA). 1987. Final Environmental Impact Statement for New Jersey
Turnpike 1985-90 Widening, Interchange 11 to U.S. Route 46. Prepared by Louis Berger &
Associates.
8-5
-------
Section 8
References
Nixon, S.W., and M.E.Q. Pilson. 1983. Nitrogen in Estuarine and Coastal Marine Ecosystems
p.565-648. In E J. Carpenter and D.G. Capone (eds.) Nitrogen in the Marine Environment.
Nordby, C.S. and J.B. Zedler. 1991. Responses of fish and macrobenthic assemblages to
hydrologic disturbances in Tijuana Estuary and Los Penasquitos Lagoon, California Eshmrie
14:80-93.	'
Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory. 1990. /I manual for assessing restored and natural coastal
wetlands with examples from southern California. California Sea Grant Report No T-CSCCP mi
La Jolla, CA.	' '
Pierce, R.J.. 1990. U.S. wetlands policy: A modified approach. Water Environment & Technnh™
2(8):121-122.
Polling, D.L. and E.T. McColligan, Jr. 1986. The use of FHWA's wetland functional assessment
methodology in New Jersey, p.103-107. In J.A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings:
National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State Wetland Managers Chester VT
Technical Report I.	'
The Port Authority of NY & NJ. 1994a. Demographic Trends in the NY~N] Metropolitan Region-
Income Distribution & Poverty. Office of Economic & Policy Analysis.
	. 1994b. Review 1993, Outlook 1994for the New York-Neio Jersey Metropolitan Region
Office of Economic and Policy Analysis.
Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC). 1991. Overview and projections of the northern New
Jersey office and residential markets for the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission Mast
Plan. Prepared for HMDC.	er
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northeast (Region 1) ik
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.1).
Reed, R.H. 1986. Alternative methodologies: The Wisconsin experience in modification af fh
FHWA's (Adamus) methodology, p.96-97. In J.A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceeding ¦
National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State Wetland Managers, Chest VT
Technical Report I.	'	r'
Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Beyers. 1979. Wetland Values¦ C
and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Wat p °ncepts
Fort Belvoir, VA.	er esources,
Richardson, C.J. 1994. Ecological functions and human values in wetlands- a fram
assessing forestry impacts. Wetlands. 14:1-9.	ework for
Romesburg, C. 1981. Wildlife science: gaining reliable knowledge. Journal of Wild] f
Management. 45(2):293-313.	l*e
8-6
-------
Section 8
References
Roth, E.M., R.D. Olsen, P.L. Snow, and R.R. Sumner. 1993. Oregon freshwater wetland assessment
methodology. Edited by S.G. McCannell. Oregon Division of State Lands. Salem, OR.
Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR). 1992a. Impact assessment of the
New Jersey interim state development and redevelopment plan. Report I: Research Strategy. Prepared
for NJ Office of State Planning. February 15,1992.
	. 1992b. Impact assessment of the New Jersey interim state development and redevelopment
plan. Report I: Research Findings. Prepared for NJ Office of State Planning. February 28,1992.
Smith, D. 1991. (HMDC staff natural resource specialist). Personal communications with K.E.
Miller of CDM, Edison, NJ.
Smith, R.D. and C.C. Bartoldus. 1994. A snap-shot of the Corps new wetland assessment
procedure. Wetland Journal. 6:3-4.
Terrell, J.W., T.E. McMahon, P.D. Inskip, R.F. Raleigh, and K.L. Williamson. 1982. Habitat
suitability index models: Appendix A. Guidelines for riverine and lacustrine applications offish HSI
models with the Habitat Evaluation Procedures. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
FWS/OBS-82/10.A.
Terres, J ,K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands
Inventory, Newton Corner, MA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. Washington, DC.
	. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. Washington, DC.
	. 1989. Final Report: Functional Assessment of Wetlands in New Jersey's Hackensack
Meadowlands. Prepared for U.S.EPA Region II by the Maguire Group Inc. December, 1989.
	. 1990. National Priorities List Sites: New Jersey. EPA/540/4-90/030.
	. 1992. Bads for the Advanced Identification of Wetlands in New Jersey's Hackensack
Meadowlands. New York, NY.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures. ESM102. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, DC.
	. 1981. Standards for development of habitat suitability index models. 103 ESM. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, DC.
U.S. Forest Service. 1994. A federal agency guideline for pilot watershed analysis. Version 1.2.
January 1994. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, USA.
8-7
-------
Section 8
References
Walbridge, M.R. 1993. Functions and values of forested wetlands in the southern United States
Journal of Forestry. 91:15-19.
Yocum, T.G., Rovert A. Leidy, and Clyde A. Morris. 1989. Wetlands protection through impact
avoidance: A discussion of the 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis. Wetlands. 9(2):283-297.
8-8
-------